An Opportunity for Innovation in

State and Local Government

By: John Kluge

PROJECT PARTNERS

The Lewis Institute illuminates pathways for students, faculty, staff, foundations, and
corporate partners seeking social innovation solutions. By drawing upon Babsons core methodology
of Entrepreneurial Thought & Action, we activate unexpected and fruitful collaborations and
integrative designs for action. The result is business prosperity and societal improvement. For more
information visit: http://www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/the-lewis-institute/Pages/home.aspx

Social Entrepreneurship at the University of Virginia

Social Entrepreneurship at the University of Virginia is training the next generation of social innovation
leaders. SE@UVA creates opportunities for students to learn about social entrepreneurship. We
see our work as a continuum from Sparking interest in students through workshops, speakers,
hackathons, and concept competitions; to Teaching students the skill sets needed to succeed in
this new sector in our experiential courses and Minor; to Launching their careers through internship
scholarships, research fellowships and hands-on projects with social ventures to create pathways
to careers in social enterprise.

The Hometown Project

The Hometown Project is a leadership association, set of resources, and series of convenings
designed to advance resilience and thriving in Americas small cities, defined as metros with
between 100 thousand and 1 million residents. It centers on a national network of local innovators
who host strategic dialogues called Hometown Labs in their own communities, and who participate
and share learnings at the annual Hometown Summit, which takes place in Charlottesville, VA, the
home of American democracy, each April.

The City of Lynchburg

Since the early 1990s, the City of Lynchburg, Virginia has been actively engaged in high-performance
development, which has resulted in innovative community/city partnerships; customer service
improvements; regional visioning; and the increased use of technology in service delivery. A direct
outcome of this work has been the development of a results-oriented strategy for government that
will translate the vision and goals of City Council into an internal strategic plan that provides focus
and direction for the organization.

About the Author

John Kluge is an entrepreneur, author, and social justice activist. His research focuses on the
intersection of business, government and social change. He is currently the Co-Founder and
Managing Partner of the Alight Fund, which sources, structures, and capitalizes investments for
refugee and displaced entrepreneurs. He is the co-author of the book, Charity & Philanthropy for
Dummies (Wylie, 2013), the author of John Kluge: Stories (Columbia University Press, 2008) and
is a contributor to Forbes and Conscious Company Magazine. John holds a B.A. from Columbia
University and an M.B.A. from the Babson F.W. Olin Graduate School of Business.

Illustrations by Steph Scribes

 Contents
Introduction: The Need for a More Entrepreneurial Virginia Government 5
The Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Lab: A Living, Learning Laboratory 5
The Emerging Doctrine of Entrepreneurial Value Creation 7
The Entrepreneurial Government? The New Frontier in Public Sector Entrepreneurship 10
The Labs First Experiment: Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Retreat Virginia Policy 11
Emerging Themes from the VPER 19
Moving Forward with the Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Lab 22
APPENDICES 25

Photo Credit: Tom Daly Photography

 Introduction: The Need for a More
Entrepreneurial Virginia Government
In todays age of ever increasing complexity, Virginias
public institutions are facing unprecedented pressures,
two of which to stand out.
First, planning and policy-making are getting harder. Rapid
economic and demographic change has made predicting
the future all but impossible. As business strategy scholars
Gke Sargut and Rita McGrath point out, we live in a
hyper-connected world that imposes more contradictory
expectations from more stakeholders than ever before1.
In this context, the strategic environment has become
unpredictable in most industries, and even more so in
the public sector. Launching new policies is a challenging
prospect at the best of times, and todays uncertain and
polarized environment has added yet another layer of
complexity.
Second, policymakers are increasingly forced to do more
with less. As the National Association of Counties revealed
in a 2016 study, the past decade has seen nearly half of all
U.S. counties experience both increases in responsibilities
for state and federal mandates and decreases in available
funds2. A similar story has unfolded at the state level3.
In Virginia, policymakers understand that inclusive
private-sector growth is sorely needed and that the task
of facilitating it will increasingly fall on their shoulders.
Cutbacks in federal programs have revealed the states
overdependence on government jobs4, and, given the
current political environment, this trend seems unlikely to
reverse. For example, the federally-funded Appalachian
Regional Commission (ARC) has injected more than $4
billion in the Appalachian regional economy and leveraged
$16 billion in private investment. The ARC has supported
the regions south west rural areas transition to a new
economy, investing in areas such as cyber-security5, drone
operation, and other areas important to resilience in the
face of increased automation and the decline of coal6.
1 https://hbr.org/2011/09/learning-to-live-with-complexity
2 http://www.naco.org/resources/doing-more-less-state-revenue-limitations-and-mandates-county-financ-
es#exec
3 http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/sgn0205DoingMoreWithLess.pdf
4 http://www.govirginia.org/our-plan/
5 https://www.uvawise.edu/2016/10/26/uva-wise-gets-arc-funds-cybersecurity-hub-efforts/
6 http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-trump-backhands-appalachia/article_a46a6f8f-
77b9-5b7c-9308-89e1aa270b94.html?mode=jqm
5
However, even if the ARCs federal funding seems secure
for the time being7, the White House has made clear that
the ARCs long-term funding is at risk8.
The question thus becomes: how can Virginias
policymakers achieve inclusive private sector growth
given the stresses of this complex and rapidly changing
environment?
The Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Lab:
A Living, Learning Laboratory
There is a clear need to empower our public sector
leaders to tap into their hidden creative reserves to design
fundamentally new operating models, relationships with
constituencies, and processes of value creation. In short:
the need to foster a more entrepreneurial mindset in the
public sector.
Can the entrepreneurial spirit be honed within government?
The stereotype of the lumbering public bureaucracy would
suggest not. While entrepreneurial thinking has essentially
become mainstreamed in private sector, the public sector
has rarely been seen, or seen itself, as particularly
entrepreneurial. Where entrepreneurialism has been a
topic of concern in the public sphere, it has most often
assumed the form of government striving to catalyze
entrepreneurship in other sectors.
The work represented in this whitepaper presents a
challenge to this stereotype, one that is outdated and
unhelpful. Rather, Virginias public leaders its Mayors,
elected officials, county executives, and others are
problem solvers who are presented with an immense
opportunity to show the country what inclusive and socially
relevant policy making looks like in todays complex world.
7 https://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-OP93R56VDKHT01-004N787A01S7FLLTU2I8M-
L69DG
8 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/here-are-the-independent-agencies-trump-wants-
to-stop-funding/519786/
As both a mindset and a practice, entrepreneurship taking advantage of the entrepreneurship opportunities
has been thoroughly studied. Countless conceptual in front of them is a separate question, as does the
frameworks and theoretical descriptions are on offer to question of whether the environment in which they work
define what it means to be an entrepreneur. But perhaps supports and empowers them as entrepreneurs. What is
the most general definition, and therefore the most clear is that there is immense untapped potential for the
fundamental and thus useful, is that offered in Eric Ries entrepreneurial mindset to create public good in the hands
seminal work, The Lean Start-up9: of our public servants. The challenge is merely to translate
entrepreneurship concepts and to reimagine our methods

of teaching entrepreneurship into forms better fit for our

public sector.

