There was a point in my career when I realized a particular environment was no longer working for me. The office politics were relentless, the culture felt incompatible with my values, and, most importantly, that drama wasn’t even necessary to advance my career, even in the same field. Yet my energy was completely depleted. I decided it was time to step away.
When I shared this decision with some friends, however, their reaction was immediate:
“If you quit now, you’re just offering your opportunity to those people.”
I was a bit stuck in my head because I never thought someone would react to it that way. I was frustrated at that time, but not entirely surprised. We apparently were looking at the same situation through two very different lenses. Neither is inherently right or wrong, nor does it mean that we should not stay friends or that they mean any ill will.
The zero-sum mindset
I’ve met many people like this. I don’t question their intentions because they’re simply being themselves and, in their definition, acting with care or in a form of support. Or they use this situation to process their own emotional needs. (Related: What Really Happens When People Give Unsolicited Advice)
But aside from personal reasons, this reasoning itself suggests a zero-sum mindset. Put it in a formula: the world = 0 = 1 + (-1). They believe that one party’s gain must result in the other’s loss, which usually stems from a scarcity mentality: the deep-seated belief that everything, be it resources, opportunities, or success, is strictly limited.
People with this mindset tend to see a situation as a closed system, or like a pie. So if you leave the table, someone else wins by taking your slices.
It doesn’t have to be concrete; it also applies to concepts, beliefs, opinions, or even personality traits. That means if there’s a difference in values, for example, you can’t be equally good, right, bad, or wrong. Or, to put it simply, people can not just “be different”. There must be a winner and a loser in an invisible contest with an invisible hierarchy and rules. And it often extends to the idea that “if you don’t attack someone else, they will attack you” when facing survival or threats.
Two frameworks to consider
In hindsight, I still feel a bit unsettled when thinking back on those periods of transition. For anyone navigating it, locus of control may be another concept worth exploring.
From that point of view, it is understandable why they treat the office as a battleground where power must be defended against external threats, such as the constant invisible competition mentioned earlier. But you can be simultaneously ambitious and lean towards internal focus: prioritizing personal alignment, compatibility, and long-term well-being over territorial struggle.
The question is, which one do you really want?
Territorial defense that focuses on external challenges. Winning a competition, maintaining status, or preventing competitors (whether they are real or imaginary) from gaining an advantage. Or resource allocation that focuses on internal factors such as compatibility, cutting sunk costs, or directing energy toward environments where you can thrive.
Navigating the crossroad
When it comes to career choice, my instinct comes from a different perspective focused on personal alignment, energy, and better mental health. I don’t think any career choice, however meaningful or a “calling”, should cost your health or peace. So when an environment requires constant friction just to survive, and staying carries a high opportunity cost and the sunk-cost fallacy, the situation is already too costly for ROI.
Personally, external positioning and internal alignment are just two different metrics to consider, not a judgment (unless the excessive emphasis on one over the other harms your mental well-being). Ultimately, deciding whether to stay and fight or walk away has nothing to do with bravery or weakness. And there should be no rush.
*What is Brief? An ongoing series of quick, bite-sized brain snacks. Alternating weekly, there are three evidence-based factual reports or three research-informed reflective notes across three topical pillars.
