Rol Fessenden writes:
> Roxanne,
...snip...
> As near as I can tell, we can have opinions on the relative merits of
> competition versus collaboration, but we cannot bring much observable,
> consistent data to the issue. Note the word "consistent." Therefore, one
> can "prove" whatever one wants, and when that is the case, the proofs have
> relatively little value except to those who prove them.
And this is why I'd like to see the discussion move to more "testable"
ground, where we examine more definite assertions that we can perhaps get
a better analytical grip on. That's why I proposed a few principles for
"good" competition a while back (still waiting for someone to take the
bait on those...). Ben, could you extract from your examples of different
kinds of competition some thoughts on which kinds work best in what cases,
and why?
It'd be even better to have someone propose an organization pattern
describing the use of some form of competition as a solution in a given
context. (Mike, do you know of any such patterns?)
> I still admire your decision to avoid competiton.
As do I. You're also providing an excellent service in this thread, by
pressing us to express more completely our own feelings and tacit
understandings about the subject. Your patient, reasonable tone helps a
lot in this, too.
--Don Dwiggins "Solvitur Ambulando" SEI Information Technology d.l.dwiggins@computer.org
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>