Founding vs Inheriting
I could not agree more with the fact that inheritance is by far an easier job than having to invent things from scratch.
The example quoted by you about the East Coast do suggest that sometimes being within the family itself brings good positions for people , rather than them owning it, especially in a political background. That way we are choosing a leader from the family but we are really not sure of the actual skillet of the person being elected, who has the potential to change the face of the country. It is as easy as it sounds, even when we consider extension of the same example to companies.
It is easier for someone to grow somebody’s wealth into much more, when the company has made a good brand name; it is just a matter of maintaining what they are.
More or less, there seems to be a loss in the creativity in case of inheritance, the scope for innovation becomes limited as a result of this. This can lead to sustaining of the institution but might not help it grow larger in size and reach the next level. This way, inheritance actually puts a limit to what one can achieve.
Definitely, there is no comparison between a person who is a pioneer into something and another person who is continuing in running the same institution. An upper bound is set for the growth.
There have been many instances as rightly mentioned in the article that being an innovator needs that much more. Everyone cannot get into the shoes of an innovator and think like an innovator. It only happens in rare cases like people who started crypto currency. Who would have ever imagined the world transacting with crypto’s- currency produced out of software. It is a Wow idea to come up with, in the first place and thinking of it to be an alternate to the actual money.
We would not have had firms going up in their revenue and supply, with no innovation. For instance, off late, we have had the users to play few games on big sites like Amazon and Flipkart. Even though the prize rewards might not be very attractive, there is more chance that the user would visit the site or open the app, at least to play those and there is every chance of him seeing a new offer or a crazy deal on the site. It is worth the owner of the site doing this, because ultimately his profit numbers would go high. In the process, he also gets paid by the promoters for it This way, he gets paid as well as wider range of people using it, is a double bonus for him.
People who do not innovate cannot take sudden decisions and face situations because, after all, such situations do not happen every day and finding alternatives to come out of it, is a challenge for sure.
If companies like Domino's did not introduce the concept of regular checks and sanitation due to the Covid effect, I am sure that most of the users would not have even seen for ordering anything on the site. It is this timely thinking and proactive approach to face a situation that has brought it to this level or at least not let it lose its charm despite the fact that the pandemic has hit the world drastically.
Since I trade regularly in stocks, in particular, I have seen the jubilant group double its share price after this disastrous situation.Every company cannot become a Jubilant for this reason, and hence the significance of innovation is huge, be it any industry.
There are companies, which intelligently made use of this Covid situation, to continue the policy of remote working. That way, it is less painful for the employee to travel to the workplace every day, as well as the company would be saving a lot on its infrastructure and other transport costs. At the end of the day, the company is at profits and the employees are also happy.
It sometimes also depends on what career path an individual chooses, in order to become an innovator. We have seen examples of people like Einstein who were expelled from their school, yet we know what he turned out to be to this world. This tendency of invention does not usually come to normal people, who want to become just like any other person in the society, rather comes from people who like to stay unique and few in number of their kind. It needs extra ordinary out of the box thinking to be a founder.
We would not have found an Einstein, if he decided to be like any other student and had the aim of just becoming a professor. Also, being at the innovator level, requires a lot of research, reading, getting inspired by other innovators and thorough analysis. It is not a super easy process and has its own roller coaster rides to pass through.
Another noteworthy example of innovation is, we have seen a set of people building software for fun and those creating wonders. We have people creating such software, entering the crypto world , enhancing their scope and performing very well with newer innovations. It is very encouraging if there is innovation, because that way , the investors are at profits because of the higher user base and the innovators are also benefited by making more money, and that money is going to add only more to their innovation. Sky is the limit to innovate and keep going. Innovations are going to make people better and the world a better place to live in.
On the whole, I would say that , it is sometimes alright to inherit an institution, but that necessarily need not end there. There is always a room to innovate it, otherwise, there is every possibility of it to diminish its value and people not considering it. In most cases, it is require to put some amount of effort into innovation and only a mix of inheritance and innovation can work, even for sustenance. On the other hand, innovation is very powerful, that it can stand independently on its own , and the process of constant innovation , can scale an institution’s improvement and help it in reaching greater heights , and later sustain its dominance.