Comparison of life of big in corporate vs. big in plant and animal kingdom

How would be the life of big?  Definitely the definition of the big goes according to the size, strength or the role played in the given ecosystem.  How the evolution has favoured the big in nature and how such favour is different or similar to the life of ‘the big’ people in the corporate?   

In the plant kingdom, the big trees always are privileged to enjoy greater space better than the smaller plants.  The enjoyment also has the limitation as the ‘needs’ of the big trees are very high and hence in most occasions, they suffer some insufficiency.  However, the ‘big trees’ always support the growth and development of many plants, climbers, epiphytes etc.  Besides all, they also generally support food chain. 

Any natural calamity such as wind or lightening strike, the big trees only suffer the most and when the big fall, many small plants also would die.  Interestingly, some small could occupy the space or fill the vacancy, but it also meets the same fate in future.      

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, especially the herbivores are relatively safe from the predator.  The predators prefer to avoid big animals as that may prove sometime disastrous.  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 does goes in corporate.  The ‘big people’ always enjoy extraordinary comfort and salary disproportionate to their work or contribution.  In entrepreneur driven or single man controlled organization, the life of big can go very merry or in a spur of a moment it can also turns out to be a house of fire. 

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’.  Any flaw can occur and are possible only in the execution and it never and cannot happen in planning is the widely accepted logic in most corporate.   Hence the big people are always spared.

Any job retrenchment, job cut, salary cut or witch hunt, always will not affect the big people in most corporate as they are the key designers or engineers of the above process.  

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

The life of ‘big’ in plant kingdom and animal kingdom is very genuine, significant and relevant, whereas the life of the ‘big’ in most corporate is although significant, but is not genuine or value based.