It's nice to see the discussion on the competition v. collaboration issue
moving toward specific examples. Richard Goodale turned our attention
toward sports analogies and the rivalry that fueled the discovery of the
DNA structure. Tom Christoffel (LO17847) provided a perspective on the
relationship of the free market to the internet's emergence.
Examining real world experience can help get behind value-laden labels
like "competition" or "collaboration". It has always seemed a little
silly to me to globally judge one of these as superior to the other.
I have heard executives talking about how the Coke v. Pepsi competition
will out-live us all, while collaborations among airlines in frequent
flyer partnerships seldom last long enough to use the miles earned on one
partner to fly on another. As a counterpoint, Fred Nickols noted
(LO17854) it's possible to find many academic studies purporting to show
more good things come from collaboration than competition.
Where does the truth lie?
Both of these words are abstractions, mental models. Neither does justice
to the many shades of gray reflected in most human or organizational
behavior.
I've been dismayed at the tendency in some parts of OD and Organizational
Learning to create polarities between concepts like these, labeling one
good, one bad. This also has happened as dichotomies have been created
between directive and participative behavior, control and freedom, Theory
X and Theory Y, hierarchy and flat networked organizations, etc.
These distinctions are wonderful rhetorical devices. They make for nice,
zippy presentations, and help book readers keep complex ideas more easily
in mind. But I haven't found them all that useful when dealing with real
world people and problems. They mask more than they clarify. They
provide a dangerous short-cut by substituting value-imposition for careful
understanding. At times, they are counterproductive, contributing to some
of the dysfunctional distancing too common between OD/OL consultants and
those in senior executive positions.
One useful way to avoid superficial labeling, when value-filled terms like
competition and collaboration are necessary, is to indicate precisely when
and in what circumstance each seems most appropriate. And to stay open to
the possibility that such rhetorical opposites may co-exist and feed each
other in many situations.
This discussion has helped me see why Argyris and Schvn, two skilled
creators of two-factor models, always implored their students to keep
going back to the data. Schvn, maybe less wedded to the Model I/Model II
distinction than Argyris, often delighted in applying multiple mental
models to try to get deeper insight into real world events.
Bob Tomasko
RMTomasko@aol.com
--RMTomasko <RMTomasko@aol.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>