Unstable Need But Stable Change, What Corporate Must Learn
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
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 th e 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 Chateliers 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.
Conditionin
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.
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
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 th e 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 Chateliers 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.
Conditionin
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.
Source...