By Caroline M. Cole

You’ve made it. Maybe you were accepted into your top-tier school, possibly you just landed your dream position, perhaps you survived the company’s latest reorganization, or maybe you were recently promoted. Basking in the moment, you feel excited, and relieved.

In retrospect, the path to this point was clear. Not necessarily easy, mind you, but the choices leading to this moment—at least in hindsight—seem more obvious today than they did when you stood on the precipice of each decision: you enrolled in the right institutions, programs, and courses; you joined the right groups; you aligned yourself with the right people; you took on or declined the right projects; you worked hard; you made sacrifices; and today you’re finding that all of these efforts have paid off. You’ve bested others and made it to the next level. But as you look around, taking in and enjoying the scenery of your new situation, you begin to notice those who likewise have succeeded in making it to this environment.

They are the crème de la crème, the ones who have proven themselves worthy in any number of forums against any number of challenges and opponents. Yet no matter how proud you may feel to be alongside them in this elite cohort, you begin to notice the ways they (and now you) are sussing out one other, for in addition to being your newest classmates, peers, or colleagues, they are now the latest competition.

Like the “tributes” in Suzanne Collin’s science fiction novel The Hunger Games, many people in such circumstances will begin to strategize on how to survive what they believe is a high-stakes, zero-sum game in a landscape of increasingly skilled competitors. The question, then, becomes “How can someone stand out among the best and the brightest?”

To answer this question, we might consider the ways children used to be divvied up into teams on playgrounds and in gym classes across the country. Before the self-esteem movement, children engaging in team-oriented sports would select captains, who alternated in selecting individual players to serve on their respective teams. Those deemed the stronger players were often picked first, while weaker players were generally picked last or, in some cases, assigned to a team with an acquiescent “you can have them.”

For good or ill, it was a system that validated and rewarded prowess on the field. Overall dominance in the particular sport usually trumped everything. Players who were capable of doing several things well—someone, say, with the ability to hit, run, catch, and throw in a game of softball—were usually selected regardless of their likability. Thereafter came players who might have demonstrated skill in a particular area; for instance, someone who was able to pitch could fill a valuable role in light of others being added to the team roster.

Friendship or other alliance may have played a part, usually when there were two comparable players vying to be chosen next, but such loyalty was often secondary, especially in contexts where the stakes of a game’s outcome were high. After all, captains were responsible for selecting people who were considered competent and capable of victory. Consequently, captains sought players who would step up, do their part (and whatever else was necessary), and help win the game; having team members who actually liked each other was merely a bonus.

Having been disparaged by parents, teachers, and playground monitors alike, this system is less common nowadays in education, but traces of it remain in industry—especially in forums that delineate winners and losers by the types of projects, positions, bonuses, and other incentives employees receive. Therefore, we might consider the lessons that emerge from this system of picking individuals for a winning team.

The most obvious lesson may be for people to be the best at what they do, ensuring they can, as the motto for the television show Survivor advocates, “outwit, outplay and outlast” the others. People should work to excel in their respective forums, especially considering that contexts which encourage friendly competition can generate mutually rewarding experiences for all participants; novice performers can learn and strengthen fundamentals, while advanced performers gain opportunities to hone their abilities.

Even so, forums that encourage relentless “king-of-the-hill” competitions—whereby firmly entrenched pecking orders can be disrupted only by toppling or even ousting those on the summit—can generate problems. For example, as employees become increasingly suspicious of others’ actions and motives, these forums can breed cultures of distrust and isolation. These environments also encourage employees to become more proficient at gaming systems for personal advantage, rather than company benefit. Continually rewarding “alpha” personalities likewise validates some behaviors that may be counter-productive in organizations, particularly if those organizations begin losing so-called “beta” personalities in the process.

In light of these advantages and disadvantages, we might turn our attention to another, more compelling lesson that emerges from earlier systems of choosing up sides: Be of value to others.

