Business Ecosystem Development

The venture-capital world has a serial-entrepreneur problem, and it is gendered. New National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) research comparing male and female co-founders of the same startups reveals disparities that cannot be explained by founder quality or ambition: → Women make up only 4% of founders with 3+ startups (vs 13.3% of all VC-backed founders) → After a startup failure women are 22.5% less likely to secure venture-capital backing for their next venture → Female serial entrepreneurs raise 53.3% less capital after failures and 24.6% less after successes → Men receive larger deals for founding experience regardless of outcomes. Women are penalized for failures and barely rewarded for successes → When an unrelated women-founded startup fails, it hurts funding prospects for all female founders. However, successes do not create positive spillovers.

Sharing some thoughts on fundraising after a couple of days at AFSIC - Investing in Africa in London, talking with lots of funds, DFIs, and entrepreneurs. Let’s say you’re running a great business — 5 years old, $10m in revenue, $2m profit, growing 50% year-on-year. A solid foundation. You want to scale. You’re looking to raise, say, $2m–$5m in equity. Who writes those tickets? First thought: VC. DFIs have VC arms. They fund VC funds. But almost every VC I’ve spoken with — both at DFI and fund level — applies the same unit economics as Silicon Valley: they need 10x ROI potential on every deal to make the portfolio math work. Spoiler alert: that’s nearly impossible in the African context. GPT tells me there have only been nine unicorns in Africa. Nine! Nearly all in Egypt, South Africa, and Nigeria. So if you’re in one of the other 50 countries — and you’re not doing fintech or remittances — forget about it. Then you might think: okay, growth equity. Solid business, great traction, strong team. NOPE. You’re still way too small. You’d need a $50m–$100m valuation just to get a meeting. So what’s left? A handful of family offices, angels, and foundations. Tiny pockets of capital. How can it be that there’s almost zero institutional equity for growing, profitable, real-economy businesses in Africa? Even when those businesses feed populations, educate children, provide healthcare, and create tens of thousands of jobs. Doesn’t matter. Financial metrics alone are the gatekeepers. And yet, we somehow expect businesses — the only real engine of job creation we know — to deliver 450 million new jobs in Africa by 2035… with no institutional backing? I don’t think this is an issue of “unit economics.” It’s easy to see how backing these businesses could generate solid, repeatable returns. It feels more like an issue of imagination, vision, and especially leadership from capital allocators and market shapers. So what am I missing? Would love to hear others’ thoughts.

If I joined a new company as a Customer Success Manager, here are three ChatGPT prompts I'd use to quickly get up to speed. 1) Determine key stakeholders within my customer's business 2) Figure out what they do day-to-day and common points 3) Create messaging that resonates immediately Here they are: Prompt One (Identify Key Stakeholders): "I'm a Customer Success Manager for [product/platform] that helps companies with [primary use case]. Our solution delivers these outcomes: [Outcome one] [Outcome two] [Outcome three] [Outcome four] Help me build a stakeholder map. Include anyone who might be influenced by our product, who might have a project that touches our product, or anyone who might be involved in the buying committee. Which stakeholders and departments should I prioritize for relationship building to ensure successful adoption and expansion?" Prompt Two (Understand Stakeholder Motivations): "For each of those stakeholders, please summarize the following points in tabular format, with each point as a column header and each stakeholder as its row: --> What business outcomes and metrics matter most to this stakeholder --> How this stakeholder typically measures success in their role --> Common challenges this stakeholder faces when trying to achieve their goals --> How our solution specifically addresses these challenges and supports their success metrics --> What risks might cause this stakeholder to disengage or question our value" Prompt Three (Create Tailored Communication): "Now, let's create four different communication templates: - An introduction email for a new stakeholder explaining our partnership vision - A QBR summary highlighting value delivered to their specific department - An at-risk account message addressing potential adoption challenges - An expansion opportunity message tied to their business objectives For each template: 1) Open with a specific pain point or opportunity relevant to their role 2) Acknowledge their current approach and its limitations 3) Explain how our solution delivers unique value for their situation 4) Include a clear next step or action item Keep it under 150 words and easily scannable Use straightforward, jargon-free language." With these three prompts, I can hit the ground running in any new CS role - understanding who matters, what they care about, and how to communicate our value effectively from day one. This is just a small example of how ChatGPT could impact your day-to-day role as a CSM. It should really become a companion to your work. What other AI prompts have you found helpful in customer success roles?

