People say that “history is written by the winners.”
Is that a bad thing? In a world of two-way communications, are the winners now expected to give the losers a moment in the spotlight?
This raises some interesting perspectives.
From my economic/Darwinian side, I would say no. They lost. Because the other half proved be rise to the occasion, the winner deserves to do with the spotlight as they see fit. Why let a loser’s message spread, when it proved incapable of winning? It doesn’t make sense. One wouldn’t willingly spread a defunct gene, or a failing business plan, so why a message?
From my marketing/public relations side, I would say maybe. If the loser’s communication could provide some value to a certain community and/or public, I don’t think it would hurt. Who will benefit from hearing their message? How can a community move forward from listening? What’s interesting, is that in these days if the winner denies the loser from speaking, it may leave a bad taste in the mouths of spectators. Bad PR. From an image standpoint then, it may improve the winner’s image if they let the defeated one speak.
From my competitive side, I would say definitely not. If you win, and the loser gets to speak regardless of defeat, then why compete? You take away the competitor’s incentive to win. Sure there may be a trophy, ranking, and maybe some money winnings (in some cases), but if I’m playing to win, I’m playing for keeps. Winner-takes-all.
The lines of winners/losers are blurring in our society. Since our species (arguably) is imperfect, several situations should dictate whether there is a winner and loser. It sucks, but that’s life and that’s business. Though I do enjoy the Covey’s Win-Win and other full-circle management techniques, how does it move our society forward? Does it? Does it not?
I can’t tell. But who cares, if I’m right or wrong, the message gets out anyway, right?