In our previous exploration, we examined how workplace competition affects the individual—emotionally, psychologically, and physically. We found that while rivalry may sometimes spark bursts of energy or ambition, its long-term effects are often corrosive, fostering anxiety, distrust, and burnout.
Yet the question remains: what happens when this same competitive ethos becomes embedded in the very structure of an organization? Can a company truly prosper when its employees, departments, and even executives are constantly pitted against one another in an endless struggle for dominance?
In this sequel, we shift our focus from the personal to the systemic. We will explore how competition reshapes organizational culture, why it threatens rather than strengthens efficiency and creativity, and how companies can restore balance by fostering cooperation, shared purpose, and mutual respect. Just as a healthy body thrives on harmony among its organs, so too does a thriving organization depend on unity—not rivalry—among its members.
Beyond Competition — Rediscovering Humanity at Work
From the above arguments, it becomes clear that our conclusions about competition in the workplace must rest on a sound intellectual and moral foundation. Just as a building’s strength depends on the firmness of its foundation, so too does any theory or social philosophy depend on the validity of its premises. If the foundation of competition—drawn from the theory of evolution and its attendant principle of the “survival of the fittest”—is flawed, then the entire notion that competition benefits the human worker collapses under its own weight.
The concept of competition, as we know it today and as cited at the outset of this article series, is deeply rooted in Charles Darwin’s evolutionary model and Herbert Spencer’s social interpretation of it, which popularized the expression “survival of the fittest.” Within this worldview, progress is achieved through struggle, where only the strongest prevail. As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins affirmed in The Selfish Gene (1976), “Anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish.” This assertion has often been taken to mean that self-interest is not only natural but necessary to human advancement.
Yet, such reasoning fails to grasp the higher faculties that make humanity distinct from the animal world. Selfishness, unlike instinct, is not an inevitability—it is a choice. And unlike the crabs that, driven by instinct, pull one another down in their desperate attempt to escape a pot, humans possess the moral and intellectual capacity to choose cooperation over conflict, altruism over aggression.
Indeed, as Dawkins himself later concedes in the same book, “It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism.” This admission—coming from one of the most famous defenders of evolutionary logic—underscores a critical truth: that humanity’s defining trait is not selfishness, but selflessness.
The Science of Altruism
Modern research increasingly supports this view. Numerous studies have demonstrated that altruism—the act of helping others without expecting anything in return—benefits not only society but also the individual giver. Dr. Stephen G. Post, in his comprehensive review of over fifty studies on altruism, happiness, and health, concluded that “being altruistic and extending help to others are associated with greater longevity, an improved sense of well-being, and better physical and mental health, including a reduction in depression.” (Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2005).
Similarly, neuroscientists at the University of Zurich discovered that when people engage in generous acts, regions of the brain associated with happiness and reward—specifically the ventral striatum—are activated. This neurobiological evidence suggests that altruism is not contrary to human nature but intrinsic to it. It nourishes both the giver and the receiver, fostering emotional balance, social harmony, and long-term psychological health.
African moral philosophy echoes this truth: You can’t exist as a human being in isolation. True humanity, therefore, is found in interdependence and compassion, not in rivalry. That worldview exposes the fallacy of the competitive paradigm by asserting that success built on others’ failure is not true success at all—it is moral poverty disguised as achievement.
The Failure of the Evolutionary Premise
If the premise of competition is that humans are naturally selfish, then its practical outworking—greed, envy, and exploitation—is to be expected. But history and psychology both show that this is not the essence of humankind. The Stanford Center on Longevity (2020) found that cooperation, trust, and empathy—not rivalry—are the traits that enabled human societies to survive and flourish.
This means that the theory of evolution used as a justification for selfishness, is not only scientifically incomplete but ethically corrosive. It degrades man to the level of instinct-driven animals while denying the moral and intellectual faculties that define his humanity. As Ghanaian ethicist Dr. Mercy Amba Oduyoye notes, “A society that rewards competition over compassion loses its moral compass and fractures its soul.”
Workplace Implications
Translating this to the workplace, competition—born from the illusion of “survival of the fittest”—breeds insecurity, envy, and fear. It isolates employees, replacing collaboration with rivalry and purpose with paranoia. On the other hand, organizations that foster cooperation and shared purpose create environments where creativity flourishes. The World Economic Forum (2023) observes that “psychological safety and collective purpose, not competition, are the key drivers of innovation and resilience in high-performing organizations.”
In workplaces where collaboration replaces rivalry, employees feel freer to share ideas, take risks, and support one another’s growth. This culture of openness, grounded in moral trust, not only enhances productivity but also humanizes the organization. It restores the worker from a “crab in a pot” to a co-creator in a community of purpose.
Final Reflection
If, then, humanity’s true essence is altruism—not selfishness—then competition as a guiding workplace principle cannot be truly beneficial. The evidence—philosophical, psychological, and biological—suggests that cooperation, empathy, and shared purpose yield far greater returns for individuals and institutions alike.
Therefore, the challenge before modern leaders and employees is not how to outdo one another but how to uplift one another. The question is not who can win, but how all can flourish. The call of this generation is clear: to replace competition with compassion, rivalry with relationship, and the survival of the fittest with the thriving of the kindest.
As the African proverb wisely teaches: “If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.” And that, perhaps, is the truest verdict on competition at the workplace—and in life.
When the Body Competes Against Itself
In the previous articles in the series, we examined how workplace competition affects the individual—psychologically, emotionally, and even physically. We saw that while competition can sometimes motivate short-term effort, it often erodes self-worth, trust, and overall well-being. But what about its impact on the organization itself? Can a company truly thrive when its members are pitted against one another in a constant contest for recognition, promotion, or reward?
Many business leaders and corporate strategists still believe that competition among employees is the key to productivity and innovation. They argue that by keeping workers “on their toes,” internal rivalry drives them to outperform peers, resulting in higher output and creativity. This belief has become deeply ingrained in the DNA of many modern organizations—fueling everything from individual performance rankings to sales contests and departmental rivalries. Yet beneath this façade of motivation lies a dangerous contradiction: the very same forces that are meant to drive success may, in fact, be undermining it.
An organization, by definition, is a system—a living organism composed of many interdependent parts. Just as the human body functions only when its organs work in harmony, a company thrives when its people and departments cooperate seamlessly. The heart cannot compete with the lungs, nor can the brain wage war against the liver; each has its unique function, but all serve a common purpose: life. If one organ malfunctions, the whole organism suffers. And if they were ever to compete, the result would be catastrophic—self-destruction from within.
Imagine, for instance, that your eyes decided to compete with your legs. Your eyes might perceive a destination worth reaching, but your legs, in a fit of rivalry, refuse to move—arguing that the eyes always “get the credit” for seeing first. The outcome? Paralysis. Similarly, when employees or departments within an organization begin to see each other not as partners but as competitors, progress grinds to a halt. Innovation slows, communication breaks down, and the organization, like a diseased body, begins to weaken from internal conflict.
In the next article in the series we turn our attention to this deeper systemic issue: how workplace competition affects organizational health. We will explore whether internal rivalry truly enhances productivity and innovation—or whether collaboration, mutual trust, and shared purpose offer a more sustainable foundation for success.
Please let’s interact: 1 (914) 259-0242
The author is a dynamic entrepreneur and the Founder and Group CEO of Groupe Soleil Vision, made up of Soleil Consults (US), LLC, NubianBiz.com and Soleil Publications. He has an extensive background In Strategy, Management, Entrepreneurship, Premium Audit Advisory, And Web Consulting. With professional experiences spanning both Ghana and the United States, Jules has developed a reputation as a thought leader in fields such as corporate governance, leadership, e-commerce, and customer service. His publications explore a variety of topics, including economics, information technology, marketing and branding, making him a prominent voice in discussions on development and business innovation across Africa. Through NubianBiz.com, he actively champions intra-African trade and technology-driven growth to empower SMEs across the continent?.
The post The Business Strategy Analyst with Jules Nartey-Tokoli: The ethics of competition (II): A philosophical inquiry into human motivation and workplace culture appeared first on The Business & Financial Times.
Read Full Story
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Instagram
Google+
YouTube
LinkedIn
RSS