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.
I get the sense, Lonnie, that we're in a competition here for understanding and you wish your view to win. In this you've missed my point entirely in order to recast it as really reflective of your own. I cannot win for losing to you, apparently.
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
I can send you a slide show and a report to an Engineering conference. Can I do that through this site and retain confidential information, Christopher?
I suggest sanitizing the document and sharing it privately, preferably by a link to an online repository like Google Docs or OneDrive. Substack doesn't support secure file sharing that I'm aware of.
What comes to mind for me of an example of win/win competition aligns with the Alfred Politz quote at the top of Chapter 1 in The New Economics: "Nothing can do you so much harm as a lousy competitor. Be thankful for a good competitor."
I've been a distance runner since my second year at university. Over that time I've seen Lousy Competitors who need to let me know I'm not as good as they are, what qualifying time they got for Boston, what their latest PB for a 5k is, etc. Their interest wasn't to improve the sport or help others to improve, but to out-compete everyone they know, let them know about it, and soak up the adulation. I often wonder where these "winners" are today.
By contrast, I've seen Good Competitors in running clubs and races who try to help their fellow runners improve. It can be by running with them during training, some advice before and after about different techniques to improve pace or how to take fluids without making yourself barf at the 15th km. They're generous with their advice and support; their aim is to help everyone get better, and to encourage people to enter runs and build interest in running.
During half-marathons, I've been paced back into race by total strangers who saw me struggling, at a potential hit to their own chip time and standing, but did it anyway because they're good competitors and want me to finish the race as well as **I** could. Their aim wasn't to win to best me or anyone else, but to build a community of better runners of a variety of capabilities who will go on to help others improve their "competitive position" and make the sport more welcoming to others, to grow the pool.
I think of this as in simpatico with what Dr. Deming meant when he said, "There will be inequalities and some people will win more than others, but everyone will still gain."
So, this is one example where I see, from my own practical experience, the difference in views on competition that align with what Deming's, vis-a-vis WIN/LOSE vs. WIN/WIN.
If that is what happened, then the average 10k time of the aggregated group was reduced over time (or something like that). Do you chart that? If not, that is not your goal. If that was your goal, then you cooperated to achieve that common goal. that is far more akin to development or improvement than it is to competition.
If you disagree with my definition of competition, take it apart. I would like to make it stronger.
Lonnie, It seems to me to be the other way around. Do you agree that ours/the Greeks, is a valid definition? Did it result in the average coming down for the group? Probably, but that was not our goal, which was to become better at jogging, e.g. taking on steeper slopes, rougher terrain and completing 10ks , half marathons and marathons. We found that just by running with the group made us better runners and yes, faster.
So, what actually is your definition of competition and not just what you think its raison detre is?
Cooperation is two or more entities working together to achieve a common goal. Conflict is two or more entities vying for a common goal. One wins, the rest lose. It is mutually exclusive goal attainment, MEGA. Competition is conflict with rules. I could not find it in the thread, but it was here once.
As you can see I disagree completely with your Grecian definition.
What your group does is cooperation and a good example of it, Several working together to achieve a common goal, so everyone can gain, and achieve a better group. As I read your explanation there are no trophies, there are no blue ribbons and there is no runner of the week hence no MEGA, no winners, no losers everyone wins by some measure.
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
I would like to read this but i do not know where to find it. Could you direct me there.
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
I get the sense, Lonnie, that we're in a competition here for understanding and you wish your view to win. In this you've missed my point entirely in order to recast it as really reflective of your own. I cannot win for losing to you, apparently.
CRC.
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
Check my comment about the MTRC partnerships. Everyone won, especially the commuters.
John, I would like to, where do I find it?
Remind me tomorrow pm. I am currently at the opera
I can send you a slide show and a report to an Engineering conference. Can I do that through this site and retain confidential information, Christopher?
I suggest sanitizing the document and sharing it privately, preferably by a link to an online repository like Google Docs or OneDrive. Substack doesn't support secure file sharing that I'm aware of.
Hi Lonnie;
What comes to mind for me of an example of win/win competition aligns with the Alfred Politz quote at the top of Chapter 1 in The New Economics: "Nothing can do you so much harm as a lousy competitor. Be thankful for a good competitor."
I've been a distance runner since my second year at university. Over that time I've seen Lousy Competitors who need to let me know I'm not as good as they are, what qualifying time they got for Boston, what their latest PB for a 5k is, etc. Their interest wasn't to improve the sport or help others to improve, but to out-compete everyone they know, let them know about it, and soak up the adulation. I often wonder where these "winners" are today.
By contrast, I've seen Good Competitors in running clubs and races who try to help their fellow runners improve. It can be by running with them during training, some advice before and after about different techniques to improve pace or how to take fluids without making yourself barf at the 15th km. They're generous with their advice and support; their aim is to help everyone get better, and to encourage people to enter runs and build interest in running.
During half-marathons, I've been paced back into race by total strangers who saw me struggling, at a potential hit to their own chip time and standing, but did it anyway because they're good competitors and want me to finish the race as well as **I** could. Their aim wasn't to win to best me or anyone else, but to build a community of better runners of a variety of capabilities who will go on to help others improve their "competitive position" and make the sport more welcoming to others, to grow the pool.
I think of this as in simpatico with what Dr. Deming meant when he said, "There will be inequalities and some people will win more than others, but everyone will still gain."
So, this is one example where I see, from my own practical experience, the difference in views on competition that align with what Deming's, vis-a-vis WIN/LOSE vs. WIN/WIN.
CRC.
Chris, it is said that the term in ancient Greece for competition meant getting better together. That is exactly what happened in our jogging club.
If that is what happened, then the average 10k time of the aggregated group was reduced over time (or something like that). Do you chart that? If not, that is not your goal. If that was your goal, then you cooperated to achieve that common goal. that is far more akin to development or improvement than it is to competition.
If you disagree with my definition of competition, take it apart. I would like to make it stronger.
Lonnie, It seems to me to be the other way around. Do you agree that ours/the Greeks, is a valid definition? Did it result in the average coming down for the group? Probably, but that was not our goal, which was to become better at jogging, e.g. taking on steeper slopes, rougher terrain and completing 10ks , half marathons and marathons. We found that just by running with the group made us better runners and yes, faster.
So, what actually is your definition of competition and not just what you think its raison detre is?
Cooperation is two or more entities working together to achieve a common goal. Conflict is two or more entities vying for a common goal. One wins, the rest lose. It is mutually exclusive goal attainment, MEGA. Competition is conflict with rules. I could not find it in the thread, but it was here once.
As you can see I disagree completely with your Grecian definition.
What your group does is cooperation and a good example of it, Several working together to achieve a common goal, so everyone can gain, and achieve a better group. As I read your explanation there are no trophies, there are no blue ribbons and there is no runner of the week hence no MEGA, no winners, no losers everyone wins by some measure.