COMPETITION VS. COOPERATION
By Perry W. Buffington, Ph.D.
Which works better, competition or cooperation? The answer,
without equivocation, is cooperation. Although most people are
surprised by this, scientists have repeatedly verified it in
hundreds of studies since the late 1800s. Yet big business, the
educational system, the health-care community, and most parents
continue to encourage competition, almost totally neglecting the
power of cooperation. None of these groups realizes that
unabated competition may be costing billions of dollars in sales
and overall decreases in human achievement. Furthermore,
researchers have shown that too much competition may cause poor
health. Yet we continue to hold the cherished belief that
competition (not cooperation), to paraphrase Sigmund Freud, "is
the royal road to success."
If in fact competition brings out the "beast" in us, then
research demonstrates that cooperation surely brings out the
"best" in us. This finding has been held in virtually every
occupation, skill, or behavior tested. For instance, scientists
who consider themselves cooperative tend to have more published
articles than their competitive colleagues. Cooperative
businesspeople have higher salaries. From elementary grades to
college, cooperative students have higher grade point averages.
Personnel directors who work together have fewer job vacancies
to fill. And, not surprisingly, cooperation increases
creativity. Unfortunately, most people are not taught
cooperative skills.
Dr. David W. Johnson and Dr. Roger T. Johnson, professors at
the University of Minnesota and co-directors of the
Cooperative Learning Center, concur and add that education and
psychology have been at odds on the issue for years. Roger
Johnson explains, "If we are to teach people to be cooperative,
then education and psychology must work together. You see, a
typical classroom teacher is taught to keep students quiet and
apart, indirectly fostering competition. Yet ... people learn
best when they work cooperatively with each other. Children who
experience this type of learning at an early age carry it with
them as they mature."
David Johnson adds, "More students feel good about
themselves as learners when they cooperate. Their self-esteem
goes up, they have a better sense of community, belonging, and
acceptance. One can also extrapolate this finding to any
setting."
The Cooperative Learning Center, cooperatively chaired by
the Johnsons, has been researching and training cooperative
skills for over 15 years. According to Roger Johnson, the Center
has "a research base of over 500 studies dating back to the turn
of the century."
Given their research and training tradition, the Johnsons are concerned that too much unsupported emphasis is placed on
competition. Moreover, they feel that the means by which
individuals once learned cooperative skills are eroding.
Roger explains, "There are a lot of reasons to worry. Some
of the standard ways that people once learned to cooperate -
home, churches, communities - are not operating as they did a
generation ago. Teaching young people how to cooperate does not
receive the appropriate level of interest." As a result,
competition breeds unabated. Few are teaching, practicing, or
promoting a better idea.
To counteract this problem, the Johnsons work through
education. Says David Johnson, "Although we do some work with
big business, we prefer to work with the school system. That way
we teach students, the next business generation, how to be
cooperative and influence corporate America indirectly. Once
people experience cooperation, they find out that it's a better,
even easier way."
It seems that cooperation has an impact on individuals
working together in several key areas. Not only does it create a
more fluid leadership, but it allows everyone to participate
actively without fear of censure. Cooperation also has an
impact on an individual's perception of the work environment.
Another area directly impacted by cooperation is, perhaps
surprisingly, health. A fascinating study conducted by the
Cooperative Learning Center took a statistical look at
competitive hockey players. The study examined the relation
between cooperation/competition and mental and mental and
physical health. The Center evaluated 57 collegiate and
semiprofessional ice-hockey players (aged 18-29 years) trying out
for the 1980 Olympic team. Using sophisticated personality
measures and a social-interaction scale, the researchers found
that cooperation does much more than help people get along.
In this study, the more cooperative individuals were better
adjusted psychologically and physically healthier than their more
competitive colleagues. It seems that competition, or the
constant feeling that you have to work against something, has
unhealthy physical side effects. Cooperation, and other
pro-social/unselfish behaviors, tend to have positive side
effects.
To that point, limited evidence suggests that cooperation
generates a type of "runner's high." Although the research is
not definitive, it is promising. Like those individuals who
exercise regularly, people who are cooperative and help others
also experience a type of "high," which might better be described
as calmness or sense of freedom from stress. As the researchers
have shown, once this cooperation, not competition, is preferred.
