Comparison of the ‘big beast’ in wilderness and in corporate

How is the life of 'big' positioned in nature? The question is should the definition of the ‘big’ go by the physical size, physical strength or the role played by an animal in the given ecosystem. How the evolution has favored the big animals in nature and how such favor is different or similar or comparable to the life of ‘the big’ people (CEO’s etc.,) incorporate?

In any given ecosystem, the big trees are always privileged to enjoy greater space, water and nutrient resource than the smaller plants. The enjoyment also has a definite limitation as the ‘needs’ of the big trees are always high and hence on most occasions, they suffer some level of insufficiency. Further, the big trees also suffer the worst due to high heat, wind, rain etc. Barring all the above, the ‘big trees’ also support the growth and development of many plants, climbers, epiphytes, underneath. Big trees also generally support food chain.

Any natural calamity such as wind or lightning when strikes, the big trees only suffer the most and when the big fall, many small plants also would die. Interestingly, some small plant (s) could occupy such space or fill the vacancy, but it also meets the same fate in future when it grows to big size.

In the animal world, the big animals are considered to be the guardian of the entire group. Always, the big enjoy extra privilege. Only after their share is fulfilled or met with, others will get their chance.

In nature, the big animals are relatively safe; whether it is a predator or prey. The predators prefer to avoid big prey animal as that may prove fatal. In brief, in animal world, the big/strong animals are vested with the responsibility of protecting the entire group. Certainly, they enjoy great respect and privilege in the group and in most instances, they prove worthy of it.

How the life of big boss goes in corporate. The ‘big people’ always enjoy extraordinary comfort and salary disproportionate to their capability, real knowledge, work or contribution. In entrepreneur driven or single man controlled organization, the life of big can go merry or in a spur of a moment it can also turn out to be a house of fire or falls into rough weather.

But in truth, the big people are relatively more protected in most corporate than the people in the managerial cadre as the big people are considered to be the ‘thinkers’ or ‘articulators’ or ‘strategists’ and the managers are considered to be mere ‘executors’. It is believed that the flaw is possible only in the execution and it can never happen in planning is the widely accepted logic in most corporate. Hence the big people are always spared because they are considered as planners.

Any job retrenchment in initiated or the job cut, salary cut or witch hunt etc., always none of such initiatives shall affect the big people in most corporate as they are the key designers or engineers of the above dirty game.

Interestingly, the big people generally serve their interest first and only then the interest of the organization. Ironically, in most corporate, such people are considered to be ‘sacred leaders’ an indispensable asset.

The life of ‘big’ in plant kingdom and animal kingdom is very genuine, significant contributors and are relevant, whereas the life of the ‘big’ in most corporate is mostly significant only on paper, are not genuine or value based and are utterly selfish.

Dr S Ranganathan