Whether they are captains choosing up sides on a playground, employers looking to hire staff members, a President looking to appoint cabinet members, or even world leaders on the verge of war, people want to surround themselves with those they think will help them succeed. And while competence is often a precursor to being able to help others accomplish their goals, competence alone is insufficient if people are unwilling to apply their talents in service of others.

Consider, for example, the work of Adam Grant, professor of management at Wharton. Though many in the field examine ways to become more productive, more efficient, and more financially stable, Grant advocates prosocial motivation; that is, finding ways to clear paths and help others move forward as the way to succeed and excel in our own work.

Classifying people as givers, takers, and matchers, Grant uses a range of studies to show how “givers” bestow more favors. Assuming those favors align with their own values, givers contribute to others’ well-being and success by solving problems, assisting with tasks, volunteering to do less popular or less glamorous work, sharing information, mentoring, offering to make connections, and so on—without expecting anything in return.

In addition to finding that givers demonstrate the highest levels of productivity with fewer mistakes, Grant shows how givers who can recognize “takers” (those who are willing to take advantage of others’ generosity) and adjust their assistance to become more like that of “matchers” (those who adopt a more quid pro quo approach in granting favors) are able to avoid burn out and achieve higher levels of success themselves. The reasons have to do with a giver’s ability to generate deeper relationships, broader networks, greater loyalty and trust, and more opportunities—elements that are the foundation of personal and professional advancement.

Recognizing the existence and components of zero-sum games that motivate numerous forums in which we operate, we can shift the variables in play by actively helping others achieve their goals even as we advance our own principles, values, and ideals. To guide this effort, we might ask the following questions in the professional and personal contexts in which we move:

• How can I contribute? Companies are finding that employees increasingly view their job as a series of unique, discrete responsibilities. Focused on completing work as quickly as possible, employees seek the fastest way to finish each task until they have finished all of the work they were assigned to complete. Viewing their work as “done,” these employees may remain unwilling or simply oblivious to ask what else needs attention. Unfortunately, most organizations have more needs and demands than people to meet them.

In The Charge, Brendon Burchard explains that, at our core, we are driven to contribute and, in doing so, we find ways to matter. Therefore, by looking around to identify places we could apply our talents, volunteer our time, offer our assistance, and be of use, we begin to identify ways we can be of service and value to others. As importantly, by making the contributions that only we can make, we enhance the meaning and purpose of our own lives.

• How can I approach this task in ways that would benefit others? Employees who aim to complete tasks as quickly as possible may be less attentive to how or if their results ultimately serve others, for such assessments generally demand more time. If, however, we were to consider how our contributions to a particular project, service, report, presentation, e-mail, conversation, and so on could help others move closer to achieving their goals or succeed, we can find a greater value in and inspiration for the work that we do.

• Is there anything else I can do to help? Answering the previous questions in a service-oriented manner would typically generate results that meet or exceed “sufficient.” Yet asking if there is anything more we could do reinforces our support of and commitment to one another, thereby promoting a more congenial climate for all participants.

These questions might prompt the skeptic within us to be cautious lest we become one of the givers whom Grant says takers are willing to exploit. Grant recognizes such dilemmas and even describes situations when people (knowingly or otherwise) seem to take advantage of his generosity; nevertheless, he argues that efficient, pro-social giving reaps professional benefits, for generosity begets generosity—and often in unexpected and significant ways.

By using our unique talents to help others succeed, we contribute to a culture that promotes greater success for all of its members. Along the way, we may even discover that it is this behavior that distinguishes us from those who adopt conventional dog-eat-dog models, for when people look to fill their team rosters, more often than not they will want individuals who are not only competent, but those who are likewise able to encourage productivity, innovation, and generosity in others. Helping others thus becomes one of the best ways to stand out.

Working toward Areté…
Commit to doing something that brings value to someone else today. What will it be? Record your thoughts in the space below.