The problem with competition

Competition is often heralded as the engine of innovation and progress. Companies and individuals alike are driven to excel, vying for market share, top positions, and accolades. However, in my experience, relentlessly pursuing a competitive edge can create a toxic work environment, heighten stress, and narrow the focus on individual success rather than collective well-being.

Inspired by “The Courage to Be Disliked”

A couple of years back, I read “The Courage to Be Disliked,” a book rooted in Adlerian psychology, and I did so at just the opportune time when I was becoming more and more frustrated by those around me. A growing number of other business leaders are also shifting from competitive behaviour to encouraging positive contribution. The book argues that real success and happiness come from contributing to the greater good rather than constantly outshining others.

All this being said, Alfred Adler, the namesake behind Adlerian psychology, is not without issue. Bluntly, Adler was a homophobic, sexist wank. The folks who continued his psychological theses, however, like Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga, are much more ethical and sensical. So, what did I take away from them that’s helped me since?

My personal operating framework

  1. Contribute by default
  2. Communicate transparently, early, and often
  3. Collaborate and coordinate
  4. Do not attack
  5. Practice gratitude

By default, I commit myself to contributing to whatever I have the competence and capacity to contribute to. This means I do not need to be asked, and I don’t need to see someone else doing things before I try to do my own best.

I try to communicate early, often, and as transparently as possible. I don’t want to surprise my teams. I’m autistic, and part of how that shows up is a justice sensitivity that makes it hard for me not to speak my mind, to begin with. This clear communication bleeds into positive collaboration and coordination efforts as well.

When I get frustrated with folks who show negative aspects of competitive behaviours or disrespect me in any way, for that matter, I try not to attack them. In other words, I aim to take the high road as much as possible. If this means I practice that age-old rule of “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all,” staring at folks awkwardly instead, then so be it. But I need to collect myself and give them feedback as often as I can later on. I’d rather be perceived as awkward than disrespectful or loose-tempered. Embracing contribution over competition and my own personal operating framework presented here is not a means to become a pushover. Contribution does not mean blind alignment and agreement; in fact, it means ensuring positive conflict is occurring. There must be a high degree of transparency, but it’s tempered so that I don’t allow myself to become a jerk.

I practice gratitude internally and externally. That means I take a moment to try and process what I am grateful for each day and share that with others. I want the people who are having a positive impact on my day-to-day life to know why. I also want to reinforce positive behaviour in others.

Embracing positive contribution

Embracing positive contribution means building a culture that puts collaboration and mutual support first, without giving up the drive for excellence. That balance can bring a lot of benefits, and you still keep the innovation and accountability that competition encourages.

  1. Competition spurs innovation, and collaboration makes it better. Bringing different perspectives together helps keep ideas practical and inclusive, which makes innovation easier to sustain.
  2. Clearly define accountabilities: Before we can embrace positive contribution on a broader scale, we must first define what everyone is primarily accountable for. If folks don’t know the direction in which they should most immediately be contributing, they can easily step on each other’s toes. It can also lead to a lot of wasted effort. Everyone should be clear on what they are accountable for and why.
  3. Positive contribution changes what accountability looks like on a collaborative team. People are still responsible for their own contributions, with more focus on how that work helps the team and the organization. In a product organization, this is when we see the team triad or pod working format achieve positive outcomes and engaged teams.
  4. A culture that values positive contribution can drive high performance, because people help each other do excellent work instead of competing with each other. That shared drive can be stronger than individual competition.
  5. High performers often thrive in environments where they can collaborate and be part of something larger than themselves. Where their colleagues don’t feel combative and antagonistic. A culture of positive contribution helps attract and keep top talent looking for meaningful work and shared success.
  6. Collaborative innovation and quick responses to market changes help companies hold a strong market position. Positive contribution builds an organization that can adapt and do well in competitive markets.
  7. Focusing on positive contribution doesn’t mean settling for mediocrity. It encourages continuous improvement and shared accountability, so teams meet and exceed high standards through teamwork and shared goals. Again, this cannot occur if accountabilities are not clearly defined, understood, and executed first and foremost.

Sustainable financial performance

All fuzzy, touch-feely mumbo jumbo without mention of effects on revenue, right? Alright, let’s touch on that.