The research effort discussed in this whitepaper, tentatively

Anyone who is entitled the Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Lab, is a living,
flexible initiative designed to explore two questions:
creating a new product
1. In the unique context of Virginias public sector, what
or business under are the mindset and practices that characterize
successful entrepreneurship?
conditions of extreme 2. How can these mindsets and practices be
uncertainty is an effectively taught and supported among Virginias
policymakers?
entrepreneur, whether he
or she knows it or not.
- The Lean Start-up

sector that in no way precludes an entrepreneurial

spirit. In fact, extreme uncertainty seems an apt

Reflecting on this definition, we see a Virginia public

characterization of our policy landscape, and as our

public sector leaders seek new ways to tackle complex
policy challenges, thus they are entrepreneurs whether
they know it or not. However, whether they are optimally

9 Ries, E. (2011).The lean start-up: How todays entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radical-
ly successful businesses.

6
 The Emerging Doctrine of Entrepreneurial
Value Creation
To understand what role entrepreneurship can play
in Virginias public sector, it is useful to look at how
entrepreneurship can express itself in different forms
and what enables it. Decades of study of broader field of
entrepreneurship have yielded nuanced answers to two
questions relevant to public sector entrepreneurship:
What makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurial?
Can entrepreneurship be taught, and if so how?
Some examinations have emphasized the role of
organizational, cultural, and institutional context in
entrepreneurship10,11,12,13. But most have also revealed that,
while contextual factors can serve to facilitate or hinder
entrepreneurial behaviours, they do not provide a sufficient
condition for those behaviours. In other words, the virtues
of people their leadership, commitment, creativity, ideas,
and ability to mobilize others are the most important
factors in entrepreneurial success14, particularly in the
case of state-level policymaking15.
We first look at the first question: what makes entrepreneurs
entrepreneurial? Exploration of this question has yielded a
wealth of evidence that entrepreneurialism, fundamentally,
is a strategic disposition, a lens through which people see
the world, recognize prompts for action, and choose a
course of action.
Earlier explorations of entrepreneurialism, largely in the
1960s through to the 1980s, focused on individuals
inborn traits as the explanation of their entrepreneurial
success16. Later interpretations emphasized the role of
process in entrepreneurship, the unique series of steps
undertaken by entrepreneurs assess opportunity, manage
growth, acquire resources, and perform other important
functions in venture creation (ibid).
10 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x/full
11 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10717919070130040701
12 http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/4642/
13 Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive Author(s): William J. Baumol Reviewed
work(s):Source: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, No. 5, Part 1 (Oct., 1990), pp. 893-921Published by:
The University of Chicago Press
14 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.5057&rep=rep1&type=pdf
15 Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Vol. 22, No. 3, June 1997. Copyright 1997 by Duke Univer-
sity Press. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law,
16 Teaching Entrepreneurship: A Practice-Based Approach, Heidi M. Neck, Patricia G. Greene, Candida G.
Brush, Edward Elgar Publishing, 27 Jun 2014 - Business & Economics - 352 pages (page 11-12)
7
While these interpretations helped describe how
entrepreneurs tend to behave and the tools they use, they
tended to assume a certain pre-determined context for the
entrepreneur: a person situated within a firm or organization
occupying a market. The more recent work of Professor
Saras D. Sarasvathy challenged this assumption, arguing
that entrepreneurs create these contexts rather than
merely reacting to them and that a new theory was needed
to describe how this is accomplished17.
This new theory, one which is the most relevant for the
public sector, is called effectuation. Effectuation is a way
of thinking and seeing that is common to successful
entrepreneurs. It is the opposite of the causation method
of thinking, which takes a particular effect as given and
focus[es] on selecting between means to create that
effect. Effectuation, in contrasts, takes a set of means as
given and focus[es] on selecting between possible effects
that can be created with that set of means18.
In this context, effect refers to the causal link between
an action and an outcome. Causation logic, or predictive
logic, focuses on trying to predict the future by projecting
the course of known effects. Its core premise is that to the
extent to which we can predict the future, we can control
it, which is the central idea behind strategic planning
as it is currently practiced in most bureaucracies and
many businesses. One may also call this managerial or
administrative thinking. This logic begins with taking an
inventory of known effects and then planning how to use
them.
When information is abundant and most effects are known,
causation logic can be very useful. For example, repairing
a broken transmission in a vehicle is a process for which
all the variables and effects are known, and thus causation
logic is a good fit (ibid). But in a complex environment in
which the social and economic challenges at hand are
unpredictable, difficult to characterize, and often politically
divisive, standard causality is very hard to recognize. In
short, the link between action and outcome is not clear.
Our situation in Virginia, where the role of government is
in question and policymaking has become increasingly
more challenging, certainly qualifies as one in which the
link between actions and outcome is unclear.
17 Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial
Contingency,Author(s): Saras D. Sarasvathy,Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2
(Apr., 2001), pp. 243-263,Published by: Academy of Management,
18 Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial
Contingency,Author(s): Saras D. Sarasvathy,Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2
(Apr., 2001), pp. 243-263,Published by: Academy of Management
 Photo Credit: Tom Daly Photography

Effectuation logic is based on a premise more appropriate The distinction between causation and effectuation is
for this sort of complex, unpredictable environment: to not just academic. It is well documented that the most
the extent that we can control the future, we do not need to successful entrepreneurs exhibit an effectual mindset20,21:
predict it. Whereas causation begins with a pre-determined
goal which then drives action, effectuation begins with They start from means rather than pre-set goals.
the means at hand and allows goals to emerge based on They concern themselves with what they can afford
imaging possible action choices given those means. By to lose in each step rather than what returns they
beginning with the means available, which may include expect.
people, resources, assets, or relationships, effectuation
They invite surprises as new information that reveals
allows for greater creativity. As Dew (2009) points out,
opportunities rather than avoiding surprises.
the distinction is akin to that between obtaining a recipe
for a meal, shopping for the ingredients, and cooking They focus on partnerships rather than assuming
the meal (a causation approach), and creating a meal competitors are adversaries.
based on the ingredients already in the cupboard (a more They believe that the future is created, not predicted,
creative effectuation approach). In complex, unpredictable rather than resigning themselves to the inevitability
environments, we often do not have the option of following of trends.
a recipe or shopping for the ingredients because we are
facing novel, multi-faceted challenges for which recipes
do not exist and ingredients are not always within reach.
Those who adopt the effectual approach thus create the
future rather than trying to predict it19.
20 What is Effectuation? Version 0.9. Copyright 2011 The Rector and Visitors of the University of
Virginia
19 2009 Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: Differences between experts 21 2009 Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: Differences between experts
and novices Dew, Nicholas, Journal of Business Venturing 24 (2009) 287-309 and novices Dew, Nicholas, Journal of Business Venturing 24 (2009) 287-309

8
Though called by different names, these same mindsets This practice-based requirement poses a challenge for
also show up in the most impactful how-to guides of any other sector that does not have a robust history of
entrepreneurship. For example, Eric Ries The Lean Start- entrepreneurship: the more nascent entrepreneurship is,
up calls on entrepreneurs to lead their ventures the way the more difficult it will be to find opportunities to practice
they would drive a car (an adaptive process that requires it. In the public sector, where causation or administrative
the driver to improvise based on what they encounter), mindsets are typically encouraged over effectual or creative
not how one might launch a rocket into space (a process mindsets, there is consequently more work to be done
that involves immense detailed planning and rests all of to build the entrepreneurial momentum that is so sorely
its success on one event)22. Guy Kawasakis The Art of the needed. We now turn our attention to how that momentum
Start warns entrepreneurs against scaling too quickly and might be built within Virginias public sector.
anticipating big results before the most basic success has
been proven23. Each of these insights essentially guides
entrepreneurs to use effectual logic.

