Civilization, culture, and economic systems provide a shared framework for living, collaboration and creation. However, their very existence also implicitly limits the perspectives and scope of creativity. The real danger is that this tunnel vision is difficult to become aware of for those in a particular system.
Consider ancient cultures such as the Egyptians. Over the course of their 2000 year+ history (ok, who else finds the idea of a 2000 year+ civilization absolutely mind-boggling?), the Egyptian culture had stayed remarkably consistent (at least to us modern day observers). Egyptian architecture is distinctively Egyptian. As is their writing, their political system, and their art. I have seen late-period Egyptian artifacts in a museum that were almost cast copies of statuettes from over a thousand years earlier -- imagine if all public art today were replicas of art from the 10th century, that's what was going on in pre-historic Egypt. More so than their art, their religion and politics were deeply tied together, and also shows a definite continuity through the centuries. There's an interesting account of Pharaoh Akhenaten who tried to subvert the official religion to build a cult based upon himself. He even tried to build a brand new capital city, but after his death, a presumably disgusted populace tore many of his statues down, abandoned his new city, and things returned to how they were before. This homogeneity was great at preserving a culture that was in its day far ahead of its time, but it must also have stifled creativity and contributed to ancient Egypt's ultimate stagnation and fall. Think about it: The ancient Egyptians built dozens of insanely gigantic pyramids and obelisks. Out of the many generations of pharaohs, why didn't a single one have the audacity to build something uniquely different, say a cone, or giant cube? You would think that this thought must have occurred to at least one megalomaniac supreme ruler, but the weight of culture ultimately held him back.
Modern culture is similar in many ways. Sure, we think we are all a diverse bunch of anti-authoritarian liberals, but the truth is that our institutions and fashions can be just as limiting. Consider the almost universal adoption of the business suit, or blue jeans, or the spread of the idea that everyone needs to own a 3-bedroom house with a 30-year mortgage, a car, and have a 40-hour workweek job. Given how diverse the world is, it's quite curious how we are so much alike.
Now consider the system of entrepreneurism and capital. Why is it that so many companies have the same structure and seem to follow the same playbook? Well, it's no real mystery actually: Firstly, the pool of available leaders and managers were all brought up in the same businesses culture, and do what they already know. Secondly, the investment and capital systems require homogeneity - every decent company needs a CEO, a CFO, a general counsel, and report quarterly. The souls of the executive boards belong to the shareholders, and woe to anyone who doesn't toe the line. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, the whole fundamental concept of capital investment is to make the maximum possible return on a specified investment. It's like hoping to make possibly limitless returns on a fixed-bet.
This idea was literally invented to fund plunder ships going to the new world. An investor could invest a fixed amount in the venture, and in return he would be promised a fixed percentage of the loot. Statistically speaking, the ship most likely would be lost with all hands, it's captain eaten alive by savages or wild beasts, but if it managed to come back, it could be filled to the brim with untold pagan treasures, and an investor's small share could be worth several fortunes. Somehow, this way of thinking made its way into becoming the prevailing framework for modern-day corporations.
Ok, so what's wrong with this? Many things, but the main problem is that the whole system is geared up to support only a small number of big winners, with the vast majority becoming complete failures. Win big or go home is the motto of the day. Furthermore, funded companies are expected to reach a certain size in a certain time, or they are rapidly eviscerated.
What does this do to aspiring startup companies? It stifles creativity. No one wants to take a risk on a novel management structure, so that is always the same. Always incorporate in Delaware, always have a board of the most conservative rich people you can get, and always hire the most expensive lawyer you can afford. No one wants to bet the farm on a radical but unproven technology or platform, so they use what everyone uses. No one wants to try a new look, so all companies in a given market have virtually the same marketing and language. Startups are supposed to be the heart and soul of creativity, of trying different approaches, but instead they are all molded like mini-me versions of giant monopolies.
Are there better ways? Yes. The root of the problem is the way the VC and public finance systems are set up. The other problem is the idea that an entrepreneur is the captain of a ship - he starts out mostly underwater and cannot stop bailing or the ships goes down, taking him with it. And so he works tirelessly towards specific goals and tries to eliminate all distractions and unnecessary but possibly creative choices.
What if entrepreneurs were able to create companies that did not depend on the vagaries of the public markets, or on the crazy do-or-die mentality? How could someone start and build a company like this?
A few simple models that come to mind are:
1. Using hobby-time
2. Freelancing or consulting
3. Working part-time
4. Periodically working through full time-then-startup cycles
5. Partnering
6. New models of incubation
I will explore these options and others in future posts.