Europe's founders battle learned helplessness as much as regulation
When complex systems breed cultures of resignation, individual agency becomes both solution and competitive advantage
The notary stops replying at 2pm on Friday. Not because of an emergency, but because that's when the notary stops replying on Fridays. The bank cites compliance. The registrar demands a court-appointed translator for a document that's already in English. Ask why and you get the same answer everywhere: the rules, the regulations, the way things work.
Everyone knows Europe's regulatory burden. The mandatory notaries, the cross-border complications, the endless KYC processes. We've catalogued these obstacles exhaustively. But we've missed the more corrosive problem: the resignation that complexity breeds. The learned helplessness that develops when everyone in a ten-step process points to nine other blockers, transforming friction into a moral licence for mediocrity.
A pattern emerges across Europe's business landscape. Because the system is slow, I can be slow. Because there are rules, I don't need judgement. Because there's risk, I don't need initiative. And then we all nod along and nothing moves.
From constraint to culture
Organisational psychologists call this learned helplessness. The phenomenon is well documented: when people repeatedly observe that their actions don't change outcomes, they stop trying. Harvard Business Review has chronicled it in American corporations. Academic journals have studied it across industries. The pattern is universal, but Europe provides ideal conditions for its growth.
Why? Because the constraints are real. The registrar genuinely needs certain documents. The bank genuinely faces compliance requirements. The notary genuinely operates within labour regulations. When obstacles are legitimate, citing them feels justified. The excuse doesn't sound like an excuse—it sounds like reality.
But reality and resignation aren't the same thing. Between acknowledging constraints and collapsing into them lies the crucial distinction. Some organisations use regulations as shields for inaction. Others navigate them with determination. A 2023 study by economists found that costly regulation stifles new business creation—yet the same study noted that response to regulation varies dramatically. The rules don't determine the outcome. The response to rules does.
When friction becomes identity
The transformation happens gradually, almost imperceptibly. New employees arrive with ambition. Colleagues quickly inform them: nothing will ever change. Management ignores suggestions or never sees them. Poor communication ensures concerns never reach decision-makers. The belief that individual actions don't matter becomes institutional knowledge, passed down like tribal wisdom.
This isn't uniquely European. American researchers studying American companies identified the phenomenon. It appears wherever complex systems create multiple points of failure. What distinguishes Europe is the scale and legitimacy of the constraints. When regulations genuinely are complex, when they genuinely do require multiple approvals, the excuse doesn't just feel justified—it is justified. That's what makes it so dangerous.
The cultural difference shows up clearly in comparative research. Marco Santos, who has run global technology teams across continents, describes two different worlds. American business culture emphasises speed and competition. Teams thrive on quick pivots and bold risks. European culture prioritises compliance and stability. Multiple studies confirm the pattern: Americans value rapid decisions, Europeans value consensus.
Neither approach is inherently superior. But they produce different responses to obstacles. American meetings run 30 minutes, one agenda item, clear actions. European meetings run longer, multiple topics, group agreement. When Americans hit a blocker, instinct says find a workaround. When Europeans encounter the same obstacle, tendency says document why it cannot be solved.
The difference isn't capability. It's posture.
The agency gap in practice
Watch the difference in action. An American founder emails their solicitor at 9pm about a contract question. Response arrives at 11pm. Not because anyone lacks boundaries, but because the deal closes tomorrow and the question matters tonight. Both parties recognise value and act accordingly.
A European founder emails their solicitor at 9pm with the same question. Response arrives Tuesday. The solicitor had good reasons: proper work-life balance, time to consider the matter thoroughly, scheduled client communications. All reasonable. All professional. The deal died over the weekend.
This isn't about glorifying overwork. It's about judgement. When something genuinely matters—when a document arriving tonight makes the difference between closing a deal or losing momentum—high-agency operators respond. When nothing is urgent, treating everything as urgent burns people out. When genuinely urgent matters arrive, treating them as routine kills opportunities.
The pattern extends beyond late-night emails. In America, counsel replies when it matters. Bankers answer the same day. The instinct is to enable progress, not enumerate obstacles. The goal is the outcome, with rules serving as constraints to navigate rather than shields to hide behind.
European venture capital data captures the cultural gap in numbers. For years, European VC investments averaged 0.3% of GDP against 0.7% in America. European funds faced criticism for risk-averse behaviour in an intrinsically high-risk asset class. Extended due diligence. Downward pressure on valuations. Hesitation once deals exceeded certain thresholds. Analysts noted funds spending weeks on diligence, hesitating when valuations rose past £10-15 million.
Recent data reveals European venture capital returns actually exceeding American returns over ten and fifteen-year periods. Yet European companies still struggle to raise the massive late-stage rounds that American counterparts routinely secure. The gap isn't capability. It's willingness to back bold bets.
The counter-examples matter
Yet Europe produces companies that shatter these patterns. Spotify. Revolut. N26. Delivery Hero. These businesses achieved scale whilst navigating the same regulatory environment their competitors cite as impossible. Same notaries. Same banks. Same registrars. The regulations didn't change. The response to regulations did.