This brings us to the second question: can entrepreneurialism

be taught, and if so how? The answer to whether
entrepreneurship can be taught is an unequivocal yes. As
Peter Drucker pointed out, entrepreneurship is a discipline
that, like any other, can be learned24. The question of
how it can be learned and taught has been the topic of
thorough study, but one theme seems to stand out: it must
be learned in practice. While there is a role for theory in
teaching entrepreneurship, it is an applied discipline and
thus requires a learning-by-doing approach25.

22 Ries, E. (2011).The lean start-up: How todays entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically
successful businesses.
23 The Art of the Start 2.0: The Time-Tested, Battle-Hardened Guide for Anyone Starting Anything, Guy
Kawasaki, Portfolio/ Penguin, 2015, page 31
24 Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York: Harper & Row.
25 Teaching Entrepreneurship: A Practice-Based Approach, Heidi M. Neck, Patricia G. Greene, Candida G.
Brush, Edward Elgar Publishing, 27 Jun 2014 - Business & Economics - 352 pages (page 9)

9
 The Entrepreneurial Government? The New
Frontier in Public Sector Entrepreneurship
It is relatively well understood how the brand of
entrepreneurialism in the government context tends to
differ from that of the private sector. Catney and Henneberry
(2016) point out that public sector entrepreneurs have
much in common with those of the private sector (for
example, being able to recognize opportunity, take risks,
emphasize networks and relationships) but that they also
face more political interference and are bound by the
limitations of political and electoral cycles. The markets
occupied by public sector entrepreneurs also have unique
characteristics, making the context of entrepreneurialism in
government categorically different from the private sector:
The structures and political contexts of government
agencies lead them to focus more on budgets than results,
and their budgets are based more on how much they do,
not how much they accomplish26.
26 http://www.opia.psu.edu/extracts/innovation-and-entrepreneurship
1. They are responsible for complex, often
moral challenges (like health, justice,
and education) that often do not have
tangible and thus easily measurable
results and for which failure is strongly
criticized in the public discourse (even if
the agency learns from the failure)27.
2. When faced with a crisis or a persistent
problem, there is often a political
imperative to do something, even if it
is not effective28.
3. They do not have the option of
segmenting their markets in the same
way private entrepreneurs can. They
must serve a variety of constituents,
each of which has their own interests,
influences, or even de facto veto power
over policy, and they do not strictly have
the option of turning away any of these
constituents29.
4. Defining the problem to be solved can
be exceedingly difficult because of the
sheer number of stakeholders involved
and the diversity of perspectives they
are likely hold.
5. They face a fragmented governance
system in which resources and power
are distributed across agencies, often
forcing public sector entrepreneurs to
focus on consensus-building, agenda-
setting, and brokerage of political
opportunities before they can truly
create new products or services30.
27 http://www.druckerforum.org/retrospective/blog/index214b.html?p=1297
28 Birkland, Thomas A. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public
Policy Making, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015 (page 21)
29 http://www.druckerforum.org/retrospective/blog/index214b.html?p=1297
30 Public entrepreneurship and the politics of regeneration in multi-level governance, Philip Catney, John M
Henneberry, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2016, Vol. 34(7) 13241343
10
Point number five is of particular interest given how
drastically it affects the flavour of entrepreneurship typically
seen in government. The most salient feature of public
sector entrepreneurship is the task of opening political
windows, which involves bringing three variables into
alignment: the perceptions that a given issue is a problem,
the policy solutions at hand, and the political will to enact
them31. This role of conversation stewardship features
heavily in the majority of case studies that celebrate public
sector or policy entrepreneurship32,33,34.
This is no small feat. It demands the patience of inter-
agency agenda setting and the creativity to find a way
of discussing the issue that builds common ground and
political acceptance. Of course, finding common ground
will always be a key element of public sector innovation, but
it is still a very internally-focused form of entrepreneurship.
However, the complex social and economic challenges
we face today will demand a more externally-focused
form of government entrepreneurship: the new services,
engagement approaches, and business models needed
to tackle our toughest challenges. We propose that this
external facing component is the frontier of government
entrepreneurship in Virginia and beyond.
Today, our public sector leaders are trained to recognize
what makes policymaking a challenge and are provided
with tactics to respond to those challenges35. But they
are led, both by training and the culture of government, to
analyze those challenges using causation or administrative
logic. For example, consider the 8-step policy-making
process by Eugene Bardach:36
1. Define the Problem
2. Assemble Some Evidence
3. Construct the Alternatives
4. Select the Criteria
5. Project the Outcomes
6. Confront the Trade-offs
7. Decide
8. Tell Your Story
This is a serviceable process, and a causal one: it assumes
31 John W. Kingdon,Kingdon, John W. (2003) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies /New York :
Longman
32 Public entrepreneurship and the politics of regeneration in multi-level governance, Philip Catney, John
M Henneberry, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2016, Vol. 34(7) 13241343
33 D. Bartlett & P. Dibben (2002) Public Sector Innovation and Entrepreneurship:
Case Studies from Local Government, Local Government Studies, 28:4, 107-121
34 California County Administrators as Sellers and Brokers of Interlocal Cooperation, Eric S. Zeemering,
State & Local Government Review, Vol. 41, No. 3 (2009), pp. 166-181
35 Birkland, Thomas A. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public
Policy Making, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015 (page 154-157)
36 Bardach, E. (2012). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem
solving (4th ed.). Los Angeles : Thousand Oaks: Sage ; CQ Press.
11
that evidence exists to be assembled, that the problem can
be fully defined at the beginning of the process, and that
outcomes can be projected. But what is a policymaker to
do when they have no way of predicting causality? What
is one to do if they are facing a wicked problem, the
kind that resists a single, static definition and is constantly
changing?37
The brand of policy entrepreneurship we see today,
which focuses on opening political windows, is necessary
but insufficient for answering these questions. Tackling
complex social challenges requires a more action-
oriented, externally-focused, and experimental approach
that involves live prototyping in the real world.
The Labs First Experiment: Virginia Policy
Entrepreneurship Retreat
The inaugural Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Retreat
(VPER), which took place April 13th and 14th 2016 as part
of the Tom Tom Festivals Hometown Summit (the first
convening for policymakers from small cities across the
United States), aimed to open the exploration of this
frontier. By supporting Virginias policymakers to build
teams, learn the language of design, and, above all, employ
the logic of effectuation, the VPER helped both expand
the practice of entrepreneurial policymaking and deepen
our understanding how to teach entrepreneurialism to
policymakers. The VPER can be thought of as the first
prototype of the broader learning and innovation effort of
The Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Lab.
It brought together 35 diverse participants representing
a variety of public offices, in particular local government,
as well as a number of foundations and private sector
organizations. These participants were self-selected
into 6 groups which each worked together to develop
entrepreneurial prototypes for solving critical challenges in
the Virginian economy.
With the support of 5 facilitators, participants went through
a process of personal reflection, learning, and collaborative
co-design of potential new initiatives with their colleagues.
Special guests and expert speakers on entrepreneurship
and design thinking contributed case studies on public
sector entrepreneurship at the local government level.
37 Horst W. J. Rittel, Melvin M. Webber, 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences,
Volume 4, pp. 155-169.
 Photo Credit: Tom Daly Photography

