Whilst Steve Blank's cynicism about this programme may well be very valid I don't understand why he wrote this post.
I can understand the frustration of a disempowering mandate but it's guaranteed that nothing will change if people like Blank do not inject their influence.
I feel he should have either accepted the role and made what difference he could or not done so and kept quiet. Rejecting the CEO role and badmouthing the project from his own soapbox seems churlish.
Criticizing the government when it is implementing a program poorly and wasting OUR money, is an important part of democracy. Blank is performing a valuable public service: telling the people that our money is being wasted, and giving the government a suggestion on how they can improve their efforts.
Steve Blank has done his part. If the government ignores this (as you suggest they almost certainly will), they are failing to do their part. Steve Blank doesn't owe the government his leadership.
Second this. Specifically he is pointing out that without the proper definition of a startup, this is merely lip-service that hits the right amount of buzz words for the media to regurgitate.
Why is he posting this? My guess, he genuinely cares to see entrepreneurship thrive in America and can't bare to see halfhearted attempts with hidden agendas.
My reaction was the opposite when I read his post. I thought it is pretty ballsy for someone like him to to go against the grain like this as he is likely speaking out against peers and colleagues. Status quo for Blank as he has written posts critical of VCs when deserved.
I think that's his point, though. The CEO of an organization that isn't even using the right terms to address a problem will have negligible influence on its outcome - he's arguing that the organization should be focused on smaller companies right from the get-go, and I agree with him.
I get the impression that he didn't believe this to be the case, and as he actually knows a lot more about the organization and position from having been shown the opportunity, I guess I just trust his judgment that the approach is broken from the get-go.
Only Steve knows why he wrote this post so I can only speculate.
What I speculate is that he was trying to draw attention to the issue, for people who care about entrepreneurship, without actively going and trying to change it. He makes a very important point "there is no strategy" and in fact represents why many start-ups fail today. In a way I think he is saying "This start-up organization itself doesn't follow the guidelines that it's trying to promote". It's essentially like another model for a business school MBA, which arguably isn't always the absolute path to new company creation.
The only thing I think a government can do in this situation is to continue to provide a system for failure tolerance. This is America's greatest strength.
I disagree. I think he's right to be cynical and he has a right to speak out about it. I think the initiative has potential, but valid pushback at this stage is healthy.
I can understand the frustration of a disempowering mandate but it's guaranteed that nothing will change if people like Blank do not inject their influence.
I feel he should have either accepted the role and made what difference he could or not done so and kept quiet. Rejecting the CEO role and badmouthing the project from his own soapbox seems churlish.