Corporate employees generally adapt instead of adjusting even to small needs in the corporate realities...
What is the real meaning of conditioning? Is conditioning good or bad? Does conditioning favour creativity and innovation or acceptance and be a part of the system? These questions should not be attempted to answer from the intellectual point of view but should be answered from the perspective of evolution. Only then the true meaning can be understood.
From the point of view of evolution, every species on earth attempt to get conditioned in its ecosystem so as to establish a stable relationship. Establishing a stable relationship with the ecosystem where animals or plants live is inevitable for their growth, development and procreation. Conditioning is never a one way or unidirectional process in nature as conditioning also involve and include ‘contributing’ to the ecosystem as well. This is what followed by all plants and animals in nature.
Whenever something new is added or contributed to the ecosystem, the ecosystem also tends to get conditioned (modify) and thereby the process of evolution starts taking place. Only when the conditioning of the species and its ecosystem are in line with supporting each other, a stable ecosystem could evolve. Otherwise, only instability and need for further immediate adaptation of species become inevitable. Continuous and never ending changes or adaptation is not good for any species and, so is a stable conditioning. A stable conditioning more often causes adaptation.
What teaching, the evolution of conditioning and adaptation convey to the corporate employees? In most occasions, the corporate employees love to follow ‘Le Chatelier’s principle to create a quick and stable equilibrium with their ecosystem. They believe that sooner they should get conditioned to the corporate ecosystem to ensure their safety and security. Most corporate employees usually get conditioned to the ecosystem, but cause or contribute least to the corporate ecosystem. All they know is to accept and adapt to the corporate needs.
Conditioning’ is not harmful as such change is essential for individual and organization’s growth. But, adapting quickly for changes that are spontaneous, meaningless and radical is dangerous. The real meaning of the word ‘adaptation’ is total and ‘reasonably’ irrevocable change either at anatomical or behavioural level.
Most corporate employees unknowingly undergo the process of such ‘adaptation’ even for some trivial and insignificant needs and requirements rather than adjusting to the needs. Even the word conditioning also they mistake as adaptation. Neither conditioning nor adaptation is bad or dangerous, but conditioning leading to adaptation and adaptation for meaningless demands is only dangerous.
When such ‘reasonably irrevocable’ changes people undergo, they fail to change with time and remain stable with what they have. A great contradiction one can find with such people that they are quite good in adapting but poor in adjusting. Certain changes in the corporate system require only simple adjustment and not adaptation. To understand the distinctions between the two people should follow the process of ‘conditioning’ and should not get ‘conditioned’. Learn from nature and govern your corporate effectively.
Bamboo business approach
The corporate that engaged in the business of bamboo flowering must remember the fact that....
When You Insist on Quality: A Strategic Message to Corporate Leaders
In today's competitive business environment, understanding the true essence of quality is crucial for corporate leaders. Quality should not merely be about consistency and uniformity but should also embrace creativity and innovation. This article explores how leaders can redefine quality standards to foster both excellence and innovation within their organizations.
Understanding the Adaptive Leadership Styles in Corporate Environments
In the dynamic world of corporate leadership, adaptability is often a necessity rather than a choice. Leaders may alter their behaviors and strategies to navigate the complex landscape of organizational politics, market conditions, and internal team dynamics. This flexibility, while sometimes perceived negatively, can be a strategic advantage, echoing survival traits found in nature.
