Benjamin provides a considered discussion on competence, after prefacing
it with the statement that
>In my view, cooperation can only exist among competent and competitive
>people
While I agree that cooperation is perhaps most beneficial between
competent persons, it is not clear to me why one needs to be competitive
to be competent. Surely competence is based on ones ability to improve
situations and is not dependent on improving sitiuations better than some
other competent (or not) person. The criteria for competence are, in my
view, relative to lack of competence, not relative to other competent
people.
As with fuzzy logic, I see the the benefits of cooperation lying on a
continuum of values, and are not either successful or not. From this
viewpoint, I see cooperation, even with less competent people, as
providing an environment fo improvement for all parties. It is my view
that to allow ourselves to grow, we must be open to all ideas. This
includes the possibility of changing some well held beliefs, and
reassessing situations. These beliefs could be our own, or held by
others, where the change is not forced on the other person, but experience
and environment help them to see the opportunity for improvement. Granted
opportunity is not always reflected in practice.
I guess the one of the foci of this post is that competence need not be
tied to competition. While the the two do not have to be mutually
exclusive, they do not have to both be present either. The second is that
as agents of change and learning, I find it difficult to hold extremely
entrenched views about behaviour. If our own views are so entrenched
where is the opportunity for learning?
Best regards,
Les
--"Leslie Lax" <leslax@cnx.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>