LEO Impact Fund’s mission is to deploy student‑led capital and expertise to early‑stage, impact‑focused ventures while training Columbia Business School students to be principled investors and operators. My summer project strengthened the human infrastructure behind that mission by redesigning how students engage with the fund’s board and advisory board. I designed and operationalized a repeatable engagement model that replaced ad hoc touchpoints. Key deliverables included an engagement infrastructure package with a searchable directory of board and advisory expertise, an opt‑in menu for engagement preferences, and a student playbook with templates, etiquette, and pre‑read norms. I also created a scheduling protocol for investment committee sessions, established a five‑business‑day pre‑read standard and post‑committee debrief, and launched group coffee chats, mentorship tracks, roundtables, and office hours. A lightweight dashboard tracks metrics such as committee compliance, attendance, no‑shows, mentorship completion, and diligence cycle times. Together, these systems respect volunteers’ time, improve investment committee rigor, expand equitable access for students, and create continuity across class years.

I applied a broad MBA toolkit. Structured problem‑solving helped me move from symptoms—low attendance and uneven engagement—to root causes like unclear norms and missing resources. I translated those into objectives and key results with owner‑ready work plans. Service design and lean experimentation principles guided the system: the desired behavior became the easiest behavior through opt‑in, group, and asynchronous formats. Stakeholder mapping and change management were crucial for securing buy‑in from students, board members, and committee leads; this analysis led to appointing an engagement liaison. Financial and accounting skills informed the pre‑read template and metrics that link engagement to investment quality. I selected lightweight tools like Notion and Airtable for the directory, Calendly for office hours, and Mailchimp for newsletters. Governance sensibilities shaped confidentiality and conflict of interest policies.

Time scarcity and attention bandwidth were the core challenges. Without advance scheduling and clear pre‑reads, committee attendance and usefulness suffered. Students were sometimes hesitant to reach out or over‑scheduled, leading to no‑shows and missed connections. There was no single directory or calendar, so efforts relied on a few champions and were vulnerable to turnover. I addressed these by shifting to opt‑in, low‑lift formats, codifying service‑level agreements, publishing templates and etiquette, and appointing an engagement liaison. Another delicate area was confidentiality and conflicts, which I addressed through clear policies and view‑only data rooms. Ensuring adoption and data hygiene required quarterly reviews and clear ownership.

The project taught me that lightweight systems can produce significant change. The right defaults and clear standards improved engagement without adding bureaucracy. Measuring outcomes—such as committee compliance and cycle time—provided evidence that engagement improved investment quality. Designing for equity and continuity ensured broad access and resilience across class years. I learned how governance and culture intersect: board and advisory members want to help, but they need clear, time‑boxed asks; students need tools and norms to engage professionally. The project reaffirmed my interest in impact investing and in building operating systems that help mission‑driven organizations scale judgment rather than activity. Next year I would prioritize depth over breadth, focusing on core initiatives until key performance indicators are stable before testing new pilots. I am grateful to LEO leadership and the board for their partnership and excited to see this system help future cohorts learn faster and invest better.