How is competition helpful

In my world, there is a dominant company that is scaling like wild fire. I have an open window into what they're doing, and I can learn what works and what doesn't. I have learned lessons on how to scale the business properly, what materials to use, the use of space, etc.

Using this to my advantage, I have the benefit of picking and choosing what I want to offer, not sacrificing my time and money to do research and development. And while this saves you time and money, the lessons you learn from your competition are priceless as long as you are willing to listen, learn, and implement.

Imitation is the best form of flattery. My team works super hard developing programs for the community at AlleyNYC. The stuff we do is copied everyday. If your competition is copying things that you worked your ass off on, it could be super annoying.

The truth is that it means what you are doing is more than likely working. They are simply learning from you, as you should be learning from them. It goes both ways. Imitation is going to happen, like it or not, so embrace it and pat yourself on the back! Keeping you on your game. A competitive market is what drives capitalism. Better yet: Love the game! Competition drives us to be the best we can be. It takes us out of our comfort zone and forces us to create better products and services.

If you do not continue to make things better, you are not innovating. The failure to innovate leads to obsolescence.

Keep making your product better and better. Stay on your game and be competitive. The best entrepreneurs I know are super competitive. If you are not competitive, you may as well pack your bags and hit the bricks. With all that, he still had a vision of making cloud services simple and easy for everyone.

Our business culture is shifting to a more collaborative lifestyle, which is why spaces like AlleyNYC are extremely popular. If you work in a vacuum, you are missing out. Are you overtraining or under recovering?

Head Girl leading the way. Could your child save themselves? Smart swimming. Dad jumps into swimming lessons. All heart: Exercise after heart surgery.

Scrambled Legs running challenge. Round the Bays: Race Day tips. How To Train Balance — Video. Rio Bound: Tracey Lambrechs. Home Athlete Development. Share on Facebook. Think back to great competitions you had as a kid — where did they take place?

Here are 5 reasons why competition is a good thing for your child: Competition embodies play. Play is perhaps the greatest setting for learning social skills and integration. Competition is exciting. Competition fosters cooperation. Competition develops emotional control. Competition inspires creativity. Here are 5 negative effects to watch out for: Competition harbours hostility and aggression. Competition leads to dropout. Competition triggers injury.

Competition chokes performance. Competition is ego deflating. Great competition is focused. Great competition emphasises the process, not the result. Healthy competition inspires kids to do their best — not just good enough.

When students compete they will become more inquisitive, research independently, and learn to work with others. They will strive to do more than is required. These abilities prepare children for future situations of all kinds. Jennifer Veale, founder and executive director of TrueCompetition.

Competition can be a double-edged sword for kids, promoting positive values under the right conditions but creating negative environments that are demotivating under the wrong ones. Competition can be healthy when it provides feedback to kids about their performance and improvement, when winning is not the sole or primary objective, and when kids get to learn about themselves under challenging situations.

Under these circumstances, competition can teach invaluable lessons our children do not typically learn in the classroom. It is critical that coaches, educators, and parents work to teach kids these valuable lessons from competition. That way, win or lose, our children will learn, grow, and be better prepared for life, which like competition provides highlights, adversity, and continual opportunities to play well with others and treat opponents with dignity and respect. Competition is good for children.

It is quite normal for people to judge themselves against others, thus in that respect competition is quite healthy. In a supportive environment it can teach a child to accept failure without losing self-esteem.

However, it becomes unhealthy when the competitor is forced to compete or feels that they have to compete in order to gain love or status within the family. Competition teaches critical thinking, decision-making and problem solving. Other proponents of competition in North America claim that competition enhances learning, physical fitness and deters juvenile delinquency. It was built over 50 years ago to process oil and gas from the North Sea. There are two businesses on this complex and each one has its issues.

Refining has suffered from a poor business environment in Europe since the crisis and low margins. It also has had poor reliability and high costs. At the heart of the second business on the site, Chemicals, lies the KG cracker which converts North Sea gases into olefins.

In addition, the cost base is much too high. Grangemouth Chemicals and Refining has been unable to address its high fixed cost base which has been crippling the business, because the resident union on site, Unite, would not sit down to discuss the seriousness of the situation.

Pensions are a prime example of the uncompetitive position. This is simply unaffordable. Salaries are double the national average in the UK. Unite threatened to strike 3 times in , in February, in July and in September.

The only scenario for Chemicals that offered a bright future was to supplement the declining North Sea gases with US shale gas, which is both abundant and cheap. Transporting large quantities of gas however requires investment and infrastructure. We asked employees to vote on the Survival plan but sadly the result was a split vote.

After much internal discussion following this disappointing outcome, we had little option but to announce closure of the Chemical assets rather than sustain further losses. Looking back now the outcome was clearly a very positive one for the site. It means that Grangemouth has a future, and potentially a very good and long lived one at that. It is very regrettable however that the process took the path that it did.

It was unnecessary and wasteful. Grangemouth needs to find a constructive way to have a dialogue between employees and management as we do in virtually all of our other sites, whether they are unionised or not. The world is a changing place, business fortunes rise and fall. At times there will be need for change and there needs to be an effective forum to discuss this. I would ask employees at Grangemouth to consider how in the future they would like to be represented in an effective and constructive way, bearing in mind that both employee and employer benefit from a successful future for Grangemouth.