The VPER was designed as a holistic experience, each

component of which was conceived with the others in mind. Virginia Policy
Building off Babson Colleges Entrepreneurial Thought
and Action and SE@UVA pedagogical frameworks for
Entrepreneurship Retreat
entrepreneurship, the VPER was designed around 5 key Participants
experiences. Notably, both the beginning and the end of
the VPER were designed to be very personal experiences,
which aimed to anchor participants learning with the
message that entrepreneurialism is, above all, a personal FACILITATORS
Dr. Julie Engel, Babson College
practice.
Cheryl Kiser, Babson College
John Kluge, Babson College & Co-Chair, the
VPER
Jim Cheng, UVA Engineering, Former Secretary
1. Personal of Commerce, VA & Co-Chair, the VPER
learning:
Entrepreneurial
Dr. Christine Mahoney, UVA Batten School of
Mindset and Leadership and Public Policy
Methodology

SPEAKERS
Dr. Greg Fairchild, UVA Darden
2. N ew
5. Capstone: Concepts: Christopher Poulos, Life of Purpose, University
Personal Citizens as
Development Customers, not
of North Texas
The VPER Constituents Julian Lange, Babson College
Experience
SPECIAL GUESTS
Concept
Steven Olikara, Millennial Action Project
Laura Weidman Powers, CODE2040
Mayor Levar Stoney, City of Richmond
4. Applying
3. N ew Tools:
New Skills:
Design Thinking
Entrepreneurial FULL LIST OF PARTICIPANTS, see Appendix A
Purpose &
for Prototype
Resources
Development

12
 Personal Learning:
Entrepreneurial Mindset and Methodology
The opening session of VPER was a set of presentations
under the theme Build.Think.Act: Seizing the Opportunity
for Policy Entrepreneurship in Small and Mid-Sized Cities.
Featuring presentations by Steven Olikara (Millennial Action
Project), Laura Weidman Powers (CODE2040), and Mayor
Levar Stoney (City of Richmond), this initial experience
exposed participants to the needs and opportunities for
entrepreneurial policymaking in this era of complexity.
These presentations set the stage for the first deeply
personal experience of the retreat. Cheryl Kiser facilitated
an exercise that demonstrates the practical difference
between predictive logic and creative logic. This exercise,
designed by Dr. Saras Sarasvathy (UVA Darden) and
part of Babsons Entrepreneurial Thought and Action
curriculum38, first asks participants to break into groups,
each oriented around a jigsaw puzzle on a table, which
they are asked to begin building. The jigsaw puzzle is a
predictive exercise, because the final picture is known
and success is predefined. The facilitators then ask one
volunteer from each group to go into a different room,
where they are given some pieces of fabric and asked to
begin making a quilt. Quilt-making is a creative exercise as
38 https://www.dkit.ie/system/files/The_Symposium_for_Entrepreneurship_Educators__Presentation_to_
CELT.pdf
13
the final product is not predefined and the steps towards
progress depends entirely on the means at hand (pieces
of fabric).
Gradually, more and more volunteers are taken away from
the puzzle groups and placed on quilt duty, leading to
frustration within the remaining puzzle groups, who are
not aware of what it happening in the other room. Upon
a facilitated post-exercise reflection, participants realize
that they have just experienced the difference between
predictive and creative practices and are able to identify
the emotional experiences linked to each practice; i.e.
what was frustrating and what was fun.
This reflection was a supported by an introduction to the
mindset and methodologies of entrepreneurial thought and
action, including the concepts of starting with the means
at hand (as if making a quilt) rather than starting with a
predictive notion of the end goal (as if building a puzzle),
as well as Dr. Sarasvathys concepts of effectuation (as
opposed to causation) and adaption (as opposed to
planning). These ideas helped anchor participants
experience in new language to describe the differences
between predictive and creative approaches.

