I have been discussing issues raised here off-line with Alfie Kohn the
author of "No Contest: The Case Against Competition". I think the
research he references from the University of Minnesota is especially
relevant to our discussion.
Roxanne Abbas
mailto:rabbas@comp-web.com
http://www.comp-web.com
Forwarded message from Kohn:
First, it isn't helpful to muddy the issue by dismissing a thorough-going
critique of competition as a "slavish" adherence to a belief system, or by
trying to hang the fate of utopian societies around the neck of a
proponent of cooperation. Apart from substituting rhetoric for argument,
this overlooks the fact that cooperation and competition are not the only
options: individual pursuit of a goal (such that my success is unrelated
to yours) is an alternative to cooperation (where I succeed only if you
succeed, too) AND to competition (where I succeed only if you fail). Pure
cooperation may not ALWAYS be feasible or desirable, but that doesn't
allow us to conclude that competition is advantageous. Second, the
success of the tit-for-tat strategy in game theory is generally cited as
proof of the success of savvy cooperation and offers absolutely no support
for competition. In any case, though, the definition of success in these
contrived experimental games is couched in competitive terms. I don't
find this line of research all that helpful for drawing conclusions about
what sort of strategy helps people think, learn, or perform well in the
real world.
Finally, for anyone interested, here is a short piece I wrote some years
ago for the Deming Network Newsletter on a related question:
Unhappily, the only kind of cooperation to which most of us have been
exposed in this country is the kind that leads us to say: "Let's work
together in this group so we can triumph over that group." The group may
be a sports team, a company, or an entire nation. What we learn from such
experiences is not how to work as a team so much as that the only reason
to cooperate is to defeat a common enemy.
The research from social psychology, education, and other fields suggests
that having teams compete against each other is just as destructive and
counterproductive as having individuals compete against each other. It
may even be worse. The key to quality in the workplace is making sure
that people share their talents and skills with each other. But if we
force-or even allow groups to compete, we take away with one hand what we
have given with the other.
David and Roger Johnson at the University of Minnesota recently reviewed nearly 200 studies that contrasted cooperation with competition among individuals. Cooperation produced an overwhelming advantage in terms of performance, they found-but that advant
age was diminished in those experiments that structured the cooperation so that groups competed against each other. Bringing individuals together in groups that are trying to beat each other "does NOT enhance achievement and may decrease it," the Johnson
s concluded.
Other research, from the Netherlands and elsewhere, has found that people do not need a common enemy in order to feel bonded to their teammates. Studies debunk the "very popular notion...that intergroup competition leads to ingroup cohesiveness," accordi
ng to one group of researchers.
Team competition isn't necessary and it doesn't help. But the most compelling reason to do away with it is how much it harms organizations and individuals. Group A will never share what it knows with Group B if the two are racing for a performance bonus
or other recognition. An organization can't afford to sacrifice that
cross-fertilization of talent. Suspicion, envy, and hostility are the
predictable results of any competition, but the bad feelings are
multiplied by the number of participants when entire groups are set
against each other. Competition doesn't make sense at any level. That's
why the only thing better than having individuals work together in a group
is devising structures in which the groups, too, can cooperate.
--Roxanne Roxanne Abbas <rabbas@comp-web.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>