This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
One of the questions I heard most often from commenters was: “if Techstars is an example of a failed accelerator, what does a good one look like?” This post is an effort to unpack what’s required of a startupaccelerator to truly serve the needs of high-performing founders. This has not been our experience.
. + This post unpacks offers an insiders’ view of some of the key strategic decisions that led to Techstars’ decline. ————– Techstars is – or was – one of the world’s best startupaccelerator programs. The next important group to spot the weakness in Techstars’ strategy was the investment community.
I asked them to treat me like a funder. For example, if one of our outcomes is to have X% increase in women in leadership roles at tech companies, then a potential metric is to track how many women are enrolled in the university computer science program or how many women are employed at tech companies. “The
Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation identifies entrepreneurs that display characteristics of “exceptional social leadership through discretion, influence, vision, ambition, intelligence, and follow-through.”. Google for StartupsAccelerator. Columbia Business School Tamer Fund for Social Ventures. Requires Columbia affiliation.
Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation identifies entrepreneurs that display characteristics of “exceptional social leadership through discretion, influence, vision, ambition, intelligence, and follow-through.”. Google for StartupsAccelerator. Columbia Business School Tamer Fund for Social Ventures. Requires Columbia affiliation.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 24,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content