On January 7, Chas. Barclay wrote:
"Neither war nor business, nor competition are based on a WIN/LOSE
culture. This is an incorrect and yet widely held belief in the
discussion. Let me make this clear for you:
"[*]Competition is about making your self and your opponent better.[*]
"As a result of competition, even in a tie you get better. A tie in
war is devastating to both parties. A tie in business is lower
prices and increased product offerings for others--this is
also good."
"[*] Competition is about extending the accepted boundaries of
human capability.[*]"
" Few wars are fought on the notion of extending human capability."
These comments present one vision of competition. But a
different one emerges from his own practice in school:
On Sat, 19 Nov 1994, Chas. A. Barclay wrote:
> A year ago our dept's strategy professors composed of many more
> experienced individuals than myself, most with PhD's, met several
> times in an effort to improve our capstone course and reduce
> variation in the course content.
>
> The topic of computer simulations came up early since one of our
> professors was one of the first to develop such a game (Multinational
> Managemetn Game). I listened to everyother Business Policy &
> Strategy professor (all tenured or tenure track) list & discuss the
> virtues of these games. I waited until they were all done and seemed
> in general agreement that it was the appropriate thing to require in
> this class. The chair of the committee asked my opinion.
>
> I started out by saying I was the only one in this group to have
> played such a game for a grade. I described the game I played
> briefly, The Airline Industry Simulation.
[*] I described what the three
> & four person teams went through to make their decisions including
> sifting through the trashed notes of competitors after their
> meetings. I then told them how our team finally won the game. We
> had a team members spouse crack the program's codes and outline the
> algorithms used to calculate stock price. We then made those
> decisions that would affect our stock price and carefully plied our
> opponents with disinformation. With 3 Fiscal Quarters remaining in
> the game we went from 6th place to first.[*]
I bring up the difference between Mr. Barclay's model and actions not
because of anything about him at all - I have exchanged e-mail with him
and have enjoyed it - but only to point out the disconnection that often
occurs between stated models and models-in-use.
> I strongly suggest avoiding any class teaching strategy by
> simulation.
My reaction is to think
that perhaps teaching business strategy by computer simulation, rather
than being a failure, was *too* successful a representation of the real
world to fit with the theory of competition. After all, isn't it the
real world where management takes actions specifically tailored to fit
with the algorythm being used to calculate their company's stock price?
Isn't it the real world in which competitors are constantly searching for
any source of information about their competitions' plans they can get
(sometimes even including industrial espionage)? Isn't it the real world
where companies deliberately feed their competitors misleading
information about their intentions when they can?
None of the actions described seem to fit with the idea that competition
is "about making your self and your opponent better." The theory-in-use
for competition seems closer to "do what you can to win; if your opponent(s)
can be made to fail, your success is ensured." The teams for the
computer simulation game were clearly viewing competition as a
comparative game in which if they did *better* than the other teams, they
won. Comparative games by definition, however, are zero-sum, in which
one sides' gain is the others' loss. If there is an environment for
mutually beneficial actions to be taken, this is not likely to be it.
Because (1) the complexity of actual improvement is so much greater than
that of relative improvement by harming one's foes and because (2) the
barriers (inertia, deeply held corporate beliefs, etc.) to improvement make it
harder to change one own's company than to adversely affect others, the
kind of actions that the teams described by Mr. Barclay took are the
rule, not the exception.
The result of the mental model of competition as a comparative
enterprise, of the win/lose model of competition, is an environment in
which actions taken do not match those predicted by the espoused theory
of competition. This is one example, I believe, of why it is important
to bring forth mental models and metaphors and examine them. I look
forward to hearing further approaches for doing so.
(If I may offer my opinion about the nature of competition, I would
propose this: competition of the sort we practice - i.e. comparative -
leads to the destruction of part or all of the existing order - an
essential role in improvement. But necessary though it may be, this
effect is not *sufficient* for improvement; the old must be torn down and
the new must also be built. The building is not addressed by
competition, but must be found elsewhere - in the creative impulses of
individuals and groups. A muscle cell exercised by weightlifting breaks down
under the stress, but given rest (and the body's building processes) it
is rebuilt stronger - hence the benefits of exercise. But if it is not
given what it needs to rebuild, it weakens and weakens, detrimentally
affected by the continued stress. The tearing down I think of as an
effect of competition: essential but also in need of its complement to
prevent the pathologies of back-stabbing, cheating, and taking advantage
which can emerge from "a war of all against all" when competition is
understood as that.)
Daniel Aronson
dacce@world.std.com