It’s not one or the other.
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 corporation’s 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 other’s 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.
"We are used to thinking about competitions in
which there is only one winner, competitions such as
football or chess. But the world is rarely like that. In a vast range of situations, mutual cooperation
can
be better for both sides than mutual defection.The key to doing well lies not in overcoming others,
but in
eliciting their cooperation."
–Waldrop
"A scan of history shows that technical innovations almost always arise as a particular combination
of
well-known building blocks. "
–Axelrod
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 Rapport’s “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.”
"It’s against the interests of either predator
or prey to eliminate the enemy. That’s clearly irrational, yet
that is clearly a force that drives nature."
–Ehrlich
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.
1. Thoughts
