Obama's going to win the future by out-innovating, out-educating, out-building rest of world. His new theme is competitiveness. Apparently he's found Dubya's old prescription med, the one that causes leaders to spout nonsense so familiar that hardly anyone notices that it is nonsense.
Competition is at odds with creativity. Competition reinforces rather than changes the status quo. If you are happy with the status quo, it's a good idea to work harder within the current system to do even better. If the system isn't giving you what you want, though, it might be time to step back to reconsider what system you want to create, what system you want to be a part of.
Obama says that he won't accept 2nd place. Well, we're only 10th by measures of happiness, 11th by measures of per person GDP, and 33rd by educational rankings. It seems to me that Obama should gladly accept a rise to 2nd place.
Obama has yet to do the hard work of defining what comes next, what world he's trying to create. Or, rather, the theme of being most competitive suggests that he hasn't. Obama has a chance to transcend platitudes this evening. If his focus is on competitiveness, that simply won't happen.
R World (Ron Davison muses aloud)
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
11 October 2009
Abstract Notion of the Day - Let Systems Compete and People Cooperate
Competition and cooperation play together in nature. Some like to emphasize the competition that pits the gazelles against each other, the loser becoming lion lunch. Others like to emphasize the cooperation that enables the lions to bring down the gazelle or that prompts the mother to raise the child.
So which should we bring into our social and economic life? Should we emphasize competition or cooperation?
I'd like to offer this suggestion: competition between systems and cooperation between people.
Let companies go bankrupt, political parties, ideologies, and administrations lose power, and educational approaches go out of favor. Let systems compete to win or lose based on how well they do. Meanwhile, ensure cooperation between people, doing what we can to ensure that everyone thrives.
To reverse this - to have no competition between religious or political or educational systems (essentially some kind of a monopoly) while forcing competition between people is to create a system that arrests progress and makes even the winners miserable, worried as they are that they might lose their place.
One of the problems with this goal, though, is that people become the system they are a part of. It is hard to become intimate enough with a system to use it and yet not become defined by it. "I am a Stanford grad ... a mechanical engineer ... a Pentecostal ... a Republican ... a Jungian ..." we say and these systems we've adopted become less our tools than our selves. With such a belief, it is hard to casually accept the failure of systems and not see it as, somehow, a threat to ourselves.
The religious martyr may be the most extreme example of someone who no longer holds the system loosely in hand but, instead, is held tightly by the system. For them, Islam or Christianity or the cult has become more important than life itself and they will die for it.
This might be the biggest challenge we have in our education system: raising children to learn how to use systems without becoming defined by those systems. I'm convinced that we're not going to make much progress with our current definitions of liberal or conservative, for instance, and as long as major swaths of the polity or politicians define themselves this way, progress will be slow. And yet people need some orientation, even if it is one they'll abandon as goals or processes change. As long as people define themselves rigidly by these systems, competition between systems will equal competition between people.
So which should we bring into our social and economic life? Should we emphasize competition or cooperation?
I'd like to offer this suggestion: competition between systems and cooperation between people.
Let companies go bankrupt, political parties, ideologies, and administrations lose power, and educational approaches go out of favor. Let systems compete to win or lose based on how well they do. Meanwhile, ensure cooperation between people, doing what we can to ensure that everyone thrives.
To reverse this - to have no competition between religious or political or educational systems (essentially some kind of a monopoly) while forcing competition between people is to create a system that arrests progress and makes even the winners miserable, worried as they are that they might lose their place.
One of the problems with this goal, though, is that people become the system they are a part of. It is hard to become intimate enough with a system to use it and yet not become defined by it. "I am a Stanford grad ... a mechanical engineer ... a Pentecostal ... a Republican ... a Jungian ..." we say and these systems we've adopted become less our tools than our selves. With such a belief, it is hard to casually accept the failure of systems and not see it as, somehow, a threat to ourselves.
The religious martyr may be the most extreme example of someone who no longer holds the system loosely in hand but, instead, is held tightly by the system. For them, Islam or Christianity or the cult has become more important than life itself and they will die for it.
This might be the biggest challenge we have in our education system: raising children to learn how to use systems without becoming defined by those systems. I'm convinced that we're not going to make much progress with our current definitions of liberal or conservative, for instance, and as long as major swaths of the polity or politicians define themselves this way, progress will be slow. And yet people need some orientation, even if it is one they'll abandon as goals or processes change. As long as people define themselves rigidly by these systems, competition between systems will equal competition between people.
20 January 2007
Guaranteed Super Bowl Prediction and the Design of Your Business
I've got a prediction for the Super Bowl. And it's guaranteed. Sadly, for, you, my prediction doesn’t name Saints or Patriots or Bears or Colts.
(Note that two of the teams take their names from totemic figures - drawing their strength from bears and colts as if they were ancient Celts or American Indians; the other two teams, by contrast, take their name from ideals of politics and religion. A battle between Saints and Patriots would somehow seem appropriate for the times.)
My prediction is that ONE team will win. This seems like the most obvious prediction I could make, but it is worth noting because this is by design. 32 teams started the season, a season designed to eliminate teams bit by bit until only one team is left standing.
So why mention this? Well, it is worth mentioning because this is a design issue with a predetermined outcome. Your business might have a similar design goal. It's worth noting that only in undeveloped, poorly designed countries the leader makes the most money. In nearly all Fortune 500 companies, the leader, or CEO, makes the most money. This is by design and everyone in the company knows that one person will win the "get rich working for the company" contest. This suggests a poor design. In developed, well designed countries plenty of people make more money than the leader, the president or prime minister.
What if, instead, winning within a business were more like winning in business. That is, what if your company were not designed to have the leader take home the most money? What if the top income in your company were not determined by position but by natural consequences that meant that any number of employees might make more than the leader, just as in more developed, or better designed, countries any number of citizens make more than the leader?
We don't question the fact that only one team will win the Super Bowl each year. We should question the fact that only CEOs (only one employee) will win the "make the most money" award. This is a design flaw.
(Note that two of the teams take their names from totemic figures - drawing their strength from bears and colts as if they were ancient Celts or American Indians; the other two teams, by contrast, take their name from ideals of politics and religion. A battle between Saints and Patriots would somehow seem appropriate for the times.)
My prediction is that ONE team will win. This seems like the most obvious prediction I could make, but it is worth noting because this is by design. 32 teams started the season, a season designed to eliminate teams bit by bit until only one team is left standing.
So why mention this? Well, it is worth mentioning because this is a design issue with a predetermined outcome. Your business might have a similar design goal. It's worth noting that only in undeveloped, poorly designed countries the leader makes the most money. In nearly all Fortune 500 companies, the leader, or CEO, makes the most money. This is by design and everyone in the company knows that one person will win the "get rich working for the company" contest. This suggests a poor design. In developed, well designed countries plenty of people make more money than the leader, the president or prime minister.
What if, instead, winning within a business were more like winning in business. That is, what if your company were not designed to have the leader take home the most money? What if the top income in your company were not determined by position but by natural consequences that meant that any number of employees might make more than the leader, just as in more developed, or better designed, countries any number of citizens make more than the leader?
We don't question the fact that only one team will win the Super Bowl each year. We should question the fact that only CEOs (only one employee) will win the "make the most money" award. This is a design flaw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)