Organisations are not "fungible". “Fungibility” is an assumption that if you redesign an organisation & replace one set of people with a different set, you still get equivalent outputs. This mistaken belief underlies many organisational restructures: that you can redistribute roles, reporting lines & teams without meaningful loss. I've been reading Joan Westenberg's recent essay "Communities Are Not Fungible". She examines 1960s urban renewal, when planners believed demolishing old neighbourhoods & rehousing residents would allow communities to reform. They didn't. The residents moved. The community did not. A community isn't a set of people: it's a historically produced web of relationships between them. Destroy the web & you have strangers in a building. The parallel to organisational life is uncomfortable. When we restructure, we may preserve many of the people but destroy the relational infrastructure that made them effective. The informal trust that lets someone ask for help. The shared knowledge of who to call when a process stalls. The accumulated understanding of each other's judgment. These live in relationships, not individuals. Redrawing an org chart doesn't transfer them. Research backs this up. Tacit knowledge (the "knowing how" driving real-world performance) depends on trust to flow. Break those relationships & you block the transfer. Studies show informal networks persist along old lines long after formal structures change, creating tension between old loyalties & new mandates. Social capital is the value created by connectedness. It can be destroyed in restructuring & take years to rebuild — a cost that almost never appears in a business case. What leaders can do to protect collective value: 1. Audit informal networks before redesigning formal structures. Use System Network Analysis or Relational Coordination. Breaking key network nodes causes capability losses no productivity model captures. 2. Treat relational capital as a real cost. Business cases for restructuring rarely account for social capital destruction. Making it visible leads to better decisions & stronger cases for change. 3. Design around high-value relationships. Identify relationships carrying the most trust & history & actively design the new structure to protect them while enabling necessary change. 4. Invest deliberately in building new relationships. Create conditions for them to form through shared work, peer learning & social connection. 5. Give explicit attention to belonging & psychological safety for everyone (not just those who lose or change roles): This creates conditions for the discretionary effort that makes new structures succeed. 6. Slow down at the point of irreversibility. Ask not only "what do we gain?" but "what do we lose - & can we recover it?" The value of an organisation is not the sum of its people's individual capabilities. It is the web of relationships between them. That web is not fungible. Link to the essay in comments.

AI makes it so much easier to build. But here's the catch: everyone else has that same speed advantage. So you turn to distribution. But here’s the second catch: the channels you’ve long relied on for growth (virality, sales, SEO, ads) are increasingly becoming less effective—for that same reason. So how do you get your product noticed? The answer is *ecosystem*. Instead of going directly to your prospects, go through intermediaries who already have access and trust with your audience. Tom Orbach, director of growth marketing at Wiz, said it best: “Why start at zero when you can start at 10,000?” You’re likely familiar with the individual tactics within an ecosystem strategy: influencer and creator relationships, channel partnerships, developer relations, communities, product integrations, and customer marketing. But the growth unlock doesn’t come from any one of these activities on their own. Instead, a flywheel emerges when you properly implement this overarching strategy: your ecosystem partners create and distribute content, you amplify and repurpose their efforts, together you drive greater reach and credibility, new customers and partners come on board, and the cycle strengthens with each turn. Now your ecosystem is a powerful extension of your GTM team. In today's powerful guest post, Emily Kramer shares how you can implement this strategy yourself, including dozens of real-world examples of how top AI companies like Lovable, Gamma, Clay, Vercel, Supabase, Vanta, Baseten, HubSpot, and others are executing this strategy. Don't miss this one: https://lnkd.in/gPNUKDzi

Dear women founders, If you’ve ever dared to build something from scratch, you’ve probably heard these: “Why not stick to a safe job?” “Who’ll run the home if you start a company?” “Are you sure women can handle this kind of pressure?” India has the world’s third-largest startup ecosystem. Yet only 15% of Indian startups have a female founder. Shocking, isn’t it? Now before someone rolls their eyes and says – “There she goes, the feminist angle again...” If stating facts makes me a feminist, maybe check your funding portfolio – not my tone :) Because this isn’t an ambition problem. It’s an infrastructure problem. - Less than 10% of VC funding goes to women - 43% of women lacked support from family or spouse - Only 7% of unicorn leadership roles are held by women And investors still ask women about risks, while men get asked about scaling opportunities. And yet, she doesn’t just prove herself to the pitch room, She proves herself to the entire ecosystem. So, here’s what needs to change: VCs: Stop “diversity-washing” your portfolio and actually back outsiders Incubators: Build systems that serve people, not just outcomes Media: Stop spotlighting women only when it’s March 8th Families: Support your daughters even when the pitch flops Thankfully, some are flipping the script: WE Hub – India’s first women-focused incubator CXXO by Kalaari – Backed 100+ women CEOs Saha Fund – Investing only in women-led startups The Bottom line is – This isn’t a gender issue. It’s an innovation issue. It’s about unleashing the full potential of a nation. If we wish to position India as the #1 startup hub globally, we need to fund locally – without bias. Let’s raise the bar, together! What do you think?