McKinsey research on Europe's top technology startups identifies patterns among those that succeed. They make clear choices about strategic focus rather than attempting everything. Network plays. Scale plays. Product plays. Deep technology approaches. They overindex on building capabilities in their chosen path. Critically, they refuse to let systemic friction set their operating standards.
Consider Revolut, now serving millions of customers despite facing every regulatory headache in heavily regulated finance. Or N26, navigating German financial regulation—notoriously thorough—whilst maintaining rapid growth. These companies didn't succeed because regulation was lenient. They succeeded because they refused to accept low agency as inevitable.
The research reveals another pattern: successful European startups scaling internationally often do so by winning local markets sequentially rather than attempting global expansion simultaneously. Patient. Systematic. Different from the "move fast and break things" American archetype. Yet it demonstrates agency within constraints. These companies work with European fragmentation rather than wishing it away.
The existence of counter-examples proves the point. If regulations determined outcomes, no European company would succeed. If agency made no difference, European and American success rates would match. The gap between European companies that scale and those that stagnate isn't regulatory burden. It's response to that burden.
Acting with agency in rigid systems
The path forward doesn't require regulatory reform, though that would help. It requires recognising that resignation is a choice. Not an easy choice—the constraints are real, the obstacles genuine. But a choice nonetheless.
Start with operating principles. Own the handoff. When you're step three of ten, behave as though step ten depends on you—because it might. Anticipate blockers. Move same day when possible. Eliminate ambiguity. Close loops.
Default to clarity. Send checklists. Preempt the next two questions. Reduce touches required. Model urgency without theatrics. Be calm, fast, precise. Don't make customers chase you for basic information.
Use judgement. Rules exist. We can't break them all. But we can work with them intelligently rather than hiding behind them reflexively.
Most importantly: select for agency. Choose partners who respond promptly when something matters and who don't confuse process with progress. A notary with standard KYC packets, templated resolutions, scheduled signing slots, and same-day feedback bias adds more value than one with perfect technical knowledge but glacial response times.
Nothing stops a European service provider from designing excellent onboarding flows. The tools exist. The knowledge exists. Standard documentation, clear checklists, async updates, scheduled slots—these could exist right now. They rarely do, not because regulations prevent it, but because learned helplessness has set the standard.
Which creates opportunity. If most actors in an ecosystem accept low agency as inevitable, those who refuse gain disproportionate advantage. In a market where most solicitors cite complexity to explain three-week response times, one who reliably delivers in three days becomes invaluable. Where most providers enumerate obstacles, one who solves problems becomes indispensable.
The competitive advantage of refusing resignation
Research on organisational learned helplessness reveals that leadership determines whether the mindset takes hold. Leaders who empower employees and maintain open communication prevent it. Those who dismiss suggestions and demand submission to process create it. Individual entrepreneurs may lack power to change regulatory systems, but they control how they respond to those systems.
This matters more than it appears. The European Union won't transform into Silicon Valley any time soon. The regulatory framework, fragmented markets, and risk-averse capital allocation reflect deep cultural and institutional patterns. Wishing them away accomplishes nothing.
But that doesn't mean accepting the lowest common denominator of responsiveness and agency.
European founders face a choice. Join the chorus citing obstacles whilst doing mediocre work, secure in the knowledge that everyone else does the same. Or refuse to let systemic friction set standards, building businesses that demonstrate what's possible within constraints.
The evidence suggests the latter approach may be competitively necessary. Capital is global. Talent is mobile. European companies compete not just with each other but with American and Asian counterparts. The research on founder mindset differences tells the story: American founders ask how to maximise upside potential. European founders ask how to minimise downside risk. This psychological gap may matter more than regulatory differences.
The choice that remains
This isn't about embracing destructive overwork or abandoning reasonable boundaries. The agency gap isn't working longer hours. It's seeing obstacles as explanations for inaction versus problems to solve. It's owning outcomes versus citing process.
Successful European entrepreneurs don't ignore regulations. They work within them skilfully whilst refusing to accept that complex processes justify slow, mediocre execution. They find notaries who design excellent onboarding. They work with solicitors who respond when it matters. They partner with people who see the goal and help reach it rather than enumerating obstacles.
The trap isn't regulation alone. It's the learned helplessness regulation breeds when we let it. If friction sets our standards, we become the friction.
Europe won't legislate its way to an American-style environment soon. But Europeans don't need permission to be better operators inside a constrained system. That's the contrast. That's the part within individual control.
The research on learned helplessness is clear: the mindset is learned, which means it can be unlearned. The question is whether enough people will make that choice to shift the culture.
For now, the evidence suggests that those who do will find themselves at considerable advantage. In an ecosystem where most actors have learned to accept that nothing can change, those who act as though their choices matter will discover they're right.
The notary who stops replying at 2pm on Friday isn't an immovable obstacle. He's a choice. Choose differently.