Some workplace environments are extremely competitive—you must perform better than others to reach a higher stage.
However, under such competitive interests, some people love sharing with others, while some only think about themselves and how to improve. Most often, when starting from a self-centered perspective, people ignore others' feelings, and such ignorance is often a form of harm.
How so? Some people are smart but love to take shortcuts, approaching things with a quick-fix mentality. These people usually move fast and are easily noticed. Indeed, this is a way of working, and it's very suitable for environments where you don't need to be extremely serious—just need to say something, anything. However, over time, a relatively superficial attitude and mindset is easily exposed, and it's not a long-term strategy.
Conversely, some people choose to work quietly and diligently, investing considerable effort in the same matter, with their own insights from shallow to deep. Even if they move slowly, they may be able to go the distance. They may not stand out, but for many, they represent a reassuring and stable presence.
When these two types of people must collaborate on the same matter, the smart ones often "do whatever it takes" to extract the true understanding from the other party. They may lie, pretend, or use the "I don't know, I'm not sure, no comment" approach like Chunghwa Telecom, seemingly earnestly seeking knowledge, while actually sucking the other person's blood to absorb into themselves, making others believe they're not only smart but also conscientious. This is what I call "ignoring others' feelings and causing harm." Such harm doesn't just damage emotions between colleagues; it also erodes the trust that departments and personnel have worked hard to build.
In terms of opportunity cost, such harm is extremely unwise.
First, smart people choosing to protect themselves and harm others for their own interests may not be absolutely wrong. The only thing people find reprehensible is the "dishonest" behavior.
Here, I use talent as an analogy for goods. Using the "lemon market" theory of information asymmetry, sellers in the market possess more information about their products than buyers do—in other words, sellers conceal information from the public.
Under such extreme circumstances, the market (enterprise) will stagnate or even regress—this is the adverse selection effect in information economics. Under such effects, good products are often eliminated, while inferior goods gradually dominate the market and replace quality products, resulting in a market full of inferior goods.
Take the used car market as an example. Sellers possess more information than buyers, creating an asymmetry in perception between the two parties. Therefore, buyers won't trust sellers, no matter how eloquently they speak. The buyer's only option is to lower the price to avoid risk losses from information asymmetry. The buyer's low price also discourages sellers from offering quality products, resulting in the market being flooded with inferior goods while quality products are driven out. Eventually, the market shrinks.
Returning to talent and enterprises, the more people who rely only on petty cleverness in a company, the lower the company's quality becomes and the more it tends toward inferiority. When truly dedicated people go unnoticed, it can easily lead to the company's self-destruction, high turnover rates, or constant employee complaints.
To reduce information asymmetry, communication is the only tool, and honesty is a mechanism for it. After all, conscientious people, once they know the full picture, are not necessarily inclined to conceal information—they may instead genuinely share everything with you. The moment one party doesn't receive complete information, it deepens the "distrust" between them.
Those who choose to harm others first will find it difficult to gain the trust of others. Beware—one day you may fall hard.
After all, in the workplace you don't necessarily need friends, but you definitely don't need enemies.
