Most people in corporate often yell and complain as they have no/limited choices and hence they have endure lot of problems and suffering. It means, if one has variety of choices, there will be no complaint or grief in life and hence the scope for suffering also shall be less/remote.
Is it true, multiple choices really minimize ones sufferings and problems? Or the multiple choices are the result of certain problems?
Look at the life of bears. Bears are omnivores animals (eat both plants and animals as food). Whereas the lion, tiger etc., are strictly carnivorous (meat eaters) animals and similarly the deer, zebra etc., are strictly herbivorous (plant eaters) animals.
The bear being an omnivorous animal has wide choice of foods viz., plants and animals (deer, fish etc) when compared to herbivore or carnivore. Bear eats, grass, root tubers, hunts deer and other animals and even catches fish etc. Interestingly the bear is the only (?) the ‘big mammal’, that hibernates (winter sleep) during winter. During hibernation, the rate of metabolism, heart beat and other physiological activities slows down significantly. The animal goes to deep slumber for months, continuously. During hibernation, the bear also will not eat, drink or excrete.
On the contrary, the strictly carnivores animals like lion, tiger, cheetah or hyena etc., does not hibernate. So are the herbivorous animals like deer, zebra, hippo or giraffe etc.
The question is why when the bear has such wide choice of food has to suffer the scarcity of food and hibernate? Whereas the obligate carnivore and herbivore do not undergoes such process. Does it mean, the obligate carnivore and herbivore never suffer from scarcity of food? The animals that hibernate or aestivate (summer sleep) are the ones does so only when the food is scarce and condition is extremely bad (too hot or too cold).
The evolution has a different management message to convey to the corporate world. The broad choices always come from scarcity and not from abundance. Further, the broad choices also come only to overcome the weakness/limitation and hence such ability should never be considered as strength by itself.
May be because of the broad choice, the bear, for example would have adapted to live even in the ‘polar region’. Since they employed the omnivorous choice they could easily and successfully live in polar region. When the scarcity of food and adversity (winter) overpower the ‘broad food choice’ (omnivorous) of the bear, perhaps they would have developed another choice – hibernation to the deal such adversity.
The management message to be learned by the corporate people is that never grieve over the limitless choice of someone. Similarly, never feel sad for the fact that you are left with limited/few choices.
Further, never treat that having abundant choices is sign of strength. It may offer strength but such ability is only the outcome of some possible limitations. Work towards your success and never count on the variety of choices either you or other may have. Choice is only a ‘means to success’ and the choice by itself never can make one successful is the message the corporate people have to learn from the omnivorous bear. Not the choice, but what you choose only is important. Let you be hence, wise.