Being the best or being the worst
This question was proposed to me previously and made me ponder on it. Is it better to be the best player on a losing team or the worst player on a winning team”. In my opinion, it is better to be “the worst player on a winning team” than “the best player on a losing team” There are immense challenges to either scenario. I think of this in basketball terms.
“Best player on a losing team”:
- Doing your best and trying to elevate the team.
- You individually are doing well but others may not be
- You deal with most of blame for success and failure
“Worst player on a winning team”
- You may be insignificant in grand scheme of things
- The success is not a direct impact of your performance
- Your role is mitigated to better suit others
I’ve seen it from both spectrums. Being frustrated from a lack of skill from your peers and also feeling frustrated at yourself for your lack of skill compared to your peers. Being the “least skilled” amongst everyone else gives you a chance to grow and learn from people better than you, and helps you do your best. Being the best amongst people at a low-level will stunt your growth as you move upwards. You are roughly the average of the 5 closest people you talk to. Make sure you surround yourself with people that help you perform your best and motivate you in a positive light to be the best version you can be.