|
Survival of the fittest
13/05/2008 08:49 - (SA)
Chris Moerdyk
As the global economy slows down with some countries drifting uncomfortably towards a recession, it's logical that those companies that have become globally-competitive would probably be better placed to survive any sort of the downturn.
After all, it's been proved that competition is critical to the survival of a free market economy. Essential business strategy.
But, whenever I hear companies banging on about the importance of competition and especially parents insisting that their kids need to be competitive on both the sports field and in the classroom, I keep thinking about how easy and dangerous it is to confuse "competition" with "being competitive."
For example, in business terms, competition would be succeeding by making an opposing company fail. Competitive would be positioning your own company so well in terms of quality, service and price that the market cannot resist supporting you.
Light reading
Alfie Kohn is the American author of No contest - The Case Against Competition which won the US National Psychological Award for 1987.
After going through more than 400 case studies, Kohn came to the very firm conclusion that competition is destructive and counter productive not only in excess.
"It is destructive not merely because we are doing it the wrong way - it is destructive by its very nature. I think the phase 'healthy competition' is a contradiction in terms and the ideal amount of competition (notice that he doesn't say 'conflict') in any environment - the workplace, classroom, family, playing field - is none..."
Kohn draws a distinction between what he calls "structural competition" and "intentional competition."
"By structural I mean 'mutually exclusive goal attainment,' which is a fancy social expression for 'I succeed only if you fail.' There is a stronger version of this, which is 'I succeed only if I make you fail.'
"In the first case you may be talking about golf or tenpin bowling - I do something, you do something, I do something, you do something and at the end, of course, we have to have a winner. We compare scores but we don't interfere with each others' performance.
"The stronger version, we find in war or tennis in which, for me to do well I have to actively interfere with how you do it.
"This doesn't mean that all tennis players are nasty and malicious. It means the rules of the game require us to succeed at the expense of other peoples' failure.
"By intentional competition I mean simply the need for one person to be number one. Here we are talking not about the rules of the game but about the personality."
Universal
Kohn says his studies have shown that in both classroom and workplace; "not only is competition not required for excellence, its absence is required for excellence."
There are numerous studies, he says, which show that both in terms of structural and intentional competition in the workplace people do better when they are working together rather than trying to beat each other.
There are three reasons, says Kohn why competition is destructive. First it causes anxiety which is hugely distracting; second it is inefficient in that it excludes sharing of ideas and third is the simplest and most subtle - not only is the idea of success or excellence completely different from victory or beating other people, but in actual life they pull in opposite directions.
Kohn adds that competition is destructive in another respect - it destroys self-esteem.
"In any competitive encounter losing is always possible and inevitable. Now that feels lousy (for a company or individual). But even when you win, you gloat, for a while you soar and you are impossible to live with. And then you come down, in fact you crash down and you need more of it in order to get that same feeling. It is precisely like building up a tolerance to a drug, or like drinking salt water when you're thirsty."
Musical chairs
Kohn demonstrates the dangers or rather, the futility of competition with a delightful story of the children's game Musical Chairs.
What happens is that we have ten kids and nine chairs and when the music stops all ten rush for the nine chairs and the one who doesn't make it is out of the game. Chairs are removed after each round until two kids are left rushing for one chair. At the end of it, at the end of this game which is usually played at birthday parties where everyone is supposed to be having fun, you end up with one smug, smiling little showoff and nine miserable losers.
Add to that the strange habit we have of punishing kids in class when they're caught copying from a neighbour and then punishing them again a few hours later on the soccer field when they try and score on their own instead of passing the ball. No wonder our kids get confused.
Wouldn't it be better in the musical chairs of children's games and in the workplace to start with all ten kids trying through teamwork and co-operation to all get on to one chair?
But, back to business. Being competitive is what counts and to be competitive one has to obliterate the destructive nature of competition among managers and staff and rather encourage co-operation and teamwork.
After all, it works in sport too - see what happens in rugby when someone starts playing the man instead of the ball...
Send your comments to Chris.
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
- News24
|
