Cooperation and Competition.

Clarity usually enables better performance. It is possible to over simplify things but it is also common to over complicate things.

An important distinction is to work out if a situation is competitive or cooperative. These situations are often conflated. Many people who do not work together go on team-building exercises. And many people who worked together are set up in competition with each other within their working environment. Hoping that the survival of the fittest gets the desired results rather than managing a team to work together towards a shared, identified goal is a common approach/mistake.

Many people are in competition with their work colleagues directly and indirectly. The incentives to work together are often week which directs (incentivise) the behaviour of the workers. In a school it is best for all if the children improve their skills and increase their knowledge and perform to higher levels. In many state secondary schools the classroom and corridors are labelled war zones, even though it is in everyone’s interest to cooperate not compete (conflict). Many work places are similar either directly competing in sales or indirectly through social and political environments.

The first task for an individual is to recognise the environment and situation they are in. Where are they in competition and where they are cooperative. Working out who is on your team and who is against is important. ‘Should’ is an easy distraction. The teacher goes into a school to help the children but the child often goes into a school to get what someone else perceives is good for them. All sorts of ‘should’ are in the teachers mind of how the children should be motivated, behave and understand. Reality hits quite quick in some schools. Other middle management roles have the same issues of cooperation and competition. Competing needs and interests effect the whole environment.

A second task is to go from conflict or competition to cooperation. This need may be immediate in the situation where conflict is ramped up. The best long term method is to prevent the conflict from developing. This quite often is a legal concept (often ignored) that should be enacted, as well as a principle of higher performance. There are many models to create groups or teams. Lack of clarity is not a good method, getting colleagues to compete against each other is not conducive to them working together. Teams need to bond together getting to know each other with respect. They need to work together in all stages to act at the best time and ways. They need to take responsibility for their own and teams actions and performance.

If the conflict is active you need to get back to cooperation. Security professionals have to try the correct level of their behaviour to match the level of conflict. The most commonly needed skill and tactic is talk. Calming down emotions, connecting to the participants to identify the issue and the way forward. Sometimes time and space is all that’s needed. Other times discussion may identify actions and perceptions that need to be addressed. Eliminating all conflict is impossible and sometimes the conflict is violent. The correct response has to be made to get the best results. The hindsight passive aggressive attacks often cloud the mind of the conflict resolver. The old adage of ‘don’t take a knife to a gun fight’ points to knowing the situation (battlefield) and what will work or will not to improve the situation. Sometimes violence in the immediate time is needed to protect people and property as the consequences of not can be immense. The law recognises that physical action may be needed, but professional handling of the situation needs preparation and training. A non-contact approach may be illegal (duty of care) and yet is not challenged for social and political reasons. The most powerful socially and politically are not necessarily the most knowledgeable. In regards to conflict they are most often ignorant of legal and effectiveness issues, but well aware of potential risks to themselves, while under-emphasising the risk to others or of inaction (the cost of not).

Many times the mistake of encouraging competition is made due to ignorance of the cost and consequences of inaction and the lack of desire to help others who are in conflict or who have to deal with the conflict. These skills and knowledge are not those that are incentivised for work promotion. There is a demand and pressure for accountability for the people who deal with conflict but not for those who do not prevent before and judge after. Even within an environment the phrase ‘keep your friends close and your enemies even closer’ comes to mind many workers are wary of those with power including those ‘on their side’.

How to compete is another topic, that I do not want to share with those who compete with me!