The choice of cooperation or competition is a completely normal and important social decision for people to make. Human behavior can be illogical at times when deciding which to choose, yet it’s important to understand the significance of each option. It allows for meaningful and fulfilling societal activity advancements, while maximizing individual benefits. Cooperative or competitive interpersonal tasks can have different effects depending on the societal meaning and our self-perception of them.
The prospect of outperforming our peers and becoming successful is a primary drive for us. The need to compete stems from human instinct. We all want to be the best on an individual basis, which also relates to our need for recognition by others. This is an overall natural behavior with the same applying to cooperation. Humans are social beings and coordination with a group of individuals with the same goal in mind is a fundamental feature which can benefit the entire group.
Cooperation allows ideas to flow freely
There are benefits for using either competition or cooperation in certain circumstances. Cooperation allows for all minds involved to work together, identifying the best outcome for a problem where everyone has a feeling of safety. Diversified thoughts and ideas are an excellent source of value and exchanging these ideas leads to better identification of an ordeal and consideration of all parameters involved. Even though cooperation may involve lesser individual effort, results have the potential of being more adequate and resources used much more effectively.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, competition itself is often a reaction to a challenge. It helps with improving the capability of achieving an objective that an individual or a small and highly coordinated group face. This means that reaching solutions can be much quicker than using coordination and allow individual skills to develop. Competition stimulates certain personality types such as extroverts, who tend to excel much more when employing a competitive methodology. Entities like brands and corporations who compete with each other have the ability to maximize their outputs for the surrounding society.
Using competition over cooperation has its consequences
Competitive and cooperative environments both have their advantages, although there are certain disadvantages to opting for the former. When in a competitive state, one may disseminate information hastily or precipitously, leading to potential miscommunication or lack of understanding. In turn this promotes stress and an unhealthy environment resulting in lower engagement.
Going into deeper ideas surrounding competition and cooperation, each has their own mindset attached to them. In competition, social comparisons observed that comparing oneself to their superior can either be inspiring or detrimental and self-deprecating. