A friend of mine recently attended a team-building session as part of the company’s onboarding/new hire process. He sent me his observations and this was his perspective:
I recently attended a team building event and as is customary we had a series of excersise to perform. One was cooking a meal but having received a limited number of ingredients. We then had to negotiate and wrangle for the ingredients we did not have but thought we needed. As is typical everyone started out by trying to competitively achieve the result they wanted – generally by getting what they wanted at the expense of someone else.
This lasted for the 1st hour. Once most teams had their meals going, it pretty much became a free for all by everyone just giving away what anyone needed.
At the end of the excersise I observed (concluded) the following:
- 1. Competition is a high energy state. It took a lot out of everyone and by the end of the day no one was really competing. Didn’t really seem sustainable.
- 2. When I looked around at the end of the day, there was actually more than enough for what everyone wanted and more. Achieving what I wanted wouldn’t have deprived anyone of what they wanted.
- 3. Because competition is such a high energy state, even though there was more than enough for everyone, some teams had just given up by the end of the day. The consequence, simultaneously high amounts of wastage and unfulfilled wants. So much had gone to waste that could have been used to satisfy not only what everyone needed but what everyone wanted. In this microcosm collaboration would not have been a fluffy alternative but actually the optimal path with the highest level of efficiency.
- 4. Most people, who were competing, ended up going after way more than they wanted, let alone what they needed…….. because they didn’t want to be left behind or were driven by a herd mentality.
This experience, for the 1st time, has made me question the efficiency of competition vs collaboration.
I’m also of the opinion that the entire system doesn’t have to shift to reap the rewards – you can effect collaboration within a subset of the entire system and still be better off.
What do you think? Share your experiences….. Could you execute this with immediate effect? I’m not suggesting that the rewards will be immediate but I am suggesting that they will be more than through competition alone.
For me, whenever I think of the word competition I think of Olympic 400m runners. Each athlete competing against his/her peers running faster than his/her neighbour and chasing the coveted first place podium finish and the admiration/awe of spectators. In this image, each person behaves nobly and with great respect to their competitors. They are also motivated by scarcity. There’s only one Gold medal on the podium. Only one spot at the dinner/boardroom table. Only one CFO position to be filled.
Personally, this article resonated very strongly with my experience at work.
My outgoing CFO wanted to fill his place and chose 2 of his lieutenants to “compete” for this post. Error 1 – Choices were now relegated to only two options. Outsiders effectively eliminated. Focus/monitoring was to be exclusively on these two individuals thus narrowing the scope internally as well.
In one fell swoop, two allies became pitted against each other to “compete” Error 2 – This instantaneous juxta positioning was extremely disruptive between colleagues.
In order to outbest the competition, overlaps in specialties occurred, but occurred so privately. For example. I am a specialist accountant, and she is a specialist project partner. She ventured into my domicile of expertise and vice versa. Mistakes were made by both parties as neither were familiar with the terrain they attempted to traverse. Neither sought counsel/advice from their competition so as to maintain the “advantage” Error 3 – Flawed thinking that each person’s abilities are seamlessly transferable and that people can morph into roles as and when required by businesses. In the extreme it infers that personality archetypes are easily changeable in a single individual.
When technical knowledge about the competitors’ field failed, then cheaper and dirtier methods were resorted to. The energy expense is high in areas of unfamiliarity and is unsustainable. I noticed an almost imperceptible shift, by my competitor, in migrating away from finance accounting to delivering project data, albeit, earlier in the timeline. The initial energy was focused on expanding ones empire, but then when the cost/energy burn rate vs benefits were exposed there was a tendency to return to primary knowledge bases and improve on efficiencies there. This inclination of returning to source/familiarity essentially denigrates the notion of competition entirely and promotes the idea of super-specialism. Error 4 – in the quest for “one-up-manship” we often gave early but premature data to business as the “earliness” was perceived as good and that competition was infact working. This, however, was disastrous for the business as these were communicated throughout the organisation and often the finalized numbers didn’t tie with the initial draft variants. Numerous recons then had to be prepared between these two versions which exasperated competitors and was a futile waste of time/energy.
As the areas of expertise began overlapping, conflict arose. I would often report on projects, and she on finance and each began stepping on one another’s toes. Because we were goaded into a competitive mindset, neither backed down, and the battle then transfigured itself into one of wills and endurance. Who could work longer, who could get more executive face time. More. More More. Error 5 – Because “more” meant that the empire was expanding, and one will consume the other and therefore have to be placed first as then no other option exists. The noble Olympic imagery slowly starts to fade as competitors jab and jibe each other publicly.
When either party felt their foothold slipping, then alliances began forging. Departments become polarized based on each competitors arguments. Empathetic parties were coerced in joining this informal union. Messages and gossip-mongering united each faction. This drains an exorbitant amount of energy and wastes a lot of time only to prove that the competitive path one is on is justified as a mass movement now supports and believes in this as well.
We moved further and further away from the tasks we were supposed to do, and ended up trying to improve the others area, and therefore by inference prove the other a weaker candidate. How is this beneficial to any organization?
Eventually HR was required to intervene. After wasting more time/effort, parties attempted to restore a collaborative atmosphere. What was interesting though was that to re-establish a cordial relationship again was far more difficult once these combatants had damaged each other’s egos and pride. To rebuild required each to set aside differences and look for harmonious similarities as the starting point. But as said, this could not be easily accomplished by once warring counterparties.
I found it strange though, that each’s propensity to initially compete required very little catalytic ignition, but to collaborate after, required far more metered involvement. I also note a glaring similarity amongst managers. It’s easier to criticize and fault find on others, than it is to build on oneself. Perhaps that is why people in my sphere of work are enamored towards management. And compete ruthlessly to get there.
In the end, my situation ended not meeting absolutely any “competitive” objective whatsoever. The CFO resigned, but we had already been set upon the path of competitive behavior. HR had to intervene. Shouting matches and alliances were torn asunder. Feelings were hurt, and hours were lost. Eventually my “competitor” resigned which left me the only one who could not be promoted as it was too critical for me to do both mine as well as her role. Who really won here?
My situation could have unfolded very differently had a collaborative culture been instilled. We each would have further investigated ways in which we each make our own processes more efficient. Each of us would have overlapped into the others sphere as well, but with the intent of reciprocity rather. “Let me help you as it will result in you helping me.” Together we would have identified and demarcated our worlds of specialism and drawn from each other’s pool of resources to make the company better. Sure, conflict might have arisen, but it’s the healthy type, where we debate and deliberate on which outcomes are most positive rather than devolving into shady underhanded mudslinging contests. Our conflicts would have pushed the company forward rather than benefiting a singular individual.