Your brilliant work doesn't guarantee a promotion. One key stakeholder can block your entire path. "I deliver exceptional results, but the CTO just doesn't see my potential." A Sr. Director at a Fortune 500 tech company from Silicon Valley shared this during our coaching call. Her track record? Impeccable - she’d led teams of 100+, managed $120M in budgets, and delivered consecutive years of double-digit growth. But the path to VP remained blocked. ⚡ Here's what we uncovered in our first session: The blocker wasn't performance. It was influence. If you're doing great work but still feeling blocked, you're not alone. Here are 3 stakeholder mistakes that keep leaders stuck - and how my client shifted (and how you can too): 1️⃣ Treating all stakeholders equally The mistake: Overlooking who really controls your next move. ✅ What she did differently: She mapped her stakeholders by influence. She identified the CTO and 2 others as critical influencers and focused on their priorities and pain points. 💎 One strategic champion outweighs ten casual supporters. 2️⃣ Speaking your language, not theirs The mistake: Drowning leaders in technical details, hoping volume equals value. ✅ What she changed: She translated her impact into business outcomes the CTO valued. → "Our automation initiative cut costs by 23% and scaled to 3 new markets" 📊 3️⃣ Avoiding difficult conversations The mistake: Hoping time will fix misalignment. ✅ Her shift: She stepped into the tension with purpose: "What does success look like to you, and how can I deliver that?" → This wasn't just a question - it was a commitment. 🔄 The breakthrough In 90 days, the CTO became her biggest advocate. And his inner circle followed. ✨ The result: VP role + 19% raise in 7 months. Excellence gets you noticed. 👑 Strategic influence gets you promoted. 🎯 Want the full Stakeholder Influence Blueprint? Join 9,100 leaders getting it in this Saturday's issue of my weekly newsletter. Sign up below to make sure you don't miss it.

One critical relationship I’ve been exploring is the connection between social capital and career development. Social capital is vital because much of our learning and growth depends on the support, guidance, and opportunities provided by others. The extent to which you have—and can leverage—social capital directly impacts your ability to gain the experiences, exposure, and expertise necessary for career progression. As a leader, how can you help your employees build social capital to excel in their roles and advance their careers? Here are a few actionable areas to focus on: ✅ Relationships: Ensure your employees build connections with key stakeholders or influential leaders essential to their success. ✅ Opportunities: Advocate for them to gain access to meaningful projects or roles where they can showcase their skills and grow. ✅ Exposure: Act as their "megaphone," amplifying their great work so it gets the recognition it deserves. ✅ Resources: Provide the tools, budget, or approvals they need to perform at their best. ✅ Credibility: Support new or less-experienced employees by vouching for them, helping them earn trust and acceptance from others. By focusing on these areas, you can help unlock opportunities and unleash your employees' full potential. What other strategies have you found effective in building social capital? #leadership #managers #socialcapital

📄 New paper: Orchestrating and Designing Data Collaboratives: What Governance Model is Fit for Purpose? I get asked this a lot: 👉 What’s the difference between a data trust, a data union, a data commons…? 👉 And more importantly—when should you use which? Too often, these models are treated as competing “solutions.” But that framing misses the point. In reality, they reflect different governance logics—and each is designed to solve a specific coordination, agency, or collective action problem in data ecosystems. For instance: Data intermediaries → reduce transaction costs Data unions → rebalance power Data trusts → address legitimacy deficits Data commons → enable collective governance Data cooperatives → redistribute ownership and agency Data sandboxes → manage uncertainty Data spaces → enable scaling and interoperability So the real question is not: ❌ Which model is best? But rather: ✅ Which model is fit for purpose—given the problem you are trying to solve? That’s why I wrote this short paper. It proposes a purpose-driven typology and argues for moving beyond “institutional choice” toward institutional orchestration—where multiple models coexist and evolve within the same ecosystem. 👉 Because in practice, mature data ecosystems don’t rely on a single model—they layer and sequence governance arrangements over time. (And that’s where strategic data stewardship becomes essential.) 📖 Read the paper here: https://lnkd.in/eyT9e4gV 🤔 Curious how others are navigating this: What governance model have you seen work—and why? #data #datagovernance #governance #dataspaces #intermediaries