Most corporate bosses would always try to evolve different strategies and equations to deal different people and balance the equilibrium of the corporate ecosystem. All they know is only to balance and maintain the equilibrium. But the big question is whether these leaders have clearly understood the true definition and the consequence of the term ‘equilibrium’?
The true definition of the term equilibrium is nothing but the state of balance where neither one receives anything from others nor would offers anything to others. People and objects are always tries to attain ‘inert’ state in order to not to get influenced or influence others and that is only called ‘state of equilibrium’.
Now the question is whether the efforts to corporate leaders to create equilibrium state will ever help the growth of the organization. Learning and gaining knowledge of people come both from sharing of ones knowledge to others and also from others experiences.
The concept of ‘equilibrium’ will never support diversity and evolution. In simple sense, leaders never want the restlessness, rebellions, talents, expectations etc., of people to be visible and all of them must behave in uniform manner. Only when people question the state of equilibrium, newness would emerge.
The corporate can easily differentiate great and average leaders by looking at what type of people they prefer and promote in the organization. If the leader prefer very meek, subdued, less talented people and look for loyalty over talent and capability, such people are really average leaders. If the organization is run by such average leaders, they are likely to cause only frustrations, fear, anger and fight among people. Average leaders always demand people to give importance to them. Due to above confusion caused by them, they always work hard to achieve the state of ‘equilibrium’.
On the other hand, great leaders always look for quality, content and capability than just ‘loyalty’. They never bother about achieving equilibrium state and instead they try to avoid conflicts at work place. They welcome imbalances so that different people will explore their different and diverse talents. Such dispensation would greatly help the learning process of people, group discussions and team spirit. Such leaders give importance to ‘great ideas’, ‘knowledge’, and ‘innovations’ than own self importance and identity.
Unfortunately, many owners of small organizations play game of chess with own people. They use own people instead of doing great work to the organization use them to team up against others. Such leaders always complain about their own employees, express dissatisfaction over them and are bit disgruntled.
Remember, if you are running after ‘equilibrium’ it is tyranny you are going to create. Nature has created cybernetic approach without affecting diversity, evolution, newness and success. Support diversity and not a stable ‘physical or chemical’ state of people in corporate. Biology indeed needs challenges and adversity than uniformity. The tool to manage conflicts, leaders should never employ the concept of equilibrium.
Dr S Ranganathan
ClinRise Derma Pvt., Ltd., Chennai
Desire, Dream and Destination – Social Entrepreneur Forum