Rivalry is not uncommon to us as human beings. We tend to experience it at some point of our lives if not throughout our entire lives. We have seen rivalries between political leaders, corporate executives and even siblings. However, rivalry can be seen differently in different situations. Some rivalries are good while some are bad. How do we decide then, one may ask?
Let’s take a scenario to put this issue under a microscope. There is one coveted post within an organization and this post is being eyed by two individuals. The first individual’s strategy to increase his chances is by highlighting his competitor’s weaknesses and even to the extent of spreading malicious lies to attack his reputation. By doing so he will be able to gain an upper hand by projecting himself to be stronger in comparison. The second individual’s strategy however is to observe his competitor’s moves and actions to identify his weaknesses and what makes him ticks. Upon identifying these characteristics, rather than magnifying them, he trains and improves himself in order to be much more competent in comparison.
Both individuals no doubt exude different types of strategies to achieve their objectives. For the first individual, his strategy can be seen in many psychological warfare whereby the main objective is to undermine your opponent and destroy his standing in the public view. This strategy is quite malicious in nature but undeniably it does work. Once your opponent’s reputation has been destroyed, one can move over him easily. However, he will always be labeled as a conniving and scheming individual. For the second individual, his strategy is more towards self improvement and empowering himself with extra skills or talents to overshadow his opponent. This individual is shrewd and to some extent can be considered honorable for he takes the fight to his opponent face to face.
The next question is which of these rivalries considered good or constructive? Before we answer this let’s put the whole situation into perspective. Imagine what if either one of them fail to get the coveted post. The first individual will have nothing to boast about other than his conniving ways while the second individual would have enhanced his competitiveness with added skills and experience to fight for future opportunities. Guess the answer is plain to see now.
Let’s take a scenario to put this issue under a microscope. There is one coveted post within an organization and this post is being eyed by two individuals. The first individual’s strategy to increase his chances is by highlighting his competitor’s weaknesses and even to the extent of spreading malicious lies to attack his reputation. By doing so he will be able to gain an upper hand by projecting himself to be stronger in comparison. The second individual’s strategy however is to observe his competitor’s moves and actions to identify his weaknesses and what makes him ticks. Upon identifying these characteristics, rather than magnifying them, he trains and improves himself in order to be much more competent in comparison.
Both individuals no doubt exude different types of strategies to achieve their objectives. For the first individual, his strategy can be seen in many psychological warfare whereby the main objective is to undermine your opponent and destroy his standing in the public view. This strategy is quite malicious in nature but undeniably it does work. Once your opponent’s reputation has been destroyed, one can move over him easily. However, he will always be labeled as a conniving and scheming individual. For the second individual, his strategy is more towards self improvement and empowering himself with extra skills or talents to overshadow his opponent. This individual is shrewd and to some extent can be considered honorable for he takes the fight to his opponent face to face.
The next question is which of these rivalries considered good or constructive? Before we answer this let’s put the whole situation into perspective. Imagine what if either one of them fail to get the coveted post. The first individual will have nothing to boast about other than his conniving ways while the second individual would have enhanced his competitiveness with added skills and experience to fight for future opportunities. Guess the answer is plain to see now.
