Merely avoiding competition is not enough. What’s needed is active pursuit of win-win solutions and outcomes to achieve a positive-sum society.
Singapore’s hypercompetitive society underpinned by zero-sum thinking (your gain is necessarily my loss) cannot be overcome by the government, or policies. A quick recall of our nation’s short history already shows that opportunities have diversified and expanded tremendously.
However, as the nation progresses and pathways proliferate, mindsets appear to be narrowing when we fixate on increasingly targeted aspirations as our definitions of success and joy. Much of this is due to the structures in place that have rewarded certain pathways more than others.
At the July 2 dialogue for young people which the Institute of Policy Studies co-organised with student group Varsity Voices and Singapore Management University, a key issue raised by the students to Prime Minister Lawrence Wong was their concern about the competitive systems in Singapore.
Pledges that the Government has made under the “multiple pathways of success” pillar in the Forward SG social compact are important signals for societal change. While we look to policies and incentive frameworks to change, what else do we do collectively to shift away from these negative-sum mindsets?
This will take more than unseeing our peers as competitors, and will require that we actively seek and pursue win-win opportunities that result in multiplicative outcomes.
Changing the game entirely, and not just the way of playing
Policy changes have so far altered only how the game or competition is played. What is needed, however, is more radical change in the game itself — how it should be played, what a “win” is, and how the win is rewarded. This takes changes in structures as well as changes in the behaviour and mindsets of the players.
Take for example, the PSLE scoring system that took effect in 2021 introduced scoring bands to better recognise a student’s different levels of abilities in each subject. The effect, however, was that students and parents were still stressed and anxious, but in a slightly different way as the focus had switched to achieving the highest level for each subject.
While students were no longer marked on a bell curve — which encouraged them to pit themselves against one another — meaningful and long-lasting changes to our culture cannot be achieved just by removing these mechanisms. Without changes in mindset, we will find students and parents competing on other fronts, such as in co-curricular activities, to gain that competitive edge over their peers.
At workplaces, we have review practices that inherently pit colleagues against one another as well. Those who demonstrate themselves to be “better” than their peers are rewarded with bonuses and promotions. Even if an entire team had performed well, quotas in place might allow only a small group to receive the highest rewards, hence forcing distinctions between members to be sharpened. It is not hard to understand how the mentality of “your gain is my loss” is thus embedded in us.
These examples show the reality of the world we live in. There are systems which compare us all and many of these are necessary constructs in a society that is deeply founded on merit as the primary measure of deservedness (in securing jobs or receiving acclaim).
However, there is a need to recognise the negative implications of hyper-competitive tendencies and behaviours that are not only detrimental to self but the whole. For example, if one’s excellent appraisal had been achieved through an intensely stressful year of constantly ensuring his work is better than that of his peers, it is important to recognise the intangible costs. These may include the impact on team morale, his own mental health and family life.
What it takes to shift our inclinations and mindsets
One could say it is the base and natural tendencies of individuals to act in pursuit of self interest. If the entire team were always rewarded equally, some might argue that the motivation to strive is lost.
If so, appealing to these self interests might be what it takes to overcome destructive competition. Moral suasion will not for example, be able to convince an anxious parent to not sign their child up for additional enrichment classes as part of the effort to resist the tuition culture in Singapore.
People need to be willing to step out of these mindsets to enable them to see the detriment of a zero-sum game as well as the multiplicative effects of pooled efforts. In other words, we need to appreciate the benefits to ourselves when we cooperate with others instead of competing with one another.
More than cooperation for mutual benefit, a more powerful incentive is to be able to create that culture of seeking win-win opportunities that result in multiplicative rewards, such that 1+1>2.
Pooling risks for shared rewards
Examples of these multiplicative returns of pooled risks and efforts could be seen in policy shifts from the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Minimum Sum Scheme to CPF LIFE. Under the former approach, members could withdraw only what they had contributed with the addition of interest earned on their own accumulated savings. Whilst consistent with the principle of self-reliance, this led to the prospect of members outliving their savings.
CPF Life, however, is a longevity insurance mechanism which provides our older Singaporeans with monthly payouts no matter how long they live, and is enabled only by pooling together every member’s savings in the scheme, regardless of how long they think they will live and hence be able to benefit. This is a far better collective outcome compared to individual members having to manage their finances by themselves for all their post-retirement lifetime.
The whole being greater than the sum of its parts
Returning to the example of our education system, unlocking the potentials and multiplicative effects of working together can take the form of peer-to-peer learning. When a child struggles with a subject, the immediate response of most parents might be to squeeze in more tuition. It requires no elaboration to explain how this contributes to competition and stress not just for the child’s peers but also other parents.
For parents and teachers, creating a win-win solution might be initiating and encouraging peer-to-peer teaching and learning amongst the students. The weaker student will not be benefiting at the expense of the strong. Instead, it has been well-documented how such collaboration leads to stronger grasp and more well-rounded understanding of the subject matter.
In the workplace, team leaders and employers also have much agency in promoting collaborative cultures that lead to multiplicative rewards for the whole enterprise. This might mean shifting incentives away from just looking at individual outputs, but also recognise less tangible aspects such as efforts to promote cooperative efforts which lead to enhanced collective performance and outcomes.
For example, initiatives taken by one department to organise sessions to share best practices and learning points with other departments should be encouraged and recognised whether tangible returns from such sessions can be easily pinned down. Supporting and rewarding these practices can minimise the risks for the knowledge-sharers, who are taking the first steps in sharing experiences to generate more ideas and learning beyond their own team.
It might take more time for multiplicative rewards and benefits of such practices to become clear. What might be more immediately apparent is how one’s contributions to the whole is not necessarily at the expense of self, but that gains might accrue to all. These are small but necessary positive steps to encourage individuals to dismantle zero-sum or negative-sum mindsets towards building a win-win society for everybody.
Christopher Gee is deputy director and senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, National University of Singapore. Yap Jia Hui is research assistant at the same institute.
Top photo from Freepik.