I stopped believing in competition — here’s why.
During our very firsts conversations on why Design Thinking was key to economic growth in businesses the word “competition” surfaced. However, this conversation led to a series of reflections on why I believe competition is not useful at a personal or professional level.
I understand the concept is convenient to many, we find competition in grand gestures and small interactions: from comparing ourselves to our neighbour to the core of the Olympic Games. It is an integral part of our nature as human beings, however we have come a long way. The social web that knits our every day rhythms is no longer solely made of the animal impulses of our amygdala, like competition for survival. Saying competition rules us could be argued is as deluded as saying men cannot control their emotions or women are purely interested in reproduction.
I managed to pinpoint the usefulness of competition in two parts:
- Competition provides motivation
- Competition provides a standard of quality
Motivation
Pros —Competition as a fuel for change
Competition is seen as a fuel for motivation. It alludes to our sense of self and social identity in an extremely simple way.
If someone is better than me on something that defines me as a person, this is a direct attack to my sense of self. In order to protect it, I must retaliate. I will hence, compete with you.
Following this mental process we could dwell into ancient social notions that have driven competition — such as honour. Competition is energy to make a change, to right a wrong. If you are one of those that says competition is “never personal”, I would have to agree. It’s never about the “other” you are competing, it is always about you.
Cons — Competition as a toxic fuel
Competition is based on comparison. Comparison is largely based on whatever your “reference group” is. It is unlikely you will engage in financial competition with the Queen of England (or fashion competition at that, Lizzie is looking particularly dashing these days), but you are much more likely to do so with a sibling or friend.
In Richard Layard’s book “Happiness” social comparison is selected as one of the causes of stagnated social happiness since the 50s.
From purely personal experience I understand comparison an unfair way to reduce a person, situation or even business’ entire experiences and values into a single and isolated form of measurement.
Simple math: everything must be put into context. No context is the same since no two people experience it in the same way.
I do however believe that competition is always about you. Self-development, breaking personal limitations, finding new challenges… all of these are motivational reasons to be competing with yourself. Competition is a natural part of human nature, but we can use it for our own advantage instead of our mental deterioration. I don’t wish to alienate those around me with a sense of “otherness”. I think I can use this urge as a way to bring myself closer to myself.
A standard of quality
Pros — Inspiration vs Cons — Glass ceiling?
Innovation means sitting on the shoulders of giants. Quality standards have changed throughout history, building on top of each other. You can’t pull the thread of innovation without acknowledging that competition has driven and constantly redefined the quality standard of sport, economy and even personal relationships. These can be eye opening and a great source of inspiration.
However in the spirit of using competition as a source of self-development instead of comparison one must ask — why use someone else’s standard of themselves as a reference point? Isn’t that equally unfair as comparison? Can it not even stunt our growth and our originality?
My old philosophy teacher used to say:
If I ask you to reach level 5, you will only give me till level 3. For you to reach level 10, I need to ask you to reach level 1000.
The same can be applied for businesses or sportsmen. Why would you try to replicate Apple’s success? It is bound by political and economical circumstances, the small events of thousands of lives leading to a series of structures that fit within it’s time. Furthermore, using play theory and assumption techniques to solve the issue of competition:
If you knew with 100% certainty you could make a business better than Apple, what would the first thing that you would do be?
All in all, quality standards are a reference point and because of this, they can sometimes be glass ceilings.
To conclude
I will add this thought process to my personal belief system:
To use competition as a way of self-development and breaking quality glass ceilings instead of a toxic fuel of comparison.
