"A zero sum game is one in which where one player gains value that results in another player losing value"
Yes that's what I'm contending. There can only be one boss, one deputy boss, one assistant deputy boss.
Your point about putting the right person in the right role is a fair point, but its from an organisational POV, not from an individual POV. If I'm the deputy manager, and I get demoted because Tina is a better fit, I have lost, and Tina has gained by the same amount. For Tina and I, it is a zero sum game. I am not misinterpreting that situation as a zero sum game, because for me it is a zero sum game.
I understand then. We're talking about two different games. (I believe) You're talking about the game of obtaining positions. Yes, those games are "mostly" zero sum.
I am talking about a game which describes how well off everyone in the structure is. This is part of why I say "mostly" above, because if the structure is functioning efficiently it can expand and new allocations can be made, but I'd agree that in that instance it is again a zero sum for obtaining those positions (but now with more allocations than the previous game).
Yes that's what I'm contending. There can only be one boss, one deputy boss, one assistant deputy boss.
Your point about putting the right person in the right role is a fair point, but its from an organisational POV, not from an individual POV. If I'm the deputy manager, and I get demoted because Tina is a better fit, I have lost, and Tina has gained by the same amount. For Tina and I, it is a zero sum game. I am not misinterpreting that situation as a zero sum game, because for me it is a zero sum game.