David Hanson writes:
> Competitive tendencies are part of human nature. If we steer and guide
> these tendencies toward contribution through collaboration, we can still
> naturally recognize those who make significant contributions. Without
> such leadership, humans drift toward self-elevation, individualistic
> superiority, domination and radical self-interest which will not work
> toward the development of creative organizational synergies needed to be
> successful in the future.
This raises some very interesting questions. Why is competition "part of
human nature"? Is it a survival instinct? Or is it a learned behavior? If
the first, then why would our biological make up include an instinct to
compete? And if it is the latter, why would we learn to compete so well
that it became part of human nature?
Another set of questions that come to mind are: Why is purusing ones own
self-interest at odds with collaboration? I think of it this way: I will
cooperate, collaborate, and work with those I can trust. The only way I
know who I can and cannot trust is to first compete with them so I can
objectively measure their skill, reliability, and performance. I certainly
would not want to get into a cooperative arrangement with someone who
would slow me down, impair the quality of my work, or consume extra
resources because they're not reliable. To that extent I am in favor of
pursuing my own self-interest. Besides if I don't persue my own
self-interest who will?
I'm coming close to reaching the conclusion that competition usually
precedes any significant and meaningful cooperation. It allows us to make
judgments about people that help us decide who we will or will not
cooperate with.
--
Benjamin Compton
DWS -- "The GroupWise Integration Experts"
A Novell Platinum Partner
bcompton@dws.net
http://www.emailsolutions.com
--Ben Compton <BCompton@dws.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>