The new name of the thread, Win-win (was Punished by Rewards LO14090),
doesn't fit me. Although the addition by Dave is fine, what i actually
meant to say is that win-win and win-loose situations exist
simultaneously. Not only because most situations are superpositions of a
number of different situations (win-win and win-loose and loose-loose),
but also because one situation can be viewed as a win-win as well as a
win-loose situation.
For instance: playing golf without score cards can be seen as:
1. a loose-loose situation (neither of the players dares to compare
himself with the other and therefore neither improves, as they do not
measure their progress)
2. a win-loose situation (the weak player has convinced the strong one not
to play for honour, scores, money or whatever (weak one wins))
3. a loose-win situation (they are competing in submission (strong one
wins))
4. a win-win situation (both claim just to have a good time (we know
better, we win)).
I'm reminded here of the joke Weick tells in The Psychology of Organising:
the three Baseball referees that disagree (i cite out of my head, as i
seem to have lost that valuable book): the first one says (about 'calling
balls in or out'): 'i call them as they are'. The second one says: 'i
calls them as i sees them'; the third one says: 'they aint nothing until
i've called them'.
In applying systems thinking, i also find a superposition in structures
(Shifting the blame and Drifting Goals and Tragedy of the Commons). Part
of my challenge of getting people to use systems thinking is in making
them understand that multiple views not only exist but even create these
structures and also influence one another.
So a better description of the subject would be: multiple realities (that
should also attract the Star Trek Fans again) or syncreatism (read on)
Ending with a nice article i found about the subject (warning: this is not
a hypertext link, clicking this message will not result in a response):
Academy of Management Review, 1997, Vol 22. No 1. pages 100 - 141:
'Competition, co-operation, and the search for economic rent: a syncretic
model', by A.A. Lado, N.G. Boyd and S. C. Hanlon. They have about 8 pages
of references, so it must be thorough. It explains how firms generate
economic rents through competition and cooperation.
Kind regards,
Jan Lelie
In L014090 i wrote:
> >>... one can either compete or not AND cooperate or not. This gives four
> >>situations:
> >
> >>1. low competition and low cooperation
> >>2. low competition and high cooperation
> >>3. high competition and low cooperation
> >>4. high competition and high cooperation
> >
To which Dave added:
> Someone else talked about the problems associated with finding political
> solutions to social problems. This is perhaps the most obvious arena
> where the question of "What do I want?" (win-lose) consistently overrides
> the question of "What does the situation call for?" (win-win).
>
> In sum, I feel that until we can play golf without scorecards we will
> never get to Jan's 4th option. Which is exactly where we need to be if we
> are to continue to evolve.
--Drs J.C. Lelie CPIM janlelie@pop.pi.net (J.C. Lelie) @date@ @time@ CREATECH/LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development - + (31) 70 3243475 Fax: idem or + (31) 40 2443225
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>