In both business and politics, there exists a phenomenon often described as the “big-fish-eat-small-fish” syndrome, where larger players, equipped with more resources and influence, attract and absorb the talent or support of smaller entities. This practice, commonly referred to as poaching, is not merely a question of legal or business maneuvering. It is a test of personal integrity, trust, and the cohesion of society.
In the corporate world, larger companies frequently lure skilled employees from smaller firms by offering higher salaries, enhanced benefits, and accelerated career opportunities. While such recruitment may sometimes remain within legal boundaries, it often damages smaller companies that have invested much time and resources in developing their workforce. Even when legal, this practice undermines professional trust, generates resentment, and destabilizes the broader industry ecosystem. Individuals, despite the appeal of immediate incentives, must balance considerations of loyalty, ethics, and personal integrity against short-term gains.
Politics exhibits a similar pattern. In Nagaland, for example, influential political figures and parties have routinely poached leaders from smaller parties, consolidating power and leaving opposition groups weakened or entirely absent. These actions have contributed to the emergence of “oppositionless” governments, which, although politically convenient, raise questions about the health and accountability of democratic processes. Poaching in politics, much like in business, often exists in a gray area. Even when not strictly illegal, it is ethically questionable and erodes trust, damages personal integrity, and diminishes the spirit of fair competition.
The effects of poaching extend beyond individual or institutional relationships. Socially, it breeds suspicion and undermines communal harmony, particularly in closely-knit communities such as Mokokchung or the wider Naga society. Economically, it hampers innovation and growth in smaller organizations, concentrating talent and resources in a limited number of dominant players. Spiritually and morally, it corrodes values of loyalty, reciprocity, and mutual respect, which form the bedrock of healthy societies.
Legal mechanisms exist to address extreme cases. In politics, anti-defection laws, and in business, non-compete agreements, non-solicitation clauses, and laws protecting trade secrets can provide redress when poaching crosses into illegality. Yet relying solely on legal measures is insufficient. Individuals guided by integrity and conscience are less likely to compromise ethical standards for temporary advantage.
Ultimately, the “big-fish-eat-small-fish” syndrome demonstrates that success achieved by compromising loyalty or ethical principles is fragile. Individuals who uphold their values, honor trust, and act with integrity shape not only their personal character but also the harmony and well-being of the communities they belong to. Observing these principles is not simply a matter of legality or professional advantage. It is a moral responsibility that defines who we are and determines the strength and stability of the society in which we live.
