Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolutionary theory has often been attributed as the progenitor of the popular notion of - “survival of the fittest”. This is often misconstrued as survival of the strongest or meanest or most aggressive. But what many have come realize is that Darwin actually meant “survival of the most adaptable”. This changes the whole notion that one must always be striving to be the “Alpha” or dominant player in any game. 

We like to think of business and finance as a “game” . Many people treat it as such and therefore play by whatever rules they have been taught or exposed to in their life. I have to point out that this is how we will behave by default, but not how we should behave if we really think about it. If we are to play the “game” by its natural rules, then we would clearly see that the world is complicated, and therefore needs an adaptable approach. 

Some people get ahead by being very aggressive. They feel that they must “win” at every transaction. To them, success means getting everything they want, despite the eventual outcome for their opponent. The reason so many live by this paradigm is that it works some of the time. They win sometimes and lose sometimes depending on who they are doing the transaction with. They believe in survival of the fittest as it used to be defined, and whether they like it or not, they play to win. 

Some people naturally gravitate towards a more cooperative approach. They are seeking a win/win scenario in every transaction and feel that they need to make sure both parties in a deal must walk away happy, with everything they wanted. This is a value for value mindset and is also a very effective approach to business (and life in general). They do this because it is in their nature, and also because it also works some of the time, which justifies the behaviour. 

The key point here is both approaches work “some of the time”. Neither one is the “right” way to do things every time. I am suggesting that we need to be adaptable and skilful enough at life to recognise when we need to be competitive and when we need to be cooperative. This flexibility is ultimately how we can be the most successful. 

Dr. Jordan Peterson has suggested that a fully realized human being has become aware of and nurtured all aspects of themselves, therefore, this person can run the gamut from fully savage beast to fully civilised gentry depending on what the situation calls for. Those who are “nice” because they choose to be vs. those who are “nice” because they are unable or afraid to be “not nice” have a serious advantage, not only in the world of business and finance, but in life in general. 

The disadvantage of being one-dimensionally attuned is that 50% of the time you will be unprepared to deal with your opponent. If you are aggressive when dealing with someone who are naturally cooperative, you will just alienate them and at best, they will refuse to do business with you. Those who are nice and cooperative are likely to get taken advantage of by someone who has the opposite approach. We need to adapt to the situation. We need to nurture and develop both sides of our nature and bring out whatever side is necessary for the situation. 

It is similar to a male-dominated society where male attributes are considered worthy and have value, and female attributes are considered secondary and silly. It is old-fashioned and less than optimal for everyone involved. A truly enlightened society values both male and female traits, contributions and sensibilities, as both are equally necessary to maintain the balance of our collective humanity. 

The problem with business and finance is that is seems to be the last bastion of male oriented thinking. Many still believe that good business only gets done when we approach every transaction from a competitive perspective. When, in fact, more and more business activities are adopting a caring and cooperative framework. 

Keep in mind, I am arguing for a balance between the two approaches. I feel that we need to be able to competently work in both worlds in order to achieve the greatest amount of success. We need to be able to fight to the death or show compassion and sensitivity depending on the situation. This is when we are fully whole as a human being. We all are naturally somewhere on this spectrum by birth and upbringing so it is our duty to work hard at developing the skills to flourish in all situations. 

As our world becomes more civilised and our collective consciousness reaches new levels of awareness and critical thought, we still live in a world of physical danger and animal instinct. We would be doing ourselves a disservice to maintain that we only need to be able to function at one or two layers of abstraction from the physical. We exist at all the layers all the time, so we should be aware of and function in all of them. This will require effort and uncomfortable moments on our part. Being adaptable requires a willingness to appreciate the layers outside of our natural instinctual behaviours. We may be naturally connected with the primal and feel every interaction with others must be done from a position of physical strength and intimidation. Or, we may be very sensitive and creative and feel we can negotiate our way through every situation. Both positions are limited in their ability to be effective because not every situation is the same. We need to be able to read the room and adapt to it accordingly. This is the true path to success. 

When I mention having an appreciation for other layers, this means we need to work very hard at understanding that all layers are valuable, necessary and connected. I have overused the expression that “a hammer thinks everything is a nail” but it applies here. A person who is naturally aggressive and solves problems with force or coercion may have a disdain for softer approaches because they might feel that would make them weak or less than to behave in that manner. 

Inversely, a person who solves problems with negotiation and compassion might feel that violence or domination is uncivilised or morally reprehensible and have an aversion to engaging in such savage behaviour. 

The truth is, we need to be able to do both. The world exists at all the layers and transactions happen at all the layers so we need to appreciate and understand all the layers. This makes for a very real and engaging experience of the world. We are truly present when we can change our gears and become what we need to be to be most effective. This model is very similar to the system of charkas. We all have energy centres that vibrate at several different frequencies, each building upon and dependant upon the other.

This realization that all the layers and approaches to the world are necessary and effective depending on context helps us to appreciate people who are not like us. I have a friend who has always insisted that,

“A thief thinks everyone else is a thief”

“A liar thinks everyone else is a liar” and so forth..

I think this is true to a certain extent. If you are untrustworthy you will tend to not trust anyone else because you will naturally assume they are untrustworthy too. This tendency is a hard one to overcome. It applies to our approach to almost all of our interpersonal transactions. If we feel we need to attack and overwhelm in all of our dealings then we assume everyone else is taking the same approach. If we bulldoze over someone who is naturally sensitive and might prefer a cooperative approach, we have prevented a truly effective and potentially repeatable transaction from happening. We also might assume that they were just less skilled than you at “business” and leave it at that. But this is one dimensional thinking and is a disservice to both parties. This works in the reverse scenario as well. You might not want to take a soft approach with a hard-ass. It probably won’t be mutually beneficial in the end. 

I am not talking about morals here as much as I am suggesting that we might agree that in dealing with other people we want an outcome that is optimal for all concerned. If we can agree on that then we have common ground. I think morals and manners are based on the same principles of an agreed upon set of rules. Even war has “rules of engagement”. We can agree collectively that, to be the most successful we can be, it would make the most sense to be effective in the most number and types of transactions. 

My newest book “We Can Save The World..but there’s no money in it” goes quite in depth about this disparity between cooperation and competition and I explore quite a few alternative ideas to rectify these contrasting and seemingly opposing philosophies. There is room for all of our human natures and we are better off embracing our diversity than creating a narrow path only a few are able to traverse. I hope you would find value in the ideas I put forth in the book and the other articles on this website.