We Romanticize the Startup and Neglect the Institution

The meeting had just concluded with another round of discussions on the importance of innovation and disruption in the business world. The room was filled with officials from various sectors, each contributing to the ongoing debate about how startups are romanticized while institutions that have stood the test of time are often neglected or criticized for their perceived lack of dynamism.

Officials briefed on the sessions said there is a pervasive belief that founding something new is inherently more valuable than maintaining and evolving existing structures. This sentiment is echoed in media narratives, where founders are celebrated as heroes and disruptors hailed as prophets, while those who manage institutions are often seen merely as caretakers or worse, relics of an outdated system.

The cult of the beginning has taken hold, with society drawn to the clarity and drama of new ventures. A startup's launch is a story with a clear protagonist, a moment of risk, and the promise of transformation. In contrast, maintenance lacks such narrative appeal; it involves repetitive tasks carried out by largely anonymous individuals whose contributions are often overlooked or undervalued.

So while founders receive accolades, financial rewards, and media attention, those who have kept complex organizations functioning through decades of challenges typically receive modest recognition at best. This disparity reflects a misunderstanding of the true value in sustaining an institution versus merely starting one. Anyone familiar with both processes understands that maintaining continuity is no less challenging than initiating change.

Breaking things may indeed be easier than many believe; it requires boldness and capital, but not necessarily the same level of commitment to long-term stability. The real challenge lies in adapting institutions to endure through constant external pressures while preserving their core functions. This work, though crucial, receives far less attention because it lacks the dramatic flair associated with disruption.

Disruption captures headlines and photographs well; durability does not. Yet, this durability is essential for almost everything we value, legal systems that enforce contracts, financial frameworks that maintain trust, and registries that ensure accountability across generations. These institutions provide a stable foundation upon which new ventures can thrive, yet they rarely receive the same level of appreciation.

An institution fundamentally promises continuity, an assurance that rules will remain consistent over time, records will persist, and obligations will be honored regardless of leadership changes. This commitment to enduring principles is the bedrock upon which progress is built, allowing startups and other innovations to flourish within a predictable framework. Disruptors often benefit from this stability without acknowledging its importance.

Honoring those who keep institutions running is not about discouraging new beginnings but rather recognizing the imbalance in how we value different types of work. Founders deserve their accolades for their contributions to innovation, yet so too do the maintainers and stewards whose efforts ensure that these innovations can be sustained over time. The true measure of a society may indeed lie in its ability to preserve what is valuable while also embracing new ideas.

The keepers of institutions are not adversaries of progress; rather, they are essential partners who make enduring change possible by ensuring stability amidst constant flux. It is time for them to receive the recognition and respect that reflects their critical role in societal development.