Dear Winfried
Thank you for your thoughts.
When I gave the example referred to below, I think I was referring to
similar content/meaning as was Roxanne. By "competitive mating
strategies" I was referring to the implict mating "stategies" of each
species. I.e. when a female lion is in estrus, all the male lions in the
area "compete" to mate with her, and rituals of competition (real or mock
fights) tend to serve to ensure that the male with the most desirable
genes gets to do the mating (i.e. "wins"). The other males do, in effect,
"lose." But, from my (very) limited understanding of population genetics,
the lion species "wins" from this individual competition. Just as the
gazelle species wins from the fact that gazelles have similar mating
rituals/strategies which tend to ensure that the fastest and cleverest
gazelles pass on their DNA. Of course, few of the "losers" in these
individual competitions lose out completely. Most lions and gazelles get
a chance to mate, eventually, but the "stronger" ones mate more
frequently, and with more "desirable" partners, thus leaving more of their
DNA in the collective gene pool.
And yet, as you properly say, from the point of view of ecosystem within
which the lions and gazelles coexist, this co-existence is symbiotic (i.e.
a "win-win" situation). The gazelles provide food for the lions, and the
lions insure that the weakest of the gazelles do not get the opportunity
to pass on their DNA.
However, try telling that to one of the weaker gazelles. To him (or her)
the lion/gazelle co-existence is not at all a "win/win" proposition.
Let me try to get these thoughts back to our common interest, Learning
Organisations.
In organisations, as in the Serengeti, each and every day there are lots
of ongoing competitions, some little some big, some intra-organisational
(i.e. within the "species") and some inter-organisational (i.e. within the
"ecology.") At the point in time when the music stops, the game ends, and
somebody tallies up the "score," there are winners and losers in each and
every of these competitions--individuals who did or didn't get to go on
the sales call to Paris/work on the new development team/get promoted;
groups that succeeded/didn't succeed/or succeeded less effectively than
other groups in their general task; the organisation itself (winning or
losing a major partnering proposal, being able or not able to execute a
process as planned and required).
But....these "wins" and "losses" only happen for a discrete point in time.
They are ephemeral. And......in my experience, the "losers" in these
little and bigger games have the opportunity of learning much, much more
that the "winners." If they are in what I would think of as proper
"Learning Organisation" they would take the experience from each "loss"
and create a winning strategy for the next "competition." Humans as a
species are unique in this ability to make such dramatic strategic shifts
in almost "real time." If we try to bury our natural AND NECESSARY
competitive instincts, we will vitiate most of the benefits to our species
and to our ecosystem that we are capable of giving, due to this unique
gift.
Cheers
Richard
> Richard, your example of "competitive mating strategies" of lions and
> gazelles used the same expession "competition" like Roxanne, but did not
> refer to the same content/meaning, that Roxanne assigned to this
> expression:
>
> > When we compete with each other, i.e. operate in a win/lose model
>
> The coexistence of gazelles and lions prove that they live in a win/win
> context. ...snip by your host...
--Richard Goodale <fc45@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>