|
|||||
Mix
cooperation with competition. Its not one or the other. |
|||||
Bibliography |
Nature
competes. If you have ever glimpsed a lion stalking and devouring an elk on a PBS program
before quickly changing the channel, you know this to be true. Nature cooperates, too. Observe
members of an ant colony working together to produce intricate ant-mound societies. These dynamics are not mutually
exclusive. Natural and biological systems display both cooperation and competition. And so
can corporate, business and sociological systems. Perhaps no one has explored this
paradox with more vigor or success than Dee Hock, former chief executive
officer of Visa International. The corporations growth averages around 20 percent
annually; it serves around a half-billion clients in more than 200 countries; sales volume
is now passing $1 trillion. In the massive, sprawling Visa
system, the cooperation-competition paradox is a fundamental part of the structure. Fierce
competition occurs among member institutions and banks that issue Visa cards, set prices
and develop services
all while going after each others customers. But these
institutions must also cooperate: for the system to work, merchants and vendors must be
able to accept any Visa card anywhere in the world, regardless of who issued the card.
This mixture of cooperation and competition has allowed the system to grow globally,
seemingly immune to traditional constraints of language, culture, currencies, politics or
legal codes.
One popular expression of the
competition-cooperation paradox is the tit-for-tat strategy. It came about
when political scientist Robert Axelrod tested a variety of competitive strategies using
computer simulations. Time and again, the simplest strategy of all took the prize in this
complex contest: University of Toronto psychologist Anatol Rapports
Tit-for-Tat program started out by cooperating on the first move, and then
simply did exactly what the other program had done on the move before. The program was
nice in the sense that it would never defect first. It was tough
in the sense that it would punish uncooperative behavior by competing on the next move. It
was forgiving in that it returned to cooperation once the other party
demonstrated cooperation. And it was clear in the sense that it was very easy
for the opposing programs to figure out exactly what it would do next. Thus, some have
proposed the heuristic that nice, tough, forgiving and clear guys finish
first. In his 1984 book, The Evolution
of Cooperation, Robert Axelrod showed the profound nature of this simple strategy in its
application to all sorts of complex adaptive systems trench warfare in WW1,
politics and even fungus growth on rocks. Commenting on this strategy, Waldrop said,
Consider the magical fact that competition can produce a very strong incentive for
cooperation, as certain players forge alliances and symbiotic relationships with each
other for mutual support. It happens at every level of, and in every kind of, complex
adaptive system, from biology, to economics, to politics.
A good leader would be one
who knows how to, and prefers to, cooperate, but is also a skillful competitor when
provoked to competition (that is, a nice, forgiving, tough and clear person). Note that
this strategy rejects both extremes as a singular strategy. While much is said these days
about the importance of being cooperative and positive-thinking in business dealings, the
always-cooperative leader may find his or her proverbial lunch is being eaten by others.
Similarly, while sports and warrior metaphors are also popular in some leadership circles,
the always-competitive leader may find himself or herself on the outside looking in as
alliances are formed.
|
||||
Next
| Previous | Return to Contents
List |