The Grangemouth oil refinery dispute took on a new turn in the autumn. After learning that the petrochemical plant in Falkirk, Scotland, will stay open following a deal struck with Unite, allegations emerged of a campaign of bullying and intimidation echoing the union militancy of the Seventies and Eighties.

A senior manager at INEOS, the company that operates Grangemouth, claimed that the Unite union sent a mob of protesters to his home, leading him to fear for the safety of his wife and two young children. Three months later I visited the Cologne site, similar in size to Grangemouth but far more profitable, where I met the union convenor. His name was Siggi, he stood 6ft 4in tall and was known to represent employees robustly, but fairly. Sad to say, but invariably a chemical complex in Germany is in better condition and is more efficient than an equivalent one in the UK.

And, equally regrettably, the German chemical industry has fared better than its British counterpart, which has experienced a number of closures in the North East and North West.

The constructive dialogue that we encounter in Cologne has been lacking at the Grangemouth petrochemicals plant in Falkirk. However, in my view, they must understand that a business has to be profitable to survive, that the world is always changing, so firms have to adapt to remain competitive, and finally that their role is to safeguard the long-term employment of their members.

On the Grangemouth site this year, Unite threatened a strike three times — in February, July and October. In February, the union demanded a pay rise of 3. We had no option but to accede, as the site was not prepared for a strike and it simply would have been too damaging. Again, a strike would have been too damaging at that time. Unite declared a strike over the investigation of Stevie Deans but, critically and far more damaging, they refused to engage in discussions about the future of the site.

Without change, Grangemouth would certainly fail. The business had been unable to adapt to a world that had moved on and become more efficient and competitive, because the union had kept a stranglehold on the plant.

This level of expense is simply unsustainable in our industry. It is misplaced for unions in Britain to think that we are the enemy. We are not. It is not necessary, nor appropriate, to sow dissent and misrepresent employees or constantly to threaten industrial action.

It also has the hallmarks of bullying. Not only is it wrong but it is also intimidating, and designed to suppress alternative views — an attitude that runs absolutely counter to the values of society today, in which freedom of speech is cherished. During the dispute, a female employee in accounting, who was worried by the union drumbeat, expressed concern about her job and confirmed that the business was in financial difficulty she prepared the figures each month in an email that she put out across the site.

She received rude anonymous phone calls, with the phone being slammed down. It upset many of us that a lady in our company, a mother of three, was unable to express her views and concerns freely.

It played a part, ultimately, in our resolve not to accept a solution for the site that did not bring with it changes on many fronts, but most importantly, in attitude and working practices. The union issues on the Grangemouth site date back to the Seventies. Only three weeks ago, half a dozen friends and I were guided on rocky trails through the high Alps in Italy on mountain bikes. While unions did not play a part in my family life when I was being brought up, my early years were most certainly spent in a working-class community.

My first 10 years were in Failsworth, a northern suburb of Manchester, close to Oldham. I recall being able to count more than mill chimneys from my bedroom window — this is probably how I learnt to count. We lived in a small cul-de-sac called Boston Close, in what I remember as a very pleasant council house.

It still exists today. I do recall my father telling me that when he was younger he had climbed every tree in Miles Platting, a neighbouring suburb where he was brought up. It was only many years later as a teenager that it dawned on me that there were no trees in Miles Platting. It is a far cry from the leafy suburbs of the Home Counties. These communities in Lancashire developed in the late s. Workers migrated from the fields and sought new employment and opportunity in the Industrial Revolution that began in the heart of Lancashire.

Britain invented the concept of manufacturing. I can clearly see in my family tree many of my ancestors moving from the fields of Derbyshire to Manchester. All signed their name with a cross. I undoubtedly have an affinity to manufacturing, as do many from this part of the country. I am a strong advocate for actually making things in a major economy like Britain.

That is not to say I have anything against services. I do not. But I believe that a robust, balanced economy requires a healthy manufacturing sector. We spend a good portion of our income on goods of one sort or another, from washing machines to handbags heaven knows why so many are required , and it is common sense that we are better off making some of these goods than importing them.

Britain has suffered a collapse in its manufacturing base in the past 20 years. A typical economy splits three ways: agriculture, manufacturing and services. Twenty years ago, Britain lagged behind Germany by a small margin, maybe 2 or 3 per cent.

The obvious questions are, why this collapse, and is it important? For me, it certainly is important. An over-dependence on services leads to a fragile economy. Equally important is the geographic divide here. The Midlands and the North are much more heavily biased to manufacturing, and communities have suffered from high unemployment.

London is clearly services-based, and very successful for it. But they are not the only game in town. We should take some lessons from Germany, where they have a strong attachment to their thriving manufacturing base and recognise its key role in a balanced economy. Britain has expensive energy, skills are not at the levels of other countries, pensions are expensive, and unions can be difficult.

Historically, government was not switched on to manufacturing in Britain. In contrast, the USA has excellent skills, most of our sites there are non-unionised, energy is a fraction of the cost in Britain, and they have an enormous market. Germany is simply good at manufacturing — as we used to be. There is no reason that manufacturing should not revive in Britain. The present Government is becoming more attuned to its importance in maintaining a healthy economy. We should never forget that the Brits invented manufacturing.

By contrast, Siggi, the convenor in Germany I mentioned, is in the 21st century. A good union is good for employers — and for employees.