Is it ethical to outperform your peers?

Post Reply New Topic

People get hurt if you outperform them, yet you grow up your whole life having people tell you to do your best. Is it really wrong to outperform your peers? If you do, are you breaking a sort of unspoken social code?

If by outperforming you mean doing your assigned task to the best of your ability, do it. If your peers cannot reach the standard or surpass it, then it is their failing as a human being and not your own. If they are inferior to you, you should give them no quarter, pity, or mercy.

What are the consequences of outperforming others? "Showing them up," as the NT's say. Is there a special understanding between people not to rise higher than them if you are part of a social network? And if so, how does one deal with people feeling threatened by that and their resultant behaviors? How can they keep their jobs, for example, when people do not want to compete with them and want them out and start manipulating the social network to that end? How do they make friends?

What made me think about this was the famous aspie Einstein's words: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from medicore minds." I remember reading somewhere that his peers treated him poorly and were very threatened by him. Is there, in fact, an implied social contract between him and his peers that Einstein broke and did his peers punish him for breaking that contract, compelling him to write that famous quote?

I'm absolutely certain a lot of aspies on this board can relate to Einstein and I'm curious about how they deal with the situation.

The issue at hand here though is not the fact that one should give their best to an employer but how other view it.

A great read on this subject would be the chapters on Lee Iacocca's Biography, especially the chapters where he discusses his first moves at Chrysler and why he did it.

In the "real" world, the purpose is for everyone to move up. Unfortunately, there are people who have moved into jobs where their skill set does not match the job, either up/down (worker to manager) or sideways (engineer to accountant). The person however does not want to give up the job because they need the money or the power that the job brings in. They therefore do their best even though their best is really medicore because they are aquiring the skills set they need.

The last thing a person in this position wants is either a co-worker or underling who does know what they are doing. That is because this accentuates the failings of the person who does not belong there. The person threatened therefore will take action to get rid of the person who is outperforming them and bring in people whose skill set are similar.

This continues usually until the company/department fails in a spectacular way and is cleaned up (usually by a turn around CEO or government).

I know this is not how things should work in the perfect world but this is how they work in the real world.

This is exactly the kind of post I was hoping for! I will read the biography. So, it is good to move up, but doing so also requires perception management. For me, perception management is entirely out-of-my reach. So, in those cases (rare as they may be) where I out-do a peer, I'll follow the advice in the biography. Anyone else have any tips?

Uhhh,

The biography does not give out advice, simply insight into why it occurs.

Sometimes it is not worth rocking the boat. (Usually, I ask, 'What boat?' but I am using an expression)

DARN!

This seems to be what most people do. I know a lot of brilliant people who know how to "work the system" and "stay below the radar". People that could make the companies they work for very rich. There is one person I know in particular who is amazingly smart and able to think outside the box. But is he in charge? Hell no; the guy who assertively stays uninvolved and takes no action is in charge. Luckily, this guy is so socially smart that he is able to get his message across to us on how to do things better without getting rocking aforementioned boat.

The oligarchies aren't interested in getting richer, it seems, just keeping what they have. They often wind up losing it because they didn't grow.

I don't feel comfortable in answering that poll, because I believe it misses one central point: "Outpeforming your peers" will most likely be seen as a euphemism for competition. Yes; It is positive to gain on your skills and do the best that you can do in any situation. In the corporate world, however, doing the best that you can is a myth. Companies don't want that; They want automatons that do exactly as they are told, and nothing else. This is true for nearly 80% of the population.

Competition drives the business culture. Internally, corporations don't want people making attempts to outperform their peers. Externally, corporations continuously try to outperform one another. Internally, the structures of corporations are structured such that there is a dictator running it from the top down. Though this is a horrible structure, no matter how it's viewed, I am somewhat surprised, to some degree, that many aspies don't fit in to this model. We have a strict adherence to rules and rigid routines, and we have a tendency to do whatever we are told and work hard, so I assume it is our social aspects that get us into more problems that we want. I believe, however, there may be another factor at work here.

