BEING TOO RELIANT ON GOVERNMENT
Although government can play a constructive role in startup communities, a reliance on government to either lead or provide key resources for the effort of building a startup community over a long period of time is a misguided view.
Earlier, I talked about government’s role as a feeder. When a startup community starts relying on government to be a leader, bad things happen. First, government often has less money to apply to things than people think it does. As a result, there’s often a big mismatch between expectation and reality when it comes time to actually fund something. Next, very few people in government have a background as entrepreneurs, and, as a result, they don’t really understand startups in any depth. Consequently the language, the activities, and the interactions are awkward and often ineffective. Government also moves at a much slower pace than entrepreneurs and, when it’s in a leadership role, it stifles the individual leadership that emerges. Finally, government runs on a very different time cycle—typically two to four years—than entrepreneurs do.
Think back to the difference between a hierarchy and a network. Government operates as a hierarchy: There are clear roles, chain of command, approval and resource allocation processes, and bureaucracy. In contrast, the best startup communities operate as networks: a broad, loosely affiliated set of leaders and organizations that are working in parallel on a variety of different initiatives. ...
Become an O’Reilly member and get unlimited access to this title plus top books and audiobooks from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers, thousands of courses curated by job role, 150+ live events each month,
and much more.
Read now
Unlock full access