[eries]

I'm not an academic, so no, I have not done any of these studies, but good news, everyone: other people have. The specific structure of Nova Nordisk is not just a foundation. I think the two-entity structure, where a foundation oversees or governs a for-profit company, is uniquely suited to longevity of a mission precisely because it combines the stewardship orientation of the foundation with the performance orientation of the for-profit subsidiary. The data shows (for what it's worth) that such structures are five or six times more likely to live to year 50 compared to a standard for-profit company. I give examples in the book also of pure foundations that have lost this structure or have lost their mission integrity too. I really think you need both for it to endure.

[ajb]

Do you have any thoughts on Mozilla? It has a two-entity structure, but there are a lot of complaints that it is not sticking to its mission (or, slightly differently, that it's not succeeding at it, due to poor strategic choices).

(Apologies if you already addressed this somewhere. Thanks for doing this)

[eries]

I know they are going through a big restructuring and I think these issues are part of why, but I am not close enough to the details to comment.

[svilen_dobrev]

some association... the Japanese studied their temples that withstood hundreds of years and thousands of earthquakes.. and found that there's one common pattern: there are two skeleton structures inside one another, with different loading and strengths, each keeping the other from falling (and they built the Tokyo Skytree this way).

Would be interesting to see if other lasting things in other domains, natural or human-made, physical or virtual, are built this way..

[eries]

What a great metaphor. If I had known about it, I probably would have used it in the book.