Cooperative Competition vs. The “Law” of the Jungle
Cooperative Competition
In the game of football we have teams who agree to meet on a playing field to compete with one another. The teams are motivated to “win” and will reliably put forth their best efforts.
but,
They have agreed to a set of rules that make the game playable. Although the teams can never be really equivalent in terms of talents, theories, and methods, they have created an operationally defined “level” playing field in the form of the regulations of play.
The regulatory environment includes things like…
- Aims
- Playing field dimensions
- Timing
- Scoring
- Prohibited actions
- Enforcement referees
….and so on.
What we end up with is the system of “football play” and because it is a system, we can meaningfully compare the performance of various teams—-their talents, theories, and methods. Control charts would be useful to a better understanding of the game.
Now let’s consider the following scenario. The football teams divide up into two philosophical movements.
The Big Government Play Group
This group is pro-regulation. Not only do they view the rules as important and helpful, they actively lobby for new regulations whenever they discover that loopholes in the existing rules are being exploited to unfair advantage. In other words, they want to keep the game a test of athletic talent, team theory, and team methods. They want to prevent exploitation of the imperfection of the rules from undoing the fair competition. They argue that competition is a great thing, but to be of value, it must be based in cooperation and collaboration.
The Unfettered Play Group
This group believes that for football to be a pure test of the best, the game needs to be played with a minimum of regulations. They actively lobby for the removal of rules that they believe fetter the game. Their aim, they say, is to allow each team to give their best and to innovate new methods of play. They argue that regulations hamper that process. They say that in the course of play, each team will respond to the innovations of their opponents with their own creativity. Each team’s greed will bring out the best in the others. They aren’t ready to drop all of the rules, but they believe that less government will create better play.
Now let’s imagine that the Unfettered Play Group is ascendant in the debate. Over time the game’s rules are constantly liberalized and unfettered. In the vacuum of deregulation new methods are devised by teams in order to win. The game gradually ceases to be a system. It is governed by one rule…”Whatever it takes”. Gradually it devolves into a sort of unfettered, winner-take-all blood-sport.
Is competition useful? You bet! But I suggest that unfettered competition leads to a blood-sport that is no “system” at all. It becomes a jungle. Because of it’s ever-changing and inherently unpredictable nature, it is no longer amenable to control chart signaling and it is not amenable to improvement.
