The theory of "Survival of the fittest" applies in the corporate culture as well. Needless to emphasize, corporates are created as profit-earning entities, where stakeholders expect management to show results. Naturally, corporates treat the welfare and comfort of employees as a secondary issue compared to results. So, bosses in corporate culture are also expected by top bosses to be the fittest persons to prove themselves as better designed for the immediate local environment. The fittest in the corporate culture is he who is capable of showing results by getting results from his team members.
History of "Survival of the Fittest"
The history of the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" goes back to the year 1864. The phrase originated from an evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of "natural selection." The phrase was coined by Herbert Spencer, an English Philosopher. Although he coined the phrase after reading Charles Darwin's world-renowned theory "The Origin of Species," Charles Darwin himself preferred to introduce the phrase in the fifth edition of "The Origin of Species," published in 1869, intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment."
So, bosses, per force, have to prove as "better designed for an immediate, local environment." Similarly, employees working under him are also expected to prove themselves to be "better designed for an immediate, local environment."
On the Saying: "People Don't Leave the Company, They Leave Bosses"
Regarding the saying, "People don't leave the company, they leave bosses," any sincere, result-oriented, and knowledgeable person doesn't feel the need to leave his boss or the company unless he needs to satisfy his own personal issues. In fact, what I believe, the phrase, "People don't leave the company, they leave bosses," is coined by a negative, theoretical-minded author having no practical experience. Some authors fill their books with junk material, as most authors, having a flair for writing and a craze for earning money out of the ignorance of readers, coin such phrases just to make their theory books voluminous. Theory and practice can prove to be the reverse sides and contradictory to each other in the concept of management and leadership.
My own practical experience in encountering such authors has proven that such authors do nothing except fill the papers with hypothetical vague ideas in several cases just with the sole aim of being known to the readers. I remember challenging one of the world's top gurus in management on some of his vague ideas published through the journal of "Harvard Business Review" of the world-famous University of Harvard. But, by virtue of his right to moderate the comments, instead of proving my concept wrong against his own idea, he preferred not to let my views be published with the fear that he was going to be proved wrong, affecting his reputation as one of the world gurus in management. After seeing no response in the HBR for about a week, when I reminded Harvard University along with my more derogatory comments on the ideas published in the article and questioned the university that when the University itself was allowing to profess wrong management ideas, what results could be expected from University's management students after they pass their exams. When I insisted the University to publish my latest comments, including my observation about the university, as a face-saving measure, the editor of the journal came forward with the plea that my views could not be published earlier as the same appeared in their spam mail, and so they had retrieved the same and published my previous comments. The question arises, how could the views expressed on a blog site of the University appear in their spam mail?
Sometimes, theoretical authors invent such vague ideas and phrases. Some members have endorsed the view that in about 80% of cases, people leave only due to the toughness of managers/bosses. But the question arises, where is such a survey to prove that 80% of people leave companies only due to bad managers?
Of course, in some cases, people leave due to bad behavior or toughness of their bosses, but it is wrong to suggest that 80% of people leave due to the said reason.
Reasons for Attrition
My experience says, the biggest reason for attrition is the lack of motivation for the career development of employees or their expectations for comforts and ease of doing the job in the organization.
BUT MY BELIEF IS, ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS CAPABLE OF TAKING HINTS OF THE BOSS FOR DOING THE JOB AND STARTS GIVING RESULTS AS PER THE ASPIRATIONS OF THE MANAGEMENT, HE GETS A STRONG HOLD IN THE SAME EMPLOYMENT AND ALSO CREATES AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HIS CAREER DEVELOPMENT IN THE SAME EMPLOYMENT IN THE SAME ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT SWITCHING OVER TO SOME OTHER JOB. Some of them go to the level of MD or Chairman of the organization by dint of their loyalty, sincerity, and hard work in the organization.
So, I do not at all contribute to the said theory of "People don't leave the company, they leave bosses." The question arises, why not become the fittest in all respects so that the boss starts respecting you and works in the interest of the employee?
Kind Regards,
PD