Two-part — How competitiveness affects individuals and whether it is positive

The wish to outdo others is so widely admired that parents praise it in children and employers list it in job advertisements. Its effects on the individual are, however, double-edged, and I would call it a positive trait only when it is directed at a standard and not at other people.

Competitiveness shapes both what people achieve and how they feel. On the one hand, it is a powerful source of effort: a student determined to top the class revises more thoroughly, and a sales assistant who wants to beat a colleague's figures goes the extra mile. Rivals also act as a measuring stick, pushing people to raise their own game. On the other hand, those who measure their worth by rank are never secure, because there is always someone ahead. They are more likely to suffer anxiety and a fear of failure, to avoid tasks at which they might lose, and to treat classmates or colleagues as threats instead of allies, which leaves them isolated.

Whether the growing emphasis on competitiveness is a good or bad trend depends on what people compete for. When the goal is mastery, and rivals merely set the pace, competition is healthy; two runners who train together often record better times than either would alone, and remain friends. It turns destructive when winning becomes an end in itself and rewards go to a single victor. In education systems where one examination decides a young person's future, pupils sacrifice sleep and friendships, and some resort to cheating. A win-at-all-costs mentality produces exhausted winners and humiliated losers. I therefore think the trait is beneficial on balance, but only in environments that reward improvement as well as victory.

In conclusion, a competitive nature makes individuals more driven and more capable, but also more anxious and less trusting. I regard it as a positive quality overall, provided people compete against a standard rather than against each other.