The prevailing paradigm for running modern organizations is competition.
Competition, as defined by many leadership teachers, writers and consultants, draws its analogies from war and sports. But modern organizations are not at war (or at least, shouldn’t be) and business is not a sport.
The competitive paradigm is a fallacy because it is based on a “zero-sum” model, viewing the market as a binary system, made up of adversaries, one of whom will win and take the spoils, leaving the others to lose and succumb to defeat. And while this may be a good, and even appropriate model in war and sport, it is wholly inappropriate within corporate life.
First of all, the intention should not be to eliminate an opponent, but rather to make the world a better place – or to use the contemporary business jargon – to add value. In the world of symphonies, it is hard to imagine Alan Gilbert, the Musical Director (CEO) of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, rallying his team with the exhortation, “Let’s destroy the Chicago Symphony Orchestra!”. The very idea is laughable – there is room for many symphonies, and the more there are, and the better they all are, the richer all our lives will be. And yet the corporate ideal of ruthless competition continues to be held up, erroneously, as the essential engine of capitalism. Banks that are too big to fail, Wall Street greed, hospitals and schools that are competing with each other, nations, cities and states waging competitive battles for investment, talent and jobs, and the grievous wounds of the 2008 recession, are just some of the recent evidence that this is neither effective or good for our souls.
We have a choice about where we can invest our energy – the positive or the negative. Viewing others as competitors focuses our energy on destroying things – the negative – instead of the positive activity of building things. The negative energy of competition, at least in the corporate setting, is uninspiring because it is an affront to the soul. Many research studies have shown that stress and toxic biochemistries are generated through the use of violent language and attitudes and, conversely, love and a sense of community strengthen our immune system and nourish our spirits.
The dictionary defines competition as, “rivalry for supremacy”. But the word originates from the Latin competere, which means, “to meet, come together”. From this it can be seen how far we have traveled from the original idea to the contemporary perception of competition – largely the result of misguided modern business strategy theories. I prefer to define competition as, “Going as far as you possibly can, using everything you’ve got”.
There are two approaches to achieving greatness in organizations: making others smaller and working for their demise, or working for the ultimate success of ourselves and others. Which is more inspiring? Which organization would you choose to work for? Which kind of leader are you?
Wonderful Lance! This is a perfect reminder for me. I tend to be the loving sharing inclusive leader that shares with the competition. But now and again when business is slow, I feel that sense of exclusionary completion in my gut and occasionally I voice those negative feelings around my work family. It never feels good after – I know that it never does. I need to remind myself frequently that what I want is as you stated “to make the World a better place for everyone.” Thank you as always for your timely and brilliant post!
Great post Lance! Just what the corporate world needs.
Lance, I totally agree with your well-written post. It’s where I live! Having spent the bulk of my career being paid by healthcare non-profits and volunteering in faith, education and community service organizations, your points seem obvious. But even in non-profit settings, there is surprising, unhelpful competition.
When we look at healthcare (necessarily and appropriately) as a business, and acknowledge that for-profit organizations bring some very useful discipline, skills — and often purpose — into the development and provision of services, how do you square this philosophy with the fiduciary responsibility of boards to build value, given the fact that there are limited markets for most products and services?
… and how do you get investors to want more than financial return?
There are emerging models for transforming funding, but it seems like your plea to corporations actually requires a much broader re-thinking about individual responsibility and when enough (money or stuff) is enough.
I would love to hear how you or others are working to inspire communities in this direction, as well as organizations and businesses.
Our socioeconomic constructs and therefore our belief systems tell us that competition, crushing your opponent is the only way to self-maximize.
Adam Smith (1776) in his “The Wealth of Nations” wrote that humans are driven by a natural desire for self-improvement which under conditions of free competition leads them as if by an invisible hand to promote the public well-being.!! (A fallacy).
And then Darwin has been misquoted as “the survival of the fittest”. Which incidentally Darwin never mentions.
All this moved us away from the traditional values of doing the common good, to competing at all costs. Smiths doctrine of self-interest did more than just turn avarice into a virtue. It turned doing the common good into a vice!!
In all this we forgot how unique each of us are, how we are all interdependent and how together we can make a massive difference. Classical economics based on growth, alas, does not recognize that.
Thank you Lance for a thought provoking blog post.
There are two types of competition – one being to crush your competitors and playing win/lose situation where the winner takes it all. The mindset is let’s take all we can. The focus is on beating the competition, but thwarts innovation because that isn’t the primary focus.
While the other way to compete to serve, give and contribute as much as possible, adding tremendous value to what you do. The mindset being let’s give all we got while we better our yesterday’s performance. When we want to better ourselves, we are on a path of mastery which gives rise to creative expression and innovation.
Thank you Lance for yet another inspiring article, so relevant in today’s corporate culture.
Sylvie, your comments made my day! Thank you. Please feel free to share our blog – we want to share our message with more and more people who can make a difference. Namaste!