New Concepts: Customers vs. Constituents
Having undergone a very personal experience that
revealed the core practice of entrepreneurship, VPER
participants were exposed next to a number of key
concepts of the entrepreneurial strategic orientation. The
central theme of these new concepts was the value of
seeing citizens as customers rather than as constituents.
This subtle yet powerful distinction serves to reorient
public servants thinking, casting those whom they
serve as discerning, active, and critical customers of the
governments offerings, rather than as passive recipients
of services from a de facto government monopoly. This
distinction helped focus the attention of participants on
the challenge of providing excellent customer service in
their jurisdictions and developing strategies to tackle
issues such as resource availability, customer feedback,
and the development of service quality metrics.
A useful resource was introduced to help strengthen the
understanding of this concept of citizens as customers,
the framework for excellent customer service described by
Kenneth Blanchards book, Raving Fans: A Revolutionary
Approach to Customer Service39. Blanchards approach
identifies excellent customer service as a customer
experience of unexpected delight at the moment of
contact with the service provider40. Raving fans are those
customers whose experiences with a product or service
are so overwhelmingly positive that they cannot help but
tell others about it41. His three step approach to creating
what he describes as these moments of truth include:
39 https://www.amazon.com/Raving-Fans-Revolutionary-Approach-Customer/dp/0739309536
40 http://www.whatmakesagoodleader.com/Raving-Fans.html
41 https://www.zendesk.com/blog/create-raving-fans-legendary-customer-service/
1. Decide what you want.
Essentially, define a vision for success
from your perspective.
2. Discover what the customer wants and decide on
which elements of their needs you are in a position to
meet with excellence, making sure to prioritize given
that no organization can be everything to everyone.
3. Deliver your vision, plus one percent. Essentially,
provide experiences that go beyond customer
expectations and pleasantly surprise them with
unexpected delights, which may even be experiences
unrelated to the product or service itself (e.g. fast-
moving lines, perks, etc.)
Babson Professor Julian Lange shared a case study that
illustrated these concepts in action, highlighting the work
of the Town of Wellesley, MA. At the suggestion of the Chair
of the Board of Selectman and the President of Babson
College, Babson College professors, working with the
Executive Director of General Government Services and
Wellesley government managers, designed an executive
education course for Town officials and managers to
encourage entrepreneurial approaches to problem-solving
and accomplishing the work of Town government. The
primary goals of the course were:
To introduce Town officials and managers to the concepts
involved in the entrepreneurial process, provide a forum for
communication among elected officials and town managers;
Facilitate the process of identifying and implementing key
initiatives to improve Town services;
Set up work groups consisting of elected officials and Town
managers to work on solutions to each identified initiative.
One of the key opportunities identified, and subsequently
launched, through the Wellesley program was the
creation of a Centralized Customer Service Capability,
which improved the Towns ability to address customer
needs, whereby customers were defined broadly as
Town residents, as well as individuals and companies
14
providing services and doing business in the Town. By
centralizing the Towns customer service operations,
Wellesleys government streamlined resources and reduced
bureaucratic complexity, allowing residents greater access
to information like how to apply for fishing licences or tax
abatements, obtaining building permits, paying Town taxes
and fees, or obtaining services (e.g. for senior citizens,
new residents etc.). This case study helped make real
the practice of entrepreneurial policymaking and served
as a constructive model for implementing effectuation
in local government. Beyond establishing the practical
element of applying effectuation, models like this also
serve to demonstrate proof of possibility as one VPER
participant stated after the training, [Wellesleys] customer
service challenges were familiarwere facing the same
issues here. If they can do it, why cant we?
New Tools: Entrepreneurial Purpose &
Resources
Building on this foundation of new concepts, the next step
was to introduce new tools designed to help practitioners
implement entrepreneurial thinking and action: mostly
notably new approaches for recognizing the purpose
behind the entrepreneurial endeavour and new methods
for identifying useful resources that can be leveraged in
entrepreneurial policy-making.
To learn how to recognize their entrepreneurial purpose,
participants were exposed to a number of case studies
illustrating what purpose-driven entrepreneurship looks like,
then they were asked to reflect. Fundamentally, the value of
public sector entrepreneurship is rooted in the recognition
that people are at the core of every successful policy. In
order to drive home this point, participants were asked to
watch Simon Sineks TED talk, Start with Why, in which
he highlights that the most successful customer-
focused organizations have a keen sense
of why they do what they do. An
excellent example of a business
that truly understands the why behind their work was
shared, that of Greyston Bakery. Greyston bakery, a for-
profit social enterprise that provides all the brownies for
Ben and Jerrys ice cream, famously champions an Open
Hiring policy, providing employment opportunity to people
regardless of their background or work history. This policy
allows Greyston to play a key role in breaking the cycle of
criminality by giving convicts, who otherwise have immense
difficulty finding a job and are thus forced back into criminal
behaviour, a way to get their lives on track. Greystons
slogan, We dont hire people to bake brownies, we bake
brownies to hire people, illustrates what it means to have
a strong sense of why the business exists. Participants
were asked to reflect on the whys of their work based
on this primer, and were thus introduced to the practice of
connecting with a deeper purpose as the first step in taking
an entrepreneurial approach.
In order to demonstrate how to leverage unrecognized
resources, participants were exposed to examples of where
entrepreneurial endeavours have found opportunity in the most
unlikely of places. Christopher Poulos, Executive Director
of the Life of Purpose Treatment initiative at the University of
North Texas, shared his story with participants. Mr. Poulos,
an expert in justice policy and addiction recovery, is a living
example of a policy entrepreneur, having created a career
shaping policy initiatives that leverage untapped community
resources to help people overcome cycles of addiction and
crime. Poulos, who is himself a recovered drug addict who
spend time in the criminal justice system, has a unique
perspective on the challenges of addiction. This experience,
combined with
his skills as
a lawyer,
15
advocate, and policy innovator, has made him a valuable
resource to policy-makers who are committed to tackling
addiction in the communities. His success proves that there
are indeed resources available in the community (in this
case, people who have served time in prison or otherwise
at-risk or vulnerable people), that can be leveraged by
policy-makers, even if such resources and partners are
often overlooked by the traditional, predictive approach
to planning employed by many government departments.
Further, Mr. Poulos is an example of a policy entrepreneur
who has been successful largely because he deeply
understands his why: the desire to help people avoid the
challenges he faced earlier in his life.
This example, as well as that of Greyston Bakery, served
to drive home the point that policy-makers must think
creatively, openly, and imaginatively in order to discover
resources that can drive economic and social development
in their jurisdictions. Resources are not always obvious, but
they are there for the finding if policy-makers are willing to
look for them.
Applying New Skills: Design Thinking for
Prototype Development
At this stage, participants had been exposed to a number
of powerful experiences that primed them to be able to
actually experiment with policy entrepreneurship. The next
step was thus to practice that experimentation using the
design thinking approach. Design thinking is an approach
to solving complex problems that emphasises the rapid
and iterative prototyping, user participation, and agility
in the design process, relying on testing of assumptions
and learning in real time based on feedback, rather than
on pre-planned, purely analytical approaches42. With the
help of Dr. Christine Mahoney, Associate Professor of Public
Policy and Politics and Director of SE@UVA, participants
were introduced to the four phases of the design thinking
approach43:
Phase 1 Gather inspiration: a period of listening, discussion,
and reflection with your users to discover what customers
really value and need.
Phase 2 Generate ideas: a period of generative brainstorming
about potential ideas, however unorthodox they may be, in
search of breakthrough concepts.
Phase 3 Make ideas tangible and testable: an exercise of
rapid prototyping of the most promising ideas and rapid
redesign based on user feedback.
Phase 4 Communicate: share your process, products, and
breakthroughs in order to inspire others to action.
42 https://www.ideou.com/pages/design-thinking
43 https://www.ideou.com/pages/design-thinking
16
 already understood about their customers.
Participants then brainstormed potential
solutions and were given the opportunity to
prototype them using tools of creative design:
LEGOs, pipe cleaners, markers, and other items
that help people build their prototype idea in
order to better channel the creative parts of their
minds.

By the end of the process, each group had

identified a number of potential prototypes in
response to the challenge statement they had
chosen, and each group voted on the best idea
produced. Ideas were presented and feedback
from other groups was offered and, with the help
of the MPP candidates from UVA, each group
Dr. Mahoney took VPER participants through a rapid produced a memo about their design thinking
version of this process, beginning with a discussion about process and the prototype idea they had developed. The
the challenges that were facing each of their jurisdictions. A results of these memos are discussed in detail in Section
wide variety of issues were discussed, from challenges with 4.2: Emerging Themes from the VPER.
customer service to challenges of communication between
customers and elected officials. After a rough list
of challenges was identified, participants self-
selected into six groups, each of which then
narrowed down their challenge statements and
went through a design thinking process to identify
potential entrepreneurial innovations to address
them.

The process began by thinking about the

customers, their needs, and experiences.
Normally, a design thinking process would involve
customers in this phase of the process; however,
for the purposes of learning it was sufficient to
simply ask participants to reflect on what they