Additionally, individuals who develop a cooperative stance
tend to feel more in control of their lives and do not live for
approval from others. They tend to feel good. This is in sharp
contrast to the constant intensity of the competitive individual.
As with everything, too much of a good thing can be a
problem. In the case of cooperation, as psychologists point out,
too much can lead to "group-think," "yes-man syndrome," or
inappropriate conformity.
Scott G. Isaksen, director for Studies in Creativity at
Buffalo State College in Buffalo, New York, explains, "If
everyone is so caught up in cooperation with the other side that
they lose a critical respect for the issue, they can all decide
to do the wrong thing unanimously. Although there's no doubt
that a
cooperative environment increases the number of ideas, improves
the quality of the outcome, and facilitates a better working
environment, cooperation must be done in such a way as to protect
the integrity of the project at hand." Simply put, cooperation
is the rule, but objectivity must be maintained.
There are ways to facilitate cooperation, and they are the
same no matter the environment, from big business to peewee
football.
1. Focus on doing well. Isaksen points out that attempting to
do well and trying to beat others are two separate mental
processes. It is impossible to concentrate on both. Of the
two, cooperating with yourself and others to create a
positive outcome has more rewards.
2. Allow ample time. Cooperation comes to a grinding halt as
time pressures increase. Time pressures produce non-agreement,
decreased information exchanges, and firmer
negotiator demands. The perception of available time
facilitates cooperation.
3. Use similar language. If someone is hoping you will
cooperate with him or her on a particular venture, ask
questions using the same works they used to describe the
plan originally. Isaksen explains, "This creates what
psychologists call 'congruence,' and you will appear to be
more cooperative and interested even though you are
critically challenging and gathering additional information.
4. Share leadership. Isaksen sees cooperation as a form of
leadership, equally shared by all group members. By sharing
the leadership, you allow others to take on initiative and
to be integral parts of the group. There is an increased
sense of "ownership" of plans and ideas by all members, and
the work environment is pleasurable.
5. Learn cooperative problem-solving tools. Isaksen points out
that these are really creativity tools by another name. For
instance, he says, "A simple tool is brainstorming.
What happens is that someone invites another to offer wild
suggestions so that others can find ways in which they can
tag along, create, or cooperate." Other techniques include
suspending judgment, clarifying goals and objectives before
seeking cooperation, and evaluating others' plans in a non-threatening
manner.
6. Practice reciprocity. When someone helps you out, make it a
point to help them. Express your gratitude by helping them
before they expect it. A policy of general reciprocity -
people helping people - facilitates cooperation. This
particular technique has been shown empirically (especially
in international studies) as one of the few ways to gain an
adversary's cooperation.
7. Share resources and information. When people are vying for
knowledge, work space, personnel, or anything to help them
get the job done, cooperation decreases. Resource exchange,
however, encourages one person to work with another.
8. Reinforce team efforts. Rather than praising one person for
a job well done, utilize a team approach to problem solving.
When the team does well, the entire group is rewarded. This
minimizes individual competition, and maximizes cooperation.
Distribute the rewards equally among group members.
9. Act cooperatively. Research supports the fact that
individuals who have witnessed a cooperative act will
"pass it on," sharing some degree of cooperation with the
next person they meet. Anytime you help another person
feel better, you have increased the probability that he or
she will be cooperative toward you. As Isaksen summarizes,
"Actions speak louder than words and encourage another
person to cooperate with you."
10. For your health's sake, experience cooperation. Make it a
point to notice how much better you feel when you
cooperate with others. As the researchers suggest, once you
experience the positive feelings, there seems to be no other
way to work except cooperatively.
Cooperation is a valuable commodity and works best when it
is freely given and indirectly encouraged. It promotes goodwill
toward men and women, and is a gift that is always appropriate.
And there's no better time to be cooperative. After all, 'tis
the season.
REFERENCES
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Krotee, M.L. "The relation
between social interdependence and psychological health on
the 1980 U.S. Olympic ice hockey team." (May, 1986). Journal
of Psychology, 120, 279-291.
Kohn, A. "How to succeed without even vying." (September, 1986)
Psychology Today, 20.22-28.
| 
