Most jobs present themselves as success games when in reality they are status games. The difference between these two types creates the majority of frustration that we experience with our profession. Find out if you're playing the right game.
Hunter Powers: Welcome to the ONE. I'm your host, Hunter Powers, broadcasting live from our nation's capital, D.C. proper, Washington, D.C. Today's ONE idea will take a look at status versus success. I have a theory, and that theory is that most jobs present themselves as success games when in reality they are status games. And that the difference between these two game types creates the majority of frustration that we experience with our profession, and that by identifying these differences we can identify the best strategy to get what we want.
Hunter Powers: So before we dive into that, I just want to peel back a little bit in case you're not following 100%. So we are talking about game theory. Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics where you analyze and optimize the actions that people, or agents, as we often refer to them, take to accomplish a goal. Oftentimes they are trying to maximize that goal. So in a profession it might be to maximize salary. That's probably the most basic. There are definitely other things that someone could be maximizing in their profession, but for this example we are focusing on working at a job for a company.
Hunter Powers: Now there are a couple of different types of games in game theory. One is called a zero-sum game. A zero-sum game is a game where in order for there to be winners, there must also be losers. Everyone can't win and everyone can't lose. Most games in our society are zero-sum games. Positions at work are zero-sum. Everyone can't be the CEO. There can only be one. Politics is zero-sum. Everyone can't be president. There can only be one president. There can only be one governor. There can only be one mayor. And maybe there's more than one position available, but there aren't infinite. Everyone can't have the position. It is a zero-sum game.
Hunter Powers: Another type of game is a positive-sum game. In a positive-sum game everyone can have a positive victory. Everyone is able to accomplish the task at hand. An example of a positive-sum game might be laughter. A comedian gets up and performs a set for a group of people. In order for the comedian to be successful at getting laughter, some people don't have to cry and some people laugh. Everyone can laugh. Everyone can have a positive reward for the comedian. It is a positive-sum game. And in fact most business is a positive-sum game. In order for a business to be successful, another business doesn't have to fail. Multiple businesses can succeed at the same time. They are positive-sum games.
Hunter Powers: Now status versus success. Status is a zero-sum game. Status is the position at a job, the CEO, the CTO, the manager, the head of the team. There cannot be infinite of these positions. Everyone cannot have the position. Someone has to be the low person on the totem pole and someone has to be the high person on the totem pole. However, jobs present themselves as success games. The company wants success. The company wants to be successful in the market. And there's an idea that everyone should work towards and contribute towards that success, that if you can find that success for the company, you can find success at the company. But success at the company is status. Assuming an optimization for salary, in general, the CEO is making the largest salary, and the intern is making the smallest salary. And so if the intern wants to optimize for the highest salary, they have to play the status game, and they have to figure out the route to go from where they are today to the position of CEO.
Hunter Powers: But this is not what the company would say. The company would say that the goal is success, to contribute positively to the projects that you're on, to help out others, to help everyone come together and achieve the success that the company indeed needs to thrive. However, the structure that the company has set up is a company of status, is a structure of status, where the reward is a higher status. And if the goal is purely status and not success, then the strategy that one might employ could be wildly different.
Hunter Powers: Now, there's certainly a correlation between status and success. Find a lot of success and you'll inevitably have more status, and with a lot of status, success is easier. But the difference, the difference between a positive-sum game and a zero-sum game, is that in the zero-sum game there must be losers. So if your goal is to achieve status, to win the game of work, then there must also be a loser. And so your contribution to success, if optimized for a game of status, should minimize the positive impact on others, because if they win, you can't.
Hunter Powers: Now this is a very frustrating revelation, because most people want to play a positive-sum game. They want to play a success game. But then they get frustrated when their success is not rewarded, because the game that they're playing is zero-sum status game. And if they realize this and focus just on the status game, then there's something wildly unrewarding about pursuing status in the absence of success. And so success must be barely an aside from the main focus of the job, or of the game. You have to meter it, because if you spread too much success, you will find your status is in jeopardy.
Hunter Powers: Now the company is playing a success game. The company doesn't care about its status. It cares about how much revenue can it bring in. And it can be a positive-sum. It can win while other companies can win, even in the same sector. In general, there's enough room, there's absolutely exceptions, but in general there's enough room. So the company is playing a success game, and yet the structure that they have underneath them is a status game. And what the company has to do is figure out how to leverage a status game for greater success. And I think often what they do is try to mask the fact that it's a status game. Perhaps they try to keep the structure flatter. Perhaps they try to consider incentives that would counter status. But I haven't seen a really good example of a company that completes this promise.
Hunter Powers: And so if you find frustration in your position, ask yourself is it a status game or is it a success game, and what is it you're trying to achieve? Because if the reward only comes from status, and you're focused on success, then it's a much longer path to see that reward. And maybe you're okay with it, maybe that's fine, but if it's not, at least you have some understanding of why that may be.
Hunter Powers: Now an interesting aside is the self-employed. We've been talking about working at a normal job for a normal-ish company so far, but let's consider the scenario of self-employed. I would suggest that self-employed is the exact opposite of working at the corporation. It presents itself as a status game but is actually a success game. But remember, working for a normal job presents itself as a success game, but is actually a status game, where working for yourself presents itself as a status game, but is actually a success game.
Hunter Powers: But what does that mean? The thing that I hear most often when people go to work for themselves is, "I want to be my own boss. I want to be the CEO. I want to be the one who calls the shots." And by the way, why do they want to be that? Probably because they've been at another company for so long playing the status game. They want to win the status game. They figured out that it's zero-sum, and so they're trying to hack their way towards status, and they'll break off on their own and do the thing that they're passionate about, but they're still pursuing the status game. And running the business is not a status game. It's a success game. There is a theoretical unlimited potential for success, and the strategies that you employ to achieve that success can be very different than the strategies you employ for status. And given your hack of starting your own company, you've achieved the status.
Hunter Powers: So what's next? Preserving the status probably, but that's the wrong thing. What you should be focused on is success. And because there's a theoretical unlimited amount of success, you just need to get started. You just need to start moving forward. You just need to get your initial seed of an idea, get to the top of a large mountain, and start it rolling down, so it can gain some momentum, grab a footing, and bring you unlimited rewards. And that is status versus success.
Hunter Powers: Hopefully that was interesting. You might completely disagree with this, but at least it's an interesting premise to consider. Which game are you playing? Status or success? Which game does your company reward the most? Status or success? If you wanted to engineer a solution that would just reward one over the other, how would you do it? And do you think that there are scenarios where it's better to reward status and where it's better to reward success? Can every game be a positive-sum game? In every game should everyone be able to win if they achieve a certain level? Or, in some things, do there always have to be winners and losers?
Hunter Powers: Well, I can tell you one thing. You're a winner for listening to this show. and that was your ONE idea for today. I am Hunter Powers, broadcasting live from our nation's capital, or as we say in the city, D.C. proper. And until next time...