You may wish to see my work with the Hong MTRC (Mass Transit Railway Corporation) in 2000 as they extended the TKE line into the New Territories. Reduced initial costs by 40%, came in two months early
Re: Alfred Politz comment, you might reword it to say, "I am thankful for a good competitor because he can make me lose so I work harder to become better." However, at the end of the day, someone wins and someone loses for any given event. As for the rest of the rationale I would say to not confuse good competitors with gracious competitors.
Buried in your discussion is one element where competition is good. There are always winners and losers, remember it is a conflict. However, in what time frame do you evaluate "the goal". If you strive for the medal, there is a winner and a loser. If however, YOUR goal is to improve, then there can be many winners. All you need to do is to change the goal from an extrinsic one to an intrinsic one. Sadly, scarce few can do that. And if you do, you are not a "real competitor" as judged by the world at large.
Dr. Deming should get high praise for promoting the discussion of competition versus cooperation but he suffers from some of the same errors in logic that plagued the arguments of Alfie Kohn.
First, we have a national obsession with competition and treating it as a pure and natural good and "the cure to all that ails ya." This belief is so widespread that most people cannot even conjure up the thought that competition might have destructive components. To improve performance we create competition in the form of an artificially contrived scarcity.
All competition is about scarcity. If there is not one we create one. The kaizen of the week or the employee of the month are not any form of natural scarcity, they are artificially created and anyone with more than two neurons to rub together can see the folly in these "efforts."
However, Dr. Deming's treatment has, at least, two major critical errors of logic. I know it is pure heresy to poke holes in the good Dr's writings. However, he tells American managers they need to up their game to compete on the world market. Here he is very clear, "to compete" is admirable and to be sought out. Yet he very clearly says that "we now know that competition is destructive." If you cannot see the contradiction, or at least ask a few questions, you are not reading and understanding what the good doctor says, you are simply hearing his words and repeating what he says. You are a tape recorder and not a student.
HIs logic has, at least two major logical errors. First, he characterizes competition as being destructive. Second, he says that in cooperation, everyone wins. It does not take much thinking to see where competition, while at some level it may be destructive, can also be beneficial. So to say that competition is destructive is like saying water can kill you. True, just not complete. Competition can create positive benefits to the individual and to the group. Second his definition of cooperation is that everyone wins. Please give me an example where everyone wins, I cannot think of one. Whenever I hear words like, "always", "never", "everyone" and "no one" I cringe. They are seldom true.
To explain when the benefits of competition outways the detriments is another day, but think about then and you too will find where competition can be beneficial
You may wish to see my work with the Hong MTRC (Mass Transit Railway Corporation) in 2000 as they extended the TKE line into the New Territories. Reduced initial costs by 40%, came in two months early
Lonnie, I am such a maven with technology. Here is my twitter: John Carlisle
@ProJohnCarlisl. If you message me there I think we can work out a plan to get the MTRC construction document to you?
sorry cant do that, I'll be climbing Mount Ranier.
You have my comments, either reply or not
I do not understand your comments, gimme a call, I'd call but I've misplaced your number.
Re: Alfred Politz comment, you might reword it to say, "I am thankful for a good competitor because he can make me lose so I work harder to become better." However, at the end of the day, someone wins and someone loses for any given event. As for the rest of the rationale I would say to not confuse good competitors with gracious competitors.
Buried in your discussion is one element where competition is good. There are always winners and losers, remember it is a conflict. However, in what time frame do you evaluate "the goal". If you strive for the medal, there is a winner and a loser. If however, YOUR goal is to improve, then there can be many winners. All you need to do is to change the goal from an extrinsic one to an intrinsic one. Sadly, scarce few can do that. And if you do, you are not a "real competitor" as judged by the world at large.
gimme a call, dialogue is far more efficient
Dr. Deming should get high praise for promoting the discussion of competition versus cooperation but he suffers from some of the same errors in logic that plagued the arguments of Alfie Kohn.
First, we have a national obsession with competition and treating it as a pure and natural good and "the cure to all that ails ya." This belief is so widespread that most people cannot even conjure up the thought that competition might have destructive components. To improve performance we create competition in the form of an artificially contrived scarcity.
All competition is about scarcity. If there is not one we create one. The kaizen of the week or the employee of the month are not any form of natural scarcity, they are artificially created and anyone with more than two neurons to rub together can see the folly in these "efforts."
However, Dr. Deming's treatment has, at least, two major critical errors of logic. I know it is pure heresy to poke holes in the good Dr's writings. However, he tells American managers they need to up their game to compete on the world market. Here he is very clear, "to compete" is admirable and to be sought out. Yet he very clearly says that "we now know that competition is destructive." If you cannot see the contradiction, or at least ask a few questions, you are not reading and understanding what the good doctor says, you are simply hearing his words and repeating what he says. You are a tape recorder and not a student.
HIs logic has, at least two major logical errors. First, he characterizes competition as being destructive. Second, he says that in cooperation, everyone wins. It does not take much thinking to see where competition, while at some level it may be destructive, can also be beneficial. So to say that competition is destructive is like saying water can kill you. True, just not complete. Competition can create positive benefits to the individual and to the group. Second his definition of cooperation is that everyone wins. Please give me an example where everyone wins, I cannot think of one. Whenever I hear words like, "always", "never", "everyone" and "no one" I cringe. They are seldom true.
To explain when the benefits of competition outways the detriments is another day, but think about then and you too will find where competition can be beneficial