17
 Capstone: Personal Development
Having begun the 2-day VPER process with a personal
experience, the workshop drew to a close on a similarly
personal note, this time underscoring the qualities of
entrepreneurial leaders and the practices that can help hone
those qualities. With the help of Dr. Julie Engel of Babson
College, participants were introduced to the qualities that
outstanding entrepreneurs and venture creators tend to
share, whether in government, the private sector, or in non-
profit. Drawing on research conducted at Babson on this
topic, Dr. Engel outlined the five qualities that consistently
show up in successful entrepreneurs:
1. Join a Tribe: Successful entrepreneurs situate
themselves within communities where ideas can be
developed and improved upon. Whether this is an
organization, a club, an association, or simply a loose
coalition of friends, the tribe helps entrepreneurs
develop and leverage networks to find resources, allies,
and sources of feedback.
3. Progressively Disclose the Idea: Successful
entrepreneurs tend to use technique of communication
called progressive disclosure. This technique involves
sharing of information sequentially, beginning with their
closest network allies and progressing communication
out to broader and broader networks, collecting
feedback and leveraging new allies as they go.
5. Intentionally Iterate: Successful entrepreneurs are highly
experimental. This is not to say they are blind risk-takers;
rather it means that they continually enact a process of
rapid prototyping, testing, adapting, and refining their
ideas as they learn more about how others, especially
customers, respond to them. In this way, entrepreneurs
build up a wealth of savvy and knowledge that they can
use to recognize new opportunities or bring more scale,
scope, and impact to their ideas.
7. Calculate Acceptable Loss: Successful entrepreneurs
tend to conduct risk-reward analyses in terms of
acceptable loss. They frame decisions using the
mantra, what am I willing to lose in order to take this
one step? and adjust their ambitions and intentions
accordingly. In behavioural economics terms, successful
entrepreneurs are aware that they must risk something
of value in order to gain something of value, and the
question of what they are willing to lose drives the risks
they take. In contrast, less entrepreneurial decision-
makers tend to focus more on the upside to be gained,
a frame which, perhaps counter-intuitively, often leads
to more risk-averse behaviours.
8. De-educate and Act to Learn: Successful entrepreneurs
are aware that, fundamentally, innovating to solve
complex, high-stakes problems requires a departure
from orthodoxy. While past experience can be valuable,
a break from orthodoxy demands an de-education
from the establish ways of doing things in order to think
and act more creatively. Successful entrepreneurs tend
to break from this orthodoxy with a strong bias towards
action, even if taking entrepreneurial action might
conflict with orthodoxy. They tend to do first and learn
from that doing, rather than wait for permission or an
analytical conclusion about how to act.
This is not an exhaustive list of what it takes to be successful,
but these patterns do point to some critical elements of
entrepreneurial leadership that seem indispensable. Dr.
Engel underscored that these qualities are not in-born.
They are skills and mindsets that can be developed, just
like sports or music, but that one must practice in order to
develop them. The practice does not have to be grandiose
or even take a lot of time, but there must be a commitment
to cultivation of these qualities and consistent action taken
to hone them.
Participants were asked to select one or two qualities that
they wanted to cultivate within themselves and then to
identify the practices they could use, whether large or small,
to do so. For example, some participants shared that they
wanted to develop their ability to reflectively listen, as they
had found themselves waiting to speak rather than being
fully attentive at certain points during the workshop. Qualities
such as patience, courage, openness, compassion were
discussed by participants, and participants committed to a
wide variety of practices to develop them, from committing
to yoga practice to committing to spend more time listening
and less time speaking during meetings.
18
 Emerging Themes from the VPER
A Clear Trend towards Externally-Focused Prototypes
As discussed earlier, much of the scholarly work on
public sector entrepreneurship has focused on the value
of internally-focused innovation, for example; opening
new political windows for new policies. The VPER was
expected to demonstrate that taking a design thinking
approach, coupled with the creative and effectual
reasoning approaches to the Entrepreneurial Thinking
and Action methods, would lead to a more externally-
focused form of public entrepreneurship focused on the
new services, engagement approaches, and business
models needed to address complex challenges.
While the VPER is just a starting point, it has indeed
demonstrated that there is a landscape rich in innovative
potential within the new, externally-focused frontier of
public entrepreneurship. Of the 14 prototype/ prototype
concepts identified by the 6 working groups, 11 had an
explicitly external orientation with a clear focus on the
customer experience of the public.
High Diversity in the Problem Statements Chosen by the
Groups
As part of the design thinking process, each of the
working groups chose their own problem statements. One
might have expected that, given the shared experience
of the participants, who were mostly local government
representatives in Virginia, one might expect some
convergence in the problem statements chosen. But,
instead, there was a great deal of diversity in challenges
that groups identified as the most salient, ranging from
poverty, to the challenge of retaining military personnel in
the economy, to challenges with communication and civic
engagement.

List of Problem Statements Chosen by

the Six VPER Groups:

Team 1. There is a lack of communication and engagement between Virginia's business leaders, local
policymakers, and constituents within regions and across counties.

Team 2. There is a need for innovative ways to encourage civic engagement between elected officials and
the general public. Currently, the same people show up to every engagement opportunity with the
same complaints, and engagement outside of that core group is minimal.

Team 3. There is a need to shift from an institutionally focused system of local governance to one focused on
people, understanding their needs, and the delivery of services.

Team 4. How can policy entrepreneurs create an entrepreneurial mindset in Virginias communities and
across local government?

Team 5. Nearly 12,000 military personnel with diverse and disciplined skill sets exit the military each year
in the Virginia Beach MSA. With more than 86,000 active active-duty military personnel present in
the area, it is critical for Virginia Beach to retain these personnel to support its civilian workforce
development. Virginia Beachs large military presence is an underutilized resource given the large
amount of personnel who leave the region every year.

Team 6. Community stakeholders, including politicians, business leaders, and citizens, do not have a clear
understanding of the diverse role of economic development in their towns, counties, and cities. This
often leads politicians to make decisions to gain short-term wins that preserve the status quo but
fail to address long-term community or regional needs.
This diversity suggests an important point about the form
that public sector entrepreneurship must take. A diverse
list of problem statements indicates that, even though
participants share a context in many ways, the most important
challenges are highly stochastic: whats most important
in, for example, Lynchburg is not necessarily whats most
important in Virginia Beach. This finding reinforces the fact
that, while State- and Federal-level public entrepreneurship
are also important, there is an immense need for local,
home-grown innovation at the municipal level.
Prototypes Converged Around a Common Theme: Building
on What Already Exists
We see the same 25
community members
showing up to board
meetings to protest certain
initiatives, while the rest of
the community is too busy
to participate. We worry that
a small group of people is
essentially driving a billion
dollar machine, whose
opinions may not match
what the majority is looking
for. We need to get citizens
from couch to community
via proactive engagement.
- VPER Prototype Design Memo (Team 2)
A common theme of all 14 prototype alternatives was that
that they focused on strengthening and mining additional
value from the talents, assets, and activities already in
existence. For example, prototypes such as community
asset mapping, an engagement workshop with military
personnel, making use of the innovative energy of students,
and hosting community dinners to connect existing
innovators with aspiring entrepreneurs all focus on taking
advantage of capacity that already exists but is not being
used to its full potential.
Further, four key sub-themes appeared in the prototypes,
revealing the different ways in which the means-focus
approach might express itself in Virginias public sector
These themes included:
Increasing visibility of entrepreneurial leadership:
measures that highlight, celebrate, and publicize existing
entrepreneurial activity in the economy.
Building capacity for innovation in the community:
measures that impart new skills and offer new experiences
and opportunities to would-be entrepreneurs and
innovators in the economy.
Creating new connections in the economy: measures
that seek to build new connections and relationships
between existing innovators in the economic community,
as well as public institutions, that enable greater
collective learning and cross-pollination.
Leveraging untapped resources: engaging people
and networks that have much to offer the economy of
Virginia, but have traditionally been overlooked.
Each of the prototypes identified by each team is listed in
the following table, as well as an assessment of its external
versus internal focus and which of the four sub-themes are
represented for each. For teams that identified more than
one prototype idea in their memo, the ideas that were voted
to show the most promise are highlighted.
20
 Innovation Increasing Visibility Building Capacity Creating New Leveraging
Proposed Alternatives Externally- of Entrepreneurial for Innovation in the Connections in Untapped
Focused? Leadership Community the Economy Resources
Team 1 - Problem Statement: There is a lack of communication and engagement between Virginias business leaders, local policymakers, and constituents.
Organize entertaining outings and happy hours for young business leaders
and professionals. Yes Yes Yes Yes

Establish a CEO leaderboard for competitions between business leaders. Yes Yes Yes

Make CEOs of the City social media campaign, which would showcase
the work of a local business owner or CEO in each area of Virginia on social
Yes Yes
media weekly. This alternative was voted by the group to be the most
promising.

Team 2 - Problem Statement: There is a need for innovative ways to encourage civic engagement between elected officials and the general public. Currently, the same
people show up to every engagement opportunity with the same complains, and engagement outside of that core group is minimal.
A post-campaign, all-candidates gathering, moderated by an independent
facilitator, in which candidates discuss the feedback they heard from the Yes Yes
many people they spoke to during the campaign.

