Competition LO17631 -was Employee Ranking

Richard Goodale (fc45@dial.pipex.com)
Thu, 02 Apr 98 13:49:27 GMT

Replying to LO17623 --

Replying to LO17623

Roxanne

Thanks for the thoughts and questions. As I'm off shortly for a long
weekend I'll give you a quick response which I reserve the right to disown
(if I change my mind over the next 4 days or it I find on reflection that
it doesn't hang together!)

> Richard Goodale wrote about his views of the symbiotic relationship of
> co-operation and competition. I think I am beginning to understand your
> perspective, Richard, but let me ask a couple of questions.
>
> Do you believe that people need to have an opponent in order to perform to
> their greatest potential?

Yes. Because "opponents" set standards against which one can measure how
well one is achieving his or her particular potential. They can even
increase that potential by illuminating and demonstrating benchmarks of
performance that one had never thought possible before.

> If so, do you feel this is true of everyone, or perhaps, most people?

Yes. Everyone. Everyone has standards, implicit or explicit. Everyone
benefits from exposure to different standards, whether they be higher or
lower.

> Do you believe that people will learn more effectively by being in
> competition with their co-workers or professional colleagues?

Yes. My understanding of and experience in learning is that it largely
involves: the exposure to new or different ideas; the attempt to integrate
these new ideas with one's existing mental models; and the analytical
resolution of the conflicts that arise from that integration. Learning is
a "competitive" process which (within limits) thrives in direct proprotion
to the competitiveness of the environment in which it occurs.

As an afterthought, I can't think off the cuff of ANY organisational
environment that does not include "competition with ... co-workers or
professional colleagues." Can you?

> Let's go back to my example of medical research. Do you believe that the
> physicians at University A will find the cure to cancer faster by keeping
> their progress secret in an attempt to beat their rivals at University B
> than they would by openly sharing their theories and learnings with the
> other best minds in their field?

Yes. But.... This is a trickier question. And, you complicate it
unnecessarily with the issue of "secrecy." Let me try to explain.

First, IF there were such an integral thing as THE cure for cancer, and IF
it were generally clear within the scientific community as to what
research was needed to find that cure and who was best equipped to do that
research, THEN I would agree that a wholly cooperative effort of all those
people was warranted and would be effective. This is what happened, I
think, with the Manhattan Project, particularly at its later stages, when
the problems were fairly well defined. (Of course, there was a lot of
competition between scientists within that cooperative effort before these
problems were well defined, and now that I think of it, the project
actually ended up as a bifurcated one. There were two atomic bombs
produced, using radically different engineering technologies and
processes, both of which happened to work.)

But I digress. I think that in the real world, the Physicians at
University A and B will probably be working on some very small segment of
the problem of learning more about (not curing) some particular form of
cancer. Maybe identifying how certain cells respond to certain chemical
stimuli. If the two teams' research paths are truly identical, it is
likely that they will already be collaborating (publishing joint papers,
etc.). In the more likely case that they are following somewhat different
paths, it is likely that each is aware of what the other is doing,
effectively comparing notes from time to time (through the publishing of
separate papers, attendance at conferences, etc.), but that they are not
fully cooperating. In effect they are competing, i.e. using different
tactics to try to "win" some sort of contest. In reality, also, they are
probably not the only ones playing this game. There will be other teams
at other universities, in other states and other countries, all trying to
identify and classify that chemical response.

So, should they be more cooperative? Yes and no. Yes, they should be
"comparing notes" more frequently and more effectively. In my
understanding, regardless of the secretive impulses of some scientists,
this is already happening, in spades, because of the capabilities and
power of the Internet. But, after they compare notes, they will, and
MUST, go back to their labs, test the new things they have learned aginst
their own hyoptheses, create some new hyopetheses, test them, and then
communicate their new findings to the larger community. The process
described in this latter sentence might take as long as a year to
accomplish, during which time, they will be again in a "competitive" mode.
There is little need nor value for them to be actively "cooperative"
during that period. In fact it might be counterproductive, as it would
drain their most important resource, the time of their people, away from
the most important task--of that particular time.

Would the Double Helix have been discovered more quickly if Watson/Crick
and Wilkins/Franklin have cooperated from Day 1 rather than competed? In
a sense this is a very silly question, as who could have or would have
known at the time that a failed physicist, a young biologist and two
somewhat plodding crystallographers would be the "team" that cracked the
genetic code? Even if someone had, could they have ever been convinced to
work together? I doubt it. Or, to take another tack, would the double
helix have been discovered if Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Franklin had all
died in 1950? Of course it would have, maybe later, maybe even sooner.

But, would it have been discovered sooner if Waston/Crick and
Wilkins/Frnaklin had moved to more of a cooperative mode near the end of
the "story," when each group effectively had one of the two parts of the
puzzle, but weren't communicating effectively with each other? Yes,
probably.

Here, after lots of words, is why I think your last question is tricky,
and stimulating. To every thing, there is a season. A time to compete, a
time to cooperate, a time to do both. I may be wrong, but I think that
organiational excellence and the quality of leadership can be defined and
measured by how well this balance is achieved. And, to me at least, this
is an important insight.

Done Learning/Gone Golfing

Richard Goodale

-- 

Richard Goodale <fc45@dial.pipex.com>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>