Organizations that balance competition with collaboration often see more sustainable financial growth through better team cohesion, engagement, relationships, and more (Kennect). When collaboration, communication, and coordination outweigh internal competition, companies can improve individual employee performance, bring teams closer with more alignment and teamwork, avoid siloing (Hypercontext), keep innovating, adapt quickly, and hold strong market positions. These teams also learn from each other more readily, sharing information and their different perspectives instead of hoarding and protecting what they know (Atlassian) (IdeaScale).

According to a McKinsey & Company study that could turn many salespeople on their heads, a technology company saw substantial revenue growth by finding the high-performing collaborative behaviours in its sales teams and replicating them. Collaboration, not competition. They linked major revenue contributions to collaboration, which helped the company optimize its sales strategy and boost revenue significantly. That included recognizing hidden contributors whose collaboration was essential to cross-selling and closing deals (McKinsey & Company).

Another McKinsey study pointed to good team collaboration simplifying workflows and cutting inefficiencies, which led to significant cost savings. A petrochemical company built collaborative networks that produced substantial productivity gains. One 60-person network alone saved $5 million by solving complex problems quickly through shared expertise and best practices (McKinsey & Company).

When spoken about in this way, it seems like a no-brainer, yet so many organizations I’ve encountered or coached over the years tend to intentionally or accidentally pit individuals and teams against each other or lack the support they need to enable individuals to contribute meaningfully or empower them to collaborate together effectively.

Practical steps to implement positive contribution

  1. Redefine success metrics: Move from individual performance metrics to team-based goals and outcomes. Recognize and reward collaboration and shared achievements. Make these as cross-functional as possible. This goes double for product organizations, product organizations will often see more success when aligning their cross-functional teams against a long-term outcome to pursue rather than an individual product to become territorial over.
  2. Define accountability: A lot of organizations feel like they’ve defined their roles and responsibilities. However, a large part of where this falls apart is that team members don’t know each other’s accountability areas properly and often overstep or proactively try to help. Therefore, these must be defined not just individually but among teams. Make sure everyone knows who is responsible and accountable for what. This must be communicated as bluntly and clearly as possible. Then, it must be confirmed within teams that they understand their own accountabilities and each other.
  3. Encourage open communication: Build an environment where employees feel comfortable sharing ideas and feedback. Encourage active listening and make sure every voice is heard and valued. My own personal research has shown that anonymous feedback channels, no matter the level of trust an organization has, will almost always provide much more honest feedback and communication. Successful organizations try to provide as many avenues for clear communication as possible.
  4. Build a growth mindset: Support continuous learning and development. Give employees chances to learn new skills and knowledge, and make it clear that personal and professional growth matters.
  5. Bake shared contribution into rituals: Regularly occurring rituals like stand-ups should alternate facilitators to help team members build confidence, get into the flow of communication, and quicken rapport building with the team. The team itself should invite failure and encourage each other.
  6. Ask and invite: Instead of jumping to conclusions and giving direction, ask colleagues and employees thought-provoking questions to stimulate their thinking and build confidence. Invite people to speak, calling them in instead of jumping to do so yourself.
  7. Provide space: Sometimes, our natural instinct is to instantly jump in with an answer or solution. This does nothing to help the junior folks on our teams grow. We must literally take pause and build space into rituals and collaborative spaces for others to contribute.
  8. Provide a why, not a what and how: The more you dictate to teams with a command and control mindset and approach the more they will wait for your lead instead of taking one themselves. Instead, give them a clear why, without telling them an explicit what, or how to get there. In practice, this means clear, measurable outcomes to reach for, but not defining the tangible outputs you’d like to see as a means to get there.
  9. Lead by example: Leaders set the tone for a culture of positive contribution. They should model collaborative behaviour, show empathy, and genuinely care about their teams’ well-being.
  10. Celebrate collective success: Regularly recognize and celebrate what the team achieves together. Point out how individual contributions helped reach shared goals, so people can see what collaboration does.

Finding the balance

Moving from a purely competitive mindset to one that values positive contribution can transform your business. A culture that balances competition with collaboration is better for employee well-being, innovation, and sustainable growth. This balanced approach, inspired by “The Courage to Be Disliked,” is strategic, and it also makes for a more fulfilling and successful workplace for everyone.

If we keep the intention behind our competitive drive and add the principles of positive contribution, our businesses can build an inclusive culture that values both individual and team excellence. But, then, if you’ve worked with me, you already know I think we should enable and empower teams to learn, grow, and succeed together.