Is doing evil a necessity of life?

Post Reply New Topic

Nope. The fact of multiple applicants does not mean anyone at all is competing, and I would never work for an employer who viewed things that way or even asked me why she or he should choose me over anyone else. I do realize you and/or anyone else has a right to perceive things that way, but I do not embrace the idea of this being some kind of dog-eat-dog world where only the "bullies", as I happen to perceive them, survive. At one job I had, I was specifically asked whether I would be troubled by certain employees who actually do believe they must prove their alleged superiority over others and I was hired because I essentially said "Oh no, I never compete!" You can spin even that into some kind of alleged "competition", if you wish, but I never could have lived my own life in that kind of way.

Thanks for this.

Regards
DL

You are welcome, and I recently found it interesting that some companies are now changing the ways they interview and hire so there is no sense of "competition" and they (the companies) are no longer mis-led such as when people misrepresent themselves in their résumés to try to "win" a given position. Instead, the companies bring people in for a couple of days and pay them to work side-by-side with other candidates on real-life projects to see their actual abilities and whether or not they are truly team players rather than disruptively viewing co-applicants and others around them as competitors.

I see that as just another form of competition as the companies select, hire or fire depending on how good the fit of the new employee is.

"truly team players rather than disruptively viewing co-applicants"

Those who do not measure up are fired and the competition continues.

Regards
DL

I staunchly defend your right to perceive things that way, but that does not change the facts: The companies have never asked anyone to compete and they specifically select otherwise-qualified people who do not.

Then they would be less fit as an employee, but if you think that a company would hire non-aggressive personnel to compete against aggressive companies you are sadly mistaken.

There is competition for almost all jobs.

Regards
DL

Not true. The companies are looking for team players and specifically avoiding people who would compete with co-workers.


Same as above: Not true. Even if a company was specifically looking for one or more people to work within a given department expected to "compete against aggressive companies", they would still be looking for team players and specifically avoiding people who would compete with co-workers.


Only in the minds of people who believe they must beat other people down or whatever in order to get one...and yes, I do realize many people today believe that kind of thing.

You did as well when you competed.

As to internal cooperation within a company, sure some are hired because they are team players but that team is competing against the team of some other company and if they are not up to it, the company will have a competition to replace that team.

In the world of business, if you are not growing, then you are shrinking as compared to other more aggressive companies and will go extinct/bankrupt is short order if you do not compete as a company even harder, since you cannot continue to hemorrhage market share.

Regards
DL

Intentionally or otherwise, you are failing to distinguish apples from oranges. I once drove someone else down while pursuing the attention of a woman, but I have never competed for a job.


Nonsense. To do that, the company would first have to abandon its policy/practice of no internal competition.


Again: Nonsense. That certainly does *seem* to happen to many companies such as Mom-n-Pops being crushed by the likes of WalMart or whatever, but they were pushed out by bullies, not shrinking...and now the mere presence of online businesses -- no aggression required -- seems to be having the same kind of effect on WalMart.

As an aside: I recall one place I used to work where teamwork was said to be the company policy and practice. The company was a major player in its market and had no competition to be concerned about. The owners were some people who had worked hard to build a very-successful company, but their success had gone to their heads and they had become quite prideful and arrogant. Hence, they had weekly meetings where divisional heads could present various types of expansion or budget requests...but most of that was only so the owners could enjoy watching those department heads try to out-pitch one another like beggars at the kitchen door.

It is nice that you have never competed for a job or resources.

It is very nice that you have found some sugar daddy companies who did not seem to care if they were not hiring the most competent person for those jobs and did not open competitions for them.

What else can I say. Thanks for this chat.

Regards
DL

Why must you spin BS like that?! Trying to trash me and now even the companies I have worked for might seem to do something for you, but trying to win a competition that does not even exist here in this thread cannot possibly lead to any kind of loss other than your own.

Competing people who try to do their work better than others can be very toxic on the work floor and leave a very negative experience for his co-workers. Companies don't want to hire competing people but people who are cooperative and work to the best of their abilities. Competing doesn't make you more competent then someone else( although it gives motivation boost). Perfecting your craft by spending time a heck a lot of time on it does. And you will need different sources of motivation instead of being competitive or you won't make it in the long run.

True that cooperation is the best way to survive, but without competition, we would go extinct just as a company would that does not respond to competitive forces.

If a company seeks the best employees, which they obviously do, then they will make them compete for their jobs the way most other companies do.

Internal cooperation is good but if you ignore the competition against other companies, bankruptcy is the result.

Regards
DL

I highly doubt "most other companies" do that, and there is simply no need for that at all. All companies are free to do that, of course, but never once have I ever heard of that being any company's strategy and practice for finding the most-qualified employees. I surely do understand many job-seekers might view the overall process as "competitive", so to speak, simply because there might be many applicants trying for one of only a few positions, but that does not mean it is the *natural* order for people to have to compete in order to eat. At most, that is merely situational or circumstantial.

You see poorly.

Have you not read on how hard it is for the disabled to find work.
Why do you think that is if not that most companies are not hiring those who cannot win at competitions?

If it was a more blind selection, as you say and think, then the disabled would not get so few jobs, from a statistical POV.

Regards
DL

What competitions? When and/or where have the companies ever asked the disabled or anyone else to prove themselves more worthy or competent than anyone else? It is sad that some companies might (or actually do) take the easy path and select non-disabled people, but the plight of the disabled in the world of employment is circumstantial or situational rather than because natural order forces them to "compete in order to eat".