Its kind of hard to appreciate the modern world we live in. There are so many things just taken as give-ins or expected. Things like having electricity, access to the internet, television channels, plumbing, and so much else are incredibly important by easy to take as givens.
Everything man made from tiny beads to immense buildings to completely massive infrastructure like the electrical grid was just other people designing and building those things. We tend to treat things that exist when we're born as part of the world. It doesn't actually work that way though. However old something is, at some point there was just a person who tried to do something and it happened to stick around for some reason.
Even ideas are like this. Standards and things get made up by people for whatever reason. The people who are good at getting their ideas to stick around are not always the people with the best ideas either. As an example, it's hard to argue the Fahrenheit temperature scale is better than Celsius. Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit invented a really good thermometer though, and that means that today "0 degrees" means almost nothing important to Americans. Anything we actually care about on that scale are arbitrary numbers like 32, 97.5, 212, and 451.
Contrarily, some ideas live a long time because they're really good by themselves. Celsius puts water freezing at 0 degrees and boiling at 100. Water and its properties are pretty important to our day-to-day lives so those touch points seem pretty sensible. The majority of countries use Celsius for good reason.
Changing an existing system is a lot of work though. If you get set down a non-optimal path in a non-critical way, like a temperature scale, it can be hard to justify the cost to change everything else to fix the issue.
Those concerns start to approach the issue of "organization". Big or small, organizations with longevity have the same kind of flavor to them as long lived products. Any organization that exists is just a bunch of people deciding to act a certain way. Governments, the UN, armies, corporations, renaissance faires, PTAs, book clubs, or poker groups are all variations on scale and rigor of people choosing to act a certain way.
The way of acting in a group all comes from people's ideas. Sometimes those ideas come from people who have better ideas and sometimes they come from people with more influence. Certain types of groups attract people with either more effective or more influential sort of ideas. The most powerful groups seem to have influential sort of people selecting the ideas of the more effective sort of people based on how they align with the influential sort of ideals.
Once the group goals are stated, often it's own undertaking, some people might decide to be members and seek to change how the group works. People acting a different way can either be rejected from the group or the group norms can be modified.
The goals of the leadership and the perception of the person generating the request for changes, usually drive how change happens. The person can be rejected from the group if the membership/leadership doesn't agree with either their method or their premise for changes. The way of acting can be be changed if the membership/leadership agrees with changes. The person requesting the change can remain a member of the group if they accept the membership/leadership decision that opposes their own.