Introduction

Competition is upheld as a way of increasing performance, but does it always?

The answer is no. But how do you identify constructive competition versus destructive competition in your workplace?

First it might be easy to assume that if we have the maximum performance out of all the individuals in a group then we have the maximum performance out of the group as a whole.
Second it might be easy to assume that if individuals are acknowledged specifically for their individual performance that this will maximise group performance.

Both assertions can be badly wrong in many situations.

A group will have specific objectives and directives that it needs to achieve through the performance of processes. These group processes have to be broken down into the processes to be performed by each individual according to their capabilities.

Where there are incentives to maximise individual performance, individuals will promote themselves towards the capabilities they perform best even though they may have other capabilities that would be more valuable to the group's performance.
Where only individual performance is acknowledged there is no incentive to assist in improving the performance of others, and there is even an incentive to undermine the performance of others, when any opportunity arises to do so.

Thus direct maximising of individual performance can create an environment that is detrimental to group performance maximisation.

The solution is to reward individuals in the group, not for their isolated performance, but for their contribution to optimising group performance through helping others to improve and through allocating their capabilities for group performance, rather than their individual performance.

Individual performance though rewarded, should not be rewarded to a greater extent then contribution to improvements in group performance. This is how to maintain constructive competition and subdue destructive competition.

Biological Competition

In living organisms in a species where the cost of competition is high other competing species with lower competition costs can replace them. So species with lower competition costs are fitter than those with high competition costs.

Species with no competition at all may well lose fitness due to ease with which slackers can hide their lack of performance within the group.

Thus the fittest species maintain a competitive environment but with rewards for individuals that support group interests.

Many species have reduced the cost of competition by replacing fights with "frightening" displays that are linked to individual fitness. (These displays are of course not necessarily frightening for us only the competition.)

The Selfish Gene

In speaking about biological evolution the book "The Selfish Gene" was an inspiration to Jeffrey Skilling CEO of Enron and prompted his policy of having all employees in the company ranked every six months, offering lavish bonuses to the top 5 percent while the bottom 15 percent were relocated or fired. Quoting from the introduction to the book, page 3 reads as follows;

"This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true."

Barring the essential philosophical position of attributing a motive for action to a gene, it would also appear that the biology is incorrect since;

A gene that is favourable to the organism in which it is expressed will be selected for, and will do nothing to enhance its expression. Could this be a selfish gene?
A gene that is unfavourable to the organism in which it is expressed will be selected against, and will do nothing to resist its removal. Could this be a selfless gene?

It is an error to attribute selfishness or selflessness to genes. Genes are in no way concerned for their own survival or the survival of others any more than a stream is concerned about the shortest route to the sea.

Biology has shown that competition and cooperation both have a role to play.

It is not the case that a group will perform optimally if each individual endeavours to behave as selfishly as possible and there are far better reasons for selfless behaviour than to simply say it would be "very nasty" otherwise.

Dawkins was unclear about the role that cooperative behaviour plays in evolution or why evolution created it.

Let us not repeat that mistake.