Competing Vs Dominating

I wanted to present an interesting thought in the book I’m reading, The 10x Rule, by Grant Cardone. I do like the mentality and philosophy of setting massive goals going way above and beyond to accomplish them, it’s an interesting form of accountability that forces us to be at our best. There’s a second part to the philosophy I’m trying to wrap my head around that I want to share.

Grant says, "you don’t want to compete with the people in your space, but you want to dominate them". The reason is that if you’re competing then you’re always using them as a reference point to measure your own performance. So by choosing to dominate, you set your own standards and therefore pursue your own potential, not the potential established by others.

The part that is difficult for me, and seems to be incongruent in my mind is how this all equates to success. Grant shares that to be successful you must dominate, and he defined success in the classic form. It comes from the same root word that is in the word successor, which historically has meant to overthrow or replace in power. For me, success doesn’t need to come at the expense of other people, and this philosophy has an undertone of scarcity and limited resources.

Having said all of that, I know it comes from a good place, and later in the book Grant does speak to the difference between abundance and scarcity, but I’m still processing it all and coming upon my own understanding.