Team 3 - Problem Statement: There is a need to shift from an institutionally-focused system of local governance to one focused on people, understanding their needs,
and the delivery of services.
A program to engage middle and high school students in a creative process
that lets others in their area see the community through the eyes of the youth.
Cameras and guidance are provided, and students submit photo-essays about
their views on community needs and strengths. Submissions are presented Yes Yes Yes
at a community dinner, and the best are shared via the city website, social
media, and newspapers, as well as featured in a professional video.

Team 4 - Problem Statement: How can policy entrepreneurs create an entrepreneurial mindset in Virginias communities?
Support local infrastructure, including improvements to aging water systems,
bridges, highways, electrical systems, hospitals, and more, in order to
promote stability and incentivize small business development.

Establish stability (no future details given).

Identify and highlight existing cases the entrepreneurial spirit, celebrating

entrepreneurial activities of all forms. Yes Yes Yes

Encourage the creative spirit at an early age, incorporating opportunities

to hone entrepreneurial practices in the STEAM (science, technology, Yes Yes
engineering, art, and mathematics).

Create an inspirational mentorship and role modeling program which invites

local entrepreneurs to describe the small steps they took to establish their
businesses and create networks, and which provides dinner and childcare to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
aspiring local entrepreneurs who want to learn. This alternative was voted
by the group to be the most promising.

Team 5 - Problem Statement: Nearly 12,000 military personnel with diverse and disciplined skill sets exit the military each year in the Virginia Beach MSA. With more
than 86,000 active-duty military personnel present in the area, it is critical for Virginia Beach to retain these personnel to support its civilian workforce development.
Virginia Beachs large military presence is an underutilized resource given the large amount of personnel who leave the region every year.

A community workshop involving the Military Economic Development

Advisory Committee and the Mayors group, military officers, school
representatives, civic leaders, and business leaders, in order to provide Yes Yes Yes
feedback to MEDAC to help them encourage military personnel to stay in the
region.

Team 6 - Problem Statement: Community stakeholders, including politicians, business leaders, and citizens, do not have a clear understanding of the diverse role of
economic development in their towns, counties, and cities. This leads politicians to make short-sighted decisions about economic development and entrepreneurial
constituents to miss out on the development resources that are available to them.
Foster a peer-exchange program between economic developers and
business leaders across the state and region, connecting areas where Yes Yes
entrepreneurialism is thriving with those where it is not.

Brand Ambassadors of Economic Development. Train ambassadors on

the brand of the role of economic development in communities who
communicate the resources, purpose, and strategy of economic development Yes Yes Yes
to interested community members.

Community Asset Mapping Project, bringing stakeholders together in their

communities to map the resources they find most valuable. Gatherings would
take place in existing community centers, led by local CEOs and business Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
leaders. This alternative was voted by the group to be the most
promising.
Evidence of Promise for the Means-Focused
Entrepreneurship Approach in the Public Sector
The fact that all of the prototypes identified were discussed
demonstrated a means-centred approach, building on
existing assets rather than trying to predict the future, was
revealing. This theme arose organically and was not an
explicit constraint applied to the VPER participants. The
organic rise of this theme suggests that the means-focused
method inherent to effectuation approach is not only highly
applicable to the public sector, but that the VPERs
experiential, personal approach to teaching entrepreneurship
was effective.
We need new thinking
in local government!
The mere marriage of
the words policy and
entrepreneurship is
indeed epic. I am hoping
I can introduce much of
what I leaned in [my city].
VPER Participant
Further research and follow up will be needed in order to
determine which elements of the VPER approach to teaching
entrepreneurship are the most effective over different
timescales. However, based on participant responses and
what can be inferred from the results of the design-thinking
process, we can point to a number of preliminary findings.
First, participants reported that there was immense value
of being in a co-design space with their colleagues, with
whom they have close relationships but with whom they
normally do not get opportunities to be creative.
Second, the marriage between local governance and
entrepreneurialism was a new concept to many participants
and one that challenged their thinking and opened their
minds to new possibilities.
Third, of the participants that filled out post-event feedback
forms, 100% of them indicated that they would like to
continue to be involved in the broader Virginian Policy
Entrepreneurship Lab process as it continues to unfold
beyond the VPER. At the beginning of the event, many
participants were unfamiliar with the new ideas being
presented and showed indications of being unclear as
to what was expected of them. As the event unfolded,
however, participants became more comfortable with the
notion that what was expected of them was not what
was important, and rather that it was their own creativity
that held the key to success in this process. The very
positive feedback expressed by participants indicates that
the entrepreneurial approach has indeed struck a chord in
Virginias local government and that there is rich potential to
keep exploring this area.
Moving Forward with the Virginia Policy
Entrepreneurship Lab
The Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Retreat was merely
the first step in a broader, longer effort to engender
entrepreneurial thinking and action in Virginias public sector,
the Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Lab. The Retreat aimed
to open an exploration of the next frontier of government
entrepreneurship, the creation of new, customer-facing
initiatives that create real value in the face of increasingly
complex challenges. The Retreat also aimed to test a
method of teaching entrepreneurialism in Virginias unique
context, a method based on supporting policy-makers to
build teams, learn the language of design thinking, and
employ the logic of effectuation.
While the results of the six prototypes developed through
the VPER are yet to be seen, it is clear that the retreat
was a successful first experiment with how to teach
entrepreneurialism in the public sector. The team-based,
design thinking, effectuation-driven approach proved
effective in helping policy-makers discover new ways of
working and thinking. For example, following the initial
exercise that experientially demonstrated the difference
between creative and predictive logic, the reflections shared
by participants indicated a powerful shift in perspective.
Roughly half of the participants reported that, early in the
VPER process, they were unclear about what was expected
of them, only to eventually come to understand that what
was expected of them was not important, and rather
that their creativity and willingness to experiment was
what really mattered. These experiences, combined the
external-facing and innovative character of the prototypes
that emerged from the VPER, point to the Retreat being a
successful first step in the broader innovation and learning
effort of the Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Lab.
From here, the Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Lab will
move forward on two fronts. First, the VPER cohort will
continue to be engaged and supported, helping them
continue to discover opportunities for entrepreneurial
thinking and action in their jurisdictions. Second, it will seek
to expand the existing community of policy entrepreneurs
in Virginia. Third, it will undertake a longer-term research
effort that will seek to deepen the available insight into the
potential for entrepreneurship in Virginias public sector and
how it should be taught.
Continued Growth and Engagement and Support for the
VPER Cohort
Photo Credit: Tom Daly Photography
The 35 VPER participants indicated their desire to stay
connected and engaged with policy entrepreneurship. In
order to support this, several measures are being explored,
including:
Setting up bi-monthly coaching/ problem solving calls
to help cohort members develop their prototypes and
recognize new opportunities.
Facilitating quarterly cohort gatherings to share learning
and support each others efforts.
Providing cohort members access to expert trainings
and webinars on topics including entrepreneurial and
innovative financing, including strategies such as
creative resourcing, social impact bonds, agricultural
insurance.
Working with cohort members to submit regional
entrepreneurial pilot project proposals to GoVirginia.
A potential 2-day cohort retreat, as a follow up to the
April 2017 VPER, in approximately 6 months time.
23
 Expand Virginias Community
of Policy Entrepreneurs
There appears to be a hunger
for policy entrepreneurship
training and support around
the state, suggesting that
Virginias community of
policy entrepreneurs has
the potential to be a thriving
one. In order to achieve
a thriving community,
several measures are being
explored, including:
Running a policy entrepreneurship road show that
brings training opportunities similar to the VPER
directly to specific municipalities, adjusting content
for the specific challenges and opportunities in each
context. This could include more intensive and
focused workshops designed for rural coal or industry
loss regions like Bristol and southwest Virginia, urban
poor areas of small cities like Fifeville or the Strategic
Investment Area (SIA) of Charlottesville, self-declared
pro-growth cities like Lexington, and growth-cautious
counties like Albemarle. This could also include cross-
county.
Continued Research on Policy Entrepreneurship in Virginia
There remains much to learn about the potential for policy
entrepreneurship in Virginia and the effectiveness of
different methods of teaching it. Proposed future research
pathways thus include:
Tracking the activities and achievements over the long
term of policymakers who have received effectuation
or entrepreneurial mindset training, with the aim
of learning which methods of teaching have been
most effective and what other factors influence their
success.
Conducting study comparing the impact and
achievements of policymakers who practice both
effectual and predictive thinking versus those who
practice solely predictive thinking.
Adding in a quantitative layer to the research which
explores issues such as access to innovation
resources, the numbers of people reached through
new initiatives, or the increase in different types of
capital through policy entrepreneurship (i.e. financial,
human, social, physical, and natural capital).

