Pages

Sunday, January 4, 2026

Entrepreneurs Start Companies. Bureaucrats End Them

 



When companies are born, they rarely begin with grand org charts, multilayered governance structures, or 200‑page SOP manuals. They begin with a handful of people who are hungry, restless, and unafraid to get their hands dirty. People who don’t wait for permission. People who learn by doing, not by presenting. People who care about purpose, outcomes, and value, not optics, credits, or turf.

These early teams are made of Doers in the truest sense of the word. They take responsibility. They deliver. They improvise. They experiment. They fail fast and recover faster. They don’t hide behind process because there is no process to hide behind. They don’t obsess over structure because the only structure that matters is the one that gets the job done.

This is the spirit that births companies.
This is the spirit that builds movements.
This is the spirit that creates impact.

And then… scale arrives.

And with scale comes the inevitable: systems, processes, governance, measurement, compliance, and the dreaded bean‑counting. None of this is inherently bad. In fact, without these, organisations collapse under their own weight. Stability matters. Accountability matters. Repeatability matters.

But here’s the tragedy:
When the pendulum swings too far toward process, the organisation forgets why it exists.

The machinery becomes more important than the mission.
The rituals become more important than the results.
The compliance becomes more important than the customer.

And in this slow drift from purpose to process, a new species emerges inside the organisation, the Passenger.

The Rise of the Passenger

The Passenger is not incompetent. In fact, they are often articulate, polished, and excellent at navigating internal systems. They know how to write long emails, how to attend meetings, how to escalate, how to cover themselves, and how to stay “aligned.”

But they are not builders.
They are not creators.
They are not owners.

They are more invested in the machinery than the mission. They optimise for internal perception rather than external impact. They care more about credits than outcomes. They follow the rulebook even when the rulebook is outdated. They prioritise safety over speed, predictability over possibility, and optics over ownership.

Passengers don’t kill organisations overnight.
They kill them slowly, by draining the entrepreneurial spirit that once made the organisation alive.

And once Passengers dominate, the Doers either leave or get suffocated. That is the beginning of the end.

The Balance That Determines Survival

Every organisation eventually faces a fundamental question:

How do we preserve the entrepreneurial spirit while building the systems needed for scale?

This balance, or the lack of it, determines whether a company evolves or perishes.

The good news is that many large companies have found a way to keep innovation alive. When they want to open new growth avenues, they carve out a crack team — a small, empowered, entrepreneurial unit with the freedom to experiment, break rules, and move fast. A team that is intentionally kept away from the bureaucratic machinery.

This team is given:

  • A mandate to think differently
  • Freedom from the shackles of BAU
  • Permission to experiment
  • A leader who believes in speed, risk, and disruption

And once this team gains momentum, the mainstream organisation absorbs the learnings and scales the success.

But here’s the catch, and it’s a big one:

If this crack team reports to a BAU leader, the experiment is dead on arrival.

Because BAU leaders optimise for stability, predictability, and risk minimisation. They are not wired for entrepreneurial chaos. They don’t understand the value of a quick strike. They want plans, frameworks, decks, committees, and alignment before taking the first step.

That is how innovation dies, not because the idea was bad, but because the environment was hostile.

A Real Story: How Bureaucracy Kills Momentum

Recently, a company I know attempted such an experiment. They onboarded an entrepreneurial, high‑energy individual from outside , someone with the mindset of a commando, not a clerk. His mandate: open a new geography with massive potential.

He did exactly what a hunter would do.
He identified a powerful early linkage.
He moved fast.
He reached out to the leadership with excitement.

And then came the response, from a leader who had never been required to think like an entrepreneur. Someone steeped in the classic bureaucratic “CYA” culture.

The reply was a masterpiece of corporate paralysis:

“I appreciate your initiative in meeting people in this new territory, but for us to engage effectively, we need context, a structured plan, and alignment on what we are jointly looking to achieve. Without that, it becomes difficult for us to prioritise or commit resources, especially when nothing concrete has been outlined yet. Let us spend another four months studying the market and evolve a detailed implementation plan and then start.”

Brilliantly articulated.
Perfectly structured.
And absolutely spirit‑killing.

This is how you pour cold water on a go‑getter.
This is how you suffocate initiative.
This is how you turn a commando into a clerk.

Is the leader wrong?
Not entirely. Planning matters. Context matters. Alignment matters.

But this is not how hunters operate.
A hunter’s mindset is about the surgical strike , a quick, sharp opening salvo that creates early momentum while the larger plan evolves in parallel.

When the world is moving at breakneck speed, waiting four months to “study the market” is not strategy. It is self‑sabotage.

The World Has Changed. Many Organisations Haven’t.

We live in an era where industries are being disrupted in real time. New technologies, new behaviours, new competitors, everything is shifting faster than traditional organisations can comprehend.

In such a world, the companies that survive will be the ones that can:

  • Experiment fast
  • Learn fast
  • Adapt fast
  • Scale fast

The ones that cling to old models of planning, alignment, and risk‑avoidance will become irrelevant. They will become dinosaurs, large, impressive, and extinct.

The irony is that many organisations talk endlessly about innovation, agility, and transformation. They put these words in their annual reports, their town halls, their strategy decks.

But when a real entrepreneur walks in and tries to do something bold, the system reacts like an immune response, attacking the very thing that could save it.

The Choice Every Leader Must Make

Every leader, especially those running established businesses, must ask themselves a brutally honest question:

Do I want Doers or Passengers?
Doers disrupt the status quo.
Passengers defend it.

Doers take risks.
Passengers avoid them.

Doers create value.
Passengers create paperwork.

If you want innovation, you must protect the Doers.
If you want stability, you will attract Passengers.
If you want longevity, you must balance both, but never let the Passengers dominate.

The future belongs to organisations that can institutionalise entrepreneurship without descending into chaos. That can build systems without killing spirit. That can scale without suffocating initiative.

This is not easy.
But it is necessary.

Because in a world that is changing this fast, the companies that fail to metamorphose will not get a second chance.

They will simply disappear.

“The future belongs to the organisations that can reinvent themselves before the world forces them to.”


3 comments:

  1. Question is how do you balance? What are the governing mechanisms that drive scale while ensuring the mother brand, laws and governance is adhered to?

    It will help if you can share practical, execution oriented structure to implement this

    Thanks a lot Sir

    ReplyDelete
  2. Question is how do you balance? What are the governing mechanisms that drive scale while ensuring the mother brand, laws and governance is adhered to?

    It will help if you can share practical, execution oriented structure to implement this

    Thanks a lot Sir

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think to scale you need processes. Of course one needs a fine balance, very rare. But has happened in India.

    ReplyDelete