The nominal subject of the article is "friends", but it appears that the article is best understood as about work friends. Perhaps "allies" would be a more appropriate term? I hope that the author has some work/life balance and can feel the difference between these two categories.
I would define a friend as someone with whom you enjoy spending time. There doesn't need to be a goal except to "hang out". Do you really need a friend to "give meaningful feedback on your projects"? The author's conception of a friend, in the article, feels starkly utilitarian, where friendship is a tool for achieving your other ends rather than an end in itself.
If we interpret friends here as work friends, then I think a little jealousy and zero-sumness is natural. The very first benefit mentioned by the author of rooting for your friends is that it "can improve your career". If your work friend's career improves, but yours doesn't, then doesn't that defeat the (author's) purpose?
> It’s deeply believing that a rising tide lifts all boats.
I deeply believe that this is utterly naive.
It's not inherently false—we could make it true, if we really wanted—but it's empirically false, for the obvious reason that those who are lifted tend to be greedy and want to keep all the gains for themselves. Whether that's because power corrupts, because power attracts the corrupt, or some combination of the two, the problem is that those at the top come to feel that they deserve to be at top, that they're better than those who are not at the top and have been rewarded for their superiority, and thus from their perspective it would almost be immoral to "reward" those below who aren't as "good".
Agree. The article treats friendship as a career tool rather than a meaningful connection. Real friends aren’t just hype men or professional assets — they’re people who stick around through ups and downs.
> > It’s deeply believing that a rising tide lifts all boats.
> I deeply believe that this is utterly naive.
While I don't fully disagree, I have often seen younger employees fall into the trap of overly chasing individual advantage over collective benefit. In other words, trying to be an all-star rather than a team player. Perhaps this is from schooling, where all that matters is getting an "A", but in the workplace it often results in being disliked and less likely to be promoted.
Relationships are of various kinds that extend in various dimensions. What the Author has talked about definitely sounds more like a "work-friend" relationship, but is not entirely separate from a "friend-friend" that you define.
> It’s deeply believing that a rising tide lifts all boats.
This is true, but with context. "Growth" and "Comfort" are two different elements of a good friendship. We can replace "rising" with "happy", and the same quote works for comfort.
Are both necessary? Depends on how you define "friendship". If comfort is the only thing, you dog can be a comfortable companion. But for a human friendship to last longer, both must enjoy each other company for longer time horizon, and that needs growth in both. This growth needs not be only in career, but mental too.
With such growth, envy can't come in and corrode the bond.
> With such growth, envy can't come in and corrode the bond.
Well, if we're talking about work-friends, the classic conflict would be when one co-worker is promoted but the other isn't, and indeed the one becomes the other's boss. That's basically a zero-sum game, and it's difficult for a friendship to survive that scenario.
It feels like it’s probably most applicable to people who do similar work as you and who you talk shop with. I wouldn’t consider these work friends, which to me are people at the same place of work that you wouldn’t hang out with if not for work.
I would define a friend as someone with whom you enjoy spending time. There doesn't need to be a goal except to "hang out". Do you really need a friend to "give meaningful feedback on your projects"? The author's conception of a friend, in the article, feels starkly utilitarian, where friendship is a tool for achieving your other ends rather than an end in itself.
If we interpret friends here as work friends, then I think a little jealousy and zero-sumness is natural. The very first benefit mentioned by the author of rooting for your friends is that it "can improve your career". If your work friend's career improves, but yours doesn't, then doesn't that defeat the (author's) purpose?
> It’s deeply believing that a rising tide lifts all boats.
I deeply believe that this is utterly naive.
It's not inherently false—we could make it true, if we really wanted—but it's empirically false, for the obvious reason that those who are lifted tend to be greedy and want to keep all the gains for themselves. Whether that's because power corrupts, because power attracts the corrupt, or some combination of the two, the problem is that those at the top come to feel that they deserve to be at top, that they're better than those who are not at the top and have been rewarded for their superiority, and thus from their perspective it would almost be immoral to "reward" those below who aren't as "good".