Offering a presentation of successes, failures, and

key learnings from the 2017 VPER at next Hometown
Summit in 2018.

As suggested by several VPER participants, spinning

off future retreats as fully independent events not
bundled into larger conferences to avoid confusion
and to encourage full participation commitment.

Setting up a physical, resourced space or a digital hub

for the Virginia Policy Entrepreneurship Lab, serving
as an innovation and learning hub and providing
a platform for aspiring and established policy
entrepreneurs to develop ideas and collaborate.

24
Appendix A: List of Participants
Name Title Organization
Aleea Slappy Business Development Manager City Of Norfolk
Alex Fife Director of Operations Village Capital
Beth Rhinehart President & CEO Bristol Chamber of Commerce
Brian Shull Economic Development Director City of Harrisonburg
Chip Boyles
Christopher Poulos Executive Director Life of Purpose Treatment
Christy Morton Executive Director Virginia Rural Center
David Bryan
Erika Viccelio Executive Vice President United Way TJA
Evan Kaufman Executive Director The Hopewell Downtown Partnership
Florence Kingston Director of Development Newport News Economic Development Authority
Francis Holuba Consultant President Obamas 100,000 Strong in the Americas Initiative
Garrett Hart Director Chesterfield Economic Development
Garth Jensen Director for Innovation Navy
Gary Deal Board of Supervisors Culpeper County
Jane Kuslak
Jason Smith Community and Economic Director Fluvanna County
Jeff Sadler Associate Director VA Dept of Housing and Community Development
Jeff Smith City of Virginia Beach
Jennifer Goldman President & CEO Resonance, LLC
John Kluge Founder Alight Fund
Kellen Squire Candidate, 58th District House of Delegates
Landon Webber
Marjette Upshur Economic Development Director City of Lynchburg
Meredith Gunter Interim Director Weldon Cooper Center UVA
Michele Mixner DeWitt Economic Development Director City of Williamsburg
Nancy Price
Phil Geer Assistant Director Central VA Partnership/PWN
Rocio Lamb Chief of Revenue Administration County of Albemarle
Ross Glasser MPP UVA Frank Batten School of Leadership & Public Policy
Steven Wright Director Chesapeake Economic Development
Susan Stimart Economic Development County of Albemarle
Taylor Keeney
Theresa Burriss Chair, Appalachian Studies Radford University
Tommy Miller

25
Appendix B: Full Agenda
Day I Thursday / April 13th
Morning

Open Registration + Hometown Summit

11:50-12:30

Casual Networking Lunch

12:30-1:45

Opening Plenary - Build.Think.Act: Seizing the Opportunity for Policy Entrepreneurship in Small and Mid-Sized Cities
Speakers:
Steven Olikara,Millennial Action Project
Laura Weidman Powers, CODE2040
Mayor Levar Stoney, City of Richmond

2:00-3:45

VPER Session I - Entrepreneurial Thought & Action:

Dont Try to Predict The Future, Create It
Given the increasing level of uncertainty in both political and market environments, policymakers must learn how to navigate
effectively in an increasingly uncertain world. In this opening session, participants will be thrown into an immersive learning
challenge designed to raise their awareness of the difference between managerial and entrepreneurial thinking. They gain a
better understanding of the impact of increasing degrees of uncertainty on the entrepreneurial process and a crash-course in
the key concepts that will help policymakers solve the wicked problems that keep them up at night.

Facilitators:
Dr. Julie Engel, Babson College
Cheryl Kiser, Babson College
John Kluge, Babson College

3:45-4:00

Break

4:00-5:00

VPER Session II - Constituents vs. Customers: Understanding the Entrepreneurial Side of Government
This session illustrates the application of entrepreneurial thinking to the challenge of providing excellent customer service in
the public sector. Participants will analyze the implications of regarding people served by government as customers and will
identify the major categories of customers of a small city government and the opportunities and challenges presented by
providing excellent service to these groups. Participants will work in teams to develop recommendations for improving and
implementing excellent customer service and will discuss implementation issues including resource availability, customer
feedback, and the development of metrics.

Facilitators:
Jim Cheng, UVA Engineering, Former Secretary of Commerce, VA
John Kluge, Babson College

5:00-6:00

VPER Cohort Session III - Case Studies on Using Entrepreneurship to Foster Resilience and Transform Communities
In this special session, the VPER cohort will hear two case studies on the power of purpose-driven entrepreneurial mindsets,
inspiring VPER participants to see opportunity in the most unlikely of places and proving that entrepreneurship can be taught
to anyone.

26
 Facilitator:
John Kluge
Special Guests:
Dr. Greg Fairchild, UVA Darden
Christopher Poulos, Life of Purpose, University of North Texas

END OF DAY 1

Day II Friday / April 14th

8:30 9:30

VPER Session IV - Idealab: Understanding Your Why, Your What, & Your How
Facilitators:
Cheryl Kiser, Babson College
John Kluge, Babson College

9:30-11:45

VPER Session V - Design Thinking, Innovation Processes, & Pilot Project Creation
How might we generate new and innovative policy ideas using design thinking principles? In this immersive workshop, policy
entrepreneurs select a challenge that they are currently facing. Dr. Christine Mahoney will guide them in building a prototype
of a pilot project to solve the chosen problem using design thinking and iterative innovation processes. Participants will
learn how to create new policy ideas using association techniques, discover creativity blockers and enablers, and gain an
appreciation of the power of empathy to make their policies more effective. Participants will leave with an implementation
map to launch an entrepreneurial project of their own design.

Facilitators:
Dr. Christine Mahoney, UVA Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy
Cheryl Kiser, Babson College
John Kluge, Babson College

12:00-1:30

VPER Luncheon
Sponsored by City of Lynchburg

2:00-3:30

VPER Session VI - Integral Leadership: Who You Need to Be to Do What You Want to Do
In this closing session, VPER participants will work with leading executive coach, organization development and team
development consultant Dr. Julie Engel using emotional intelligence, mindful awareness, frameworks for building effective
and satisfying team relationships, sustaining well-being, and practical applied neurobiology to create individualized
leadership develop plans. Participants will reflect on lessons learned and as a collaborative cohort, chart their course for the
following six months.

Facilitator:
Dr. Julie Engel, Babson College

END OF DAY 2

27