Fifteen years after Professor Daniel Isenberg declared “Stop emulating Silicon Valley,” in Harvard Business Review, we’re still doing exactly that. From Singapore to Sydney, policymakers chase billion-dollar unicorns while ignoring the diverse ventures that sustain communities. Accelerators cram entrepreneurial journeys into 12-week sprints, success gets measured by capital raised rather than value created, and entire ecosystems collapse when the latest tech fad cools.

What if we designed entrepreneurial ecosystems like how ecologists design habitats—prioritizing diversity, resilience, and long-term sustainability over short-term spectacle?

The problem: Fragile monocultures disguised as innovation hubs

Most entrepreneurial ecosystems suffer from what we might call “unicorn syndrome”—an obsession with high-growth, venture capital-backed startups that creates dangerous monocultures. Like agricultural systems that plant only corn, these ecosystems become vulnerable to shocks, exclude alternative business models, and exhaust their talent pools chasing a narrow definition of success.

The symptoms are everywhere: exhausted founders burning out in pursuit of impossible growth targets, investors ignoring profitable but steady-growth businesses, and entire regions dependent on volatile tech sectors. When the bubble bursts—and it usually does—these ecosystems have no diversity to fall back on.

A forest approach: The Acorns-to-Oak-Trees Framework

My proposition, published in the Journal of Business Venturing Insights, introduces the Acorns-to-Oak-Trees (A2OT) framework—a habitat-first blueprint that treats startup scenes like living ecosystems. Instead of optimizing for unicorns, it designs for sustainability: the ability of entrepreneurial ecosystems to remain adaptive, inclusive, and supportive of diverse venture types over time.

As shown above, the framework rests on four interconnected design principles, each grounded in ecological science:

1. Diverse Seed Bank: Ensure your ecosystem supports lifestyle entrepreneurs, social enterprises, Indigenous ventures, and community-focused businesses alongside high-growth startups. Boulder, Colorado thrives precisely because it nurtures ventures across technology, natural products, outdoor recreation, and social enterprise—making it resilient to sector-specific shocks.
2. Nutrient-Rich Soil: Provide specialized resources for different growth trajectories. This means patient capital alongside venture funding, revenue-sharing models alongside equity investment, and mentorship programs tailored to sustainable business development rather than just scaling advice.
3. Supportive Climate: Create institutional structures that legitimize diverse definitions of success. Instead of celebrating only IPOs and acquisitions, recognize companies that choose to be “great instead of big”—those prioritizing social impact, cultural preservation, or regional revitalization.
4. Ecosystem Maintenance: Establish ongoing activities that sustain system function through continuous learning loops, adaptive governance, and regular recalibration based on evolving venture needs.

Why ecosystem builders should care: Three critical shifts

• Policymakers can stop wasting public funds on Silicon Valley copycat programs that rarely work outside their original context. The A2OT framework offers concrete mechanisms for nurturing innovation economies that serve local communities—supporting everything from tech startups to creative industries to Indigenous enterprises.
• Investors and support organizations gain a roadmap for building more resilient portfolios and programs. Rather than competing for the same narrow pool of “scalable” ventures, they can tap into previously overlooked entrepreneurs who prioritize sustainable growth, community impact, and long-term value creation.
• Community leaders and educators receive practical tools for designing entrepreneurship programs that reflect their actual communities rather than Silicon Valley fantasies. This means curricula that showcase diverse role models, events that celebrate varied success stories, and metrics that measure ecosystem health rather than just unicorn production.

From metaphor to method: Actionable takeaways

The framework moves beyond inspirational rhetoric to provide specific levers of change. Our Context-Agency-Mechanism-Outcome (CAMO) intervention map identifies exactly which stakeholder should pull which lever, under what conditions, and toward which measurable effects.

For example, accelerators can revise their selection criteria to include ventures with diverse growth trajectories, develop specialized tracks for different business models, and create showcase events that celebrate sustainable growth alongside rapid scaling. Investors can develop new funding vehicles aligned with patient capital principles, adopt longer time horizons, and expand their expertise in evaluating impact-driven businesses.

The key insight: ecosystem sustainability can be structurally designed by embedding mechanisms that support venture diversity, adaptability, and long-term resilience into the system’s very architecture.

Who should read the full paper

Ecosystem builders seeking concrete alternatives to unicorn-centric development strategies will find detailed implementation guidance and case examples. Policymakers designing innovation policies can access research-backed principles for fostering inclusive entrepreneurship. Investors looking to diversify beyond traditional venture capital models will discover frameworks for evaluating alternative business approaches. Educators and researchers interested in sustainable entrepreneurship theory will find a design-science methodology that bridges academic rigor with practitioner needs.

Most importantly, anyone who suspects that our obsession with mythical unicorns is preventing us from cultivating the diverse, resilient entrepreneurial communities our economies need should engage with this framework. It’s time to stop chasing unicorns and start growing forests.

Read the paper here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352673425000459

---

Author bio

Timothy Hor is an academic at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, specializing in entrepreneurship, management and technology. His work bridges academic research with practical frameworks for building inclusive, resilient entrepreneurial communities. In this paper, he combines design science methodology with ecological thinking to address complex challenges in entrepreneurship policy and practice.