Competition creates unwanted changes, at times dramatically and usually abruptly. Technology is a consistently competitive industry, changing continuously with each passing year. It is probably one of the most competitive industries out there, and because of our generally above-average skills with numbers and data, many of us tend to be attracted to this very industry. But, any industry is competitive. Also, companies don't like competition. They hate it. They want to monopolize resources. That is how Microsoft gained success. That is the goal for any large corporation.

Does it have to be this way? Well, I think that may depend on where some people live and what offerings are available to them, but I believe that there are alternative resources out there that may attract us. For example, progressive institutions, such as cooperatives, have an entirely different structure that is by far more tolerant and a lot less competitive. Organizations that offer self-employment, such as LiveOps, might also be another route for many of us.

With all this said, I believe that overall "outperforming your peers" is primarily unethical. Doing the best that you can at a given task is not "outperforming someone else." You're outperforming yourself, trying to do better than what you have done in previous times. This is what might be called positive, or personal, competition. Intentionally trying to compete with someone else is not just unethical, but also arrogant and will not lead to a calm and enjoyable workplace if everyone started doing it.

-- Ray M --

These are just my work ethics:

• I like to be on the floor 15 minutes before my shift starts. Just enough time to have a quick coffee, suit-up, and pick up my instructions. If something happens on the way to work there is time to make that call to let them know I could be late, and attend to whatever reason there is for the tardiness.

• I'm just out to put in a good day's work, and that the work I do is satisfactory to the employer's expectations.

• When I get "suspicious" about what I'm putting out, I do a Quality Control test and take whatever measures necessary (adjust / repair the equipment, etc) to see that it all be done prim and proper.

• I don't let myself get too close on the personal level with my colleagues. Although I've organized picnics and outings with them, I did so to get the feel of what they're all about as people and to "map out" their tendencies, whatever their nature, and to read them out and have an idea of what they could (and would) be like when I'm on the floor with them.

• Personality conflicts are part of reality in any workplace. There, we are like a family in some ways. You choose your friends, you choose your enemies, but you don't choose your family. It's not everybody that has the same values, virtues, and idea about integrity. In the workplace, you just have to live with these other peoples' personality flaws. OTOH, YOU also have traits that drive them nuts

• YOU DO NOT CALL ME AT WORK unless the house is on fire or there is an emergency in the family or other very extreme situation.

• If despite all these steps you've taken there is still too much conflict to continue to work there and keep your sanity and well-being, and that no solution could be resolved either through your superiors and/or your colleagues, then you might have to make a decision.

Good luck in your occupations, all of you

Aeturnus, I like your response because it makes me think. Not an easy question to answer, is it? I believe you are saying that it is ethical to outperform another person only if the environment you are doing it in is non-competetive. Since corporations are competitive environments, it is unethical to outperform your peers in those environments. Cooperatives may be less competitive, but are there places where there is no competition? Humans have an animal aspect to them and they are always in competition with each other.

Now, what do you do if you can't bring yourself down to the level of your peers? Is it unethical to continue working there? What if you are working in a region where you can't help outperform? A country? Should you move, or should you find a career where you are mediocre?

Is mediocrity ethical? What I'm hearing is that, if you are a stalk of wheat growing taller than the rest, that you should cut your own head off. From what I've observed in the present and in history, this is hardly a new idea.

I try to work just as hard as I possibly can. If that means that I end up doing more than my share because the coworker is being lazy or slow, so be it. In my mind, doing anything less is ripping off my empoyer and demonstrating poor work ethic.

Does your employer objectively measure this work you do, or do they measure you based on subjective measures, like what people say about you? If subjective, then isn't it suicidal to work hard?

Well, he's constantly watching us (closely, too), so I assume it's based more on what we actually do. It doesn't really matter to me, though. I'd work hard either way. I abhor standing around aimlessly, it makes the time drag!

I agree; I'm the same way. But, forget the anecdotal; if a manager does not quantify your work objectively, is it suicide to outdo your peers?