Competition is often framed as the engine of success, pushing individuals to work harder, innovate faster, and outperform their peers. While healthy competition fosters progress, the modern workplace has evolved into a hyper-competitive battleground where the focus is no longer on self-improvement but on outdoing others.
This relentless race, fueled by societal pressure and the influence of platforms like LinkedIn, creates an environment where people compete for the sake of competing rather than generating meaningful value.
When competition is no longer a means to self-betterment but an end in itself, it ceases to be productive and instead breeds a culture of performative success, burnout, and diminished innovation.
A World of Excessive and Over-Competition
One of the most striking examples of excessive competition is China’s notorious 996 work culture — a schedule that demands employees work from 9 AM to 9 PM, six days a week. Initially framed as a commitment to excellence in highly competitive industries like tech and finance, 996 quickly devolved into an exploitative norm where overworking became glorified despite its destructive consequences.
More extreme variants, such as the “007” culture (on call 24/7), further erode work-life balance, resulting in widespread burnout, reduced creativity, and declining mental health.
This hyper-competitive mindset is also evident in the job market. Young professionals are pressured to accumulate internships, certifications, leadership roles, and side projects just to stay ahead. While experience is valuable, the anxiety of being left behind often outweighs the actual benefits of professional growth. Instead of fostering true skill development, this culture rewards those who best navigate arbitrary expectations rather than those with genuine talent or passion.
Professional networks like LinkedIn amplify this phenomenon, turning success into a public performance. Seeing peers constantly announce achievements fuels a “kiasu” (fear of losing out) mentality, compelling individuals to participate in this competitive race even when it misaligns with their values. As a result, over-competition breeds disillusionment and exhaustion rather than meaningful professional development.
Rethinking Competition: Zero-Sum vs. Positive-Sum Thinking
At its core, competition can be structured in two ways. One, zero-sum competition, where one person’s gain is another’s loss (e.g., the fierce battle for limited prime real estate in Malaysia, where only a few can afford prime locations, driving prices up and making it inaccessible to others). Two, positive-sum competition, where competition creates new opportunities, skills, and solutions that benefit more people.
But is zero-sum always bad? Not necessarily.
In some cases, like competitive sports or limited university placements, especially through government channels, competition is unavoidable and even pushes people to improve. The problem arises when industries adopt a zero-sum mindset in areas where collaboration could lead to better outcomes for all.
Instead of treating every opportunity as a fight for scarce resources, we should explore ways to expand the pie — whether through innovation, policy changes, or more inclusive business models.
A Better Model?
Rather than relying on cutthroat competition, industries that embrace structured collaboration often drive long-term innovation and sustainability.
A notable example is the open-source software movement, particularly the development of Linux. Unlike proprietary software companies locked in zero-sum battles, tech giants like IBM, Google, and Intel actively contribute to Linux because they recognize that a shared technological foundation benefits the entire industry. By collaborating on core infrastructure while maintaining competitive advantages in their own products, these companies have driven advancements in cloud computing, cybersecurity, and enterprise IT.
This model demonstrates that success does not require outcompeting others at all costs — structured cooperation can generate mutual benefits, enhance industry-wide progress, and create meaningful value beyond performative success.
Concluding Remarks
While competition can drive excellence, over-competition — especially when fueled by external validation rather than intrinsic motivation — leads to burnout, stagnation, a loss of genuine value creation, and some even experience imposter syndrome. The modern workforce, influenced by social media and hyper-visible professional culture, risks falling into an endless cycle of performative success.
By shifting the focus from winning to contributing, from accumulating to mastering, and from rivalry to collaboration, we can cultivate a more meaningful and sustainable approach to work.
True success isn’t about being the best in a never-ending race — it is about creating lasting impact in a way that aligns with one’s values and aspirations.
Only when competition is structured to drive meaningful outcomes rather than mindless one-upmanship can it truly serve as a force for progress, rather than an illusion of it.
