Roxanne, it is interesting that what others call competition you in a
number of cases have agreed was important, but you simply call it
something else. So the conclusion I draw is that it is all a matter of
definition. In fact, you value many things that others think of as
competition or competitive in nature. I am sensing that there is not much
of a gap -- in a behavioral sense -- between your behavior and mine in
specific instances, but I might be more inclined to refer to something as
competition than you.
For example, I refer to Martin Luther King as competitive, you do not.
Fred refers to competing with oneself, you understand the concept but call
it something else. Winfried refers to competing brands, you refer to
having options and choices. In your behavior I sense, if not
competitiion, then at the very least, not cooperation or collaboration
either. Call it whatever you will, I think others, observing your
behavior, your likes or dislikes, your approach to life and challenges,
your values and ethics and your willingness to defend them, would probably
describe you as a "normal" competitive person.
I do not intend this as an attack at all, but an effort to understand more
deeply the differences between your behavior and mine, at least as it
relates to this issue of competitiveness. How can we draw distinctions
that we both understand and agree on? Is that possible, or is this word
too ambiguous to pin down? At the moment I find it difficult to identify
the differences in behavior that are associated with the differences in
values around this concept. You may disagree with my definitions, and
that is a fair distinction. But what is the difference in behavior?
--Rol Fessenden
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>