Richard Goodale neatly points out the following, which I summarize thusly:
...there is a fine tension which both succeeds at the elementary level on
an individual basis, and also at the higher level of group dynamic.
I found reinforcement for this in a Discovery Channel production of
"Eco-Challenge", in Australia. Some items from this production which add
to this thread:
1. The "best" don't always succeed at winning.
2. Certain "types" of teams work better than others.
3. "Variation" produces events which, if considered, can be planned for.
The Navy's Seals were seen as individually fit, but too "extreme" perhaps
to allow for group or team success. (This finding was expanded to other
"military-style" teams. the idea being "I don't need any help, I'm fully
capable, well-trained, etc., etc.)
Ultimately, it was found from the overall experience, that supportive
personalities are best for group dynamic circumstances involving team
goals or challenges. (One team had a member with a damaged leg, requiring
other members to carry her on their backs, a remarkable feat.)
Teams had to consider what might befall them, and chose supplies in
quantities which would allow for adequate energy but not be oversized in
weight. This caused havoc for one particul team, which ate well, but broke
down from sheer exhaustion.
When found that a team would be disqualified, some teams chose to continue
to participate, even though not capable of winning. Others felt it was
important to consider the "fun" of competing against others, for various
reasons, regional, personal, etc.; personality types came into play here,
allowing for "reasonable" levels of competitive interest to succeed, where
"aggressive" levels did not.
Does this mean anything for consideration by members? Perhaps so, perhaps
not. Perhaps it has to do with one's own personality type, energy dynamic,
inclination toward goals and objectives, and many other factors, including
random variation. My own view...there is a certain level of joy in
competition involving non-harmful activity, especially involving friends.
But, there is a negative level of competition, as I believe Richard
indicated, when taken to a larger level, or organizatiional dynamic, when
the choice is made to "compete" based on another organization's activity,
or rather one organization's UNDERSTANDING of another's activity. I see
this as especially meaningful, since one organization (or organism) is NOT
identical to another.
Deming, not Taylor, offers much more, in my view, when considering
choices, goals and objectives, and contemplating the potential for
success.
-- Sincerely,John Constantine Rainbird Management Consulting PO Box 23554 Santa Fe, NM 87502-3554 Rainbird@Trail.Com http://www.trail.com/~rainbird
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>