This was originally published in Bob Pike’s Creative Training Techniques newsletter in 1993.
All the talk in organizations these days of breaking down functional barriers, improving service to “internal” customers, and working in teams can ring hollow without some personal experience to the benefits of these concepts.
Recently, I had a first-hand illustration of why cooperation is a better, and more bloodless, avenue than competition to accomplishing corporate goals.
In July we held a special “school” to evaluate potential new trainers for our company, Creative Training Techniques International. It involved “auditions” for 13 of the best and brightest trainers we’d met in the past year. Each had 10 or more years of training experience.
Here, in essence, were people who potentially, and perhaps quite naturally, could have viewed and treated one another as rivals, competitors to be ignored or treated with indifference in the quest to “win.”
Yet on the evaluation forms these trainers filled out at the end of the tryout exercises, one of the most prevalent comments was about the “supportive climate and spirit” of their fellow participants.
The school was orchestrated by Rich Meiss, our vice president of development, who started the session by providing a structural framework for cooperation.
He stressed that the goal of the school was for each candidate to find the two days worthwhile and beneficial to their own professional development, regardless of whether we chose them or not.
On the second day, each trainer gave a 12-minute presentation that was evaluated by the other participants and four of our staff members.
After each set of four presentations, we broke the group into triads. Each group of three had a presenter, and two others assigned “mentor” and “observer” roles.
First the presenter debriefed, asking others what they liked/didn’t like about his or her presentation, ideas for improvement, and so on.
The second debrief was conducted by the “mentor,” who provided additional feedback, such as whether the presenter had been too hard on him/herself, and positives to build upon.
Finally, in the third debrief, the “observer” gave feedback to the mentor on the effectiveness of his or her coaching efforts.
This technique is similar to the “cooperative” model used in many training assessment centers.
Those centers are designed to place people in a variety of challenging situations to help get a snapshot of their skill levels and the development they need to advance in their companies.
But in other companies, the assessment center process is more Darwinistic, positioned as “survival of the fittest.”
At the conclusion of the testing, some participants are “fast-tracked,” others are placed on a more traditional job path, and others are given this stern message:
Maybe it’s time to consider a job with another company.
In the first scenario, cooperation, camaraderie, and teamwork blossom.
In the second, back-stabbing, critical remarks, and cutthroat competition are the norm.
Which assessment center would you rather participate in?
While many managers and trainers continue to believe competition is the surest way to bring the best out of people, it pays to step back and evaluate what kind of environment we’re fostering in our classrooms and work environment with the exercises we use, and the messages we send.
The choice is ours.
While we can’t really motivate our participants, we can certainly create an environment where they’re better able to motivate themselves.
Duane’s Take
I think Bob’s point here goes beyond whether cooperation is better than competition.
It’s about the environment we create for learning.
If I’m sitting in a training room worried about looking smarter than the person next to me, I’m probably not going to admit when I don’t understand something. I’m less likely to ask for help. I’m certainly not going to share an idea that might make someone else more successful than me.
That’s not a great environment for learning.
What I really like about Bob’s example is that he didn’t just tell the trainers to cooperate. He designed cooperation into the experience.
The presenter practiced self-evaluation.
The mentor practiced giving useful feedback.
The observer practiced evaluating the quality of the coaching.
Everybody had a job, and everybody was learning from everybody else.
That’s participant-centered training.
We sometimes think adding competition automatically makes an activity more engaging. Divide everyone into teams. Keep score. Give the winner a prize.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. I’ve used plenty of competition in training myself.
But we should ask what the competition is actually doing.
If it creates energy and encourages people to participate, great.
If it makes people more concerned about winning, looking foolish, or protecting what they know, we’ve created an obstacle to learning.
The activity should serve the learning, not the other way around.
Sometimes the best thing we can do isn’t get participants competing against one another.
It’s give them a reason to help one another get better.
And as Bob used to say,
Until next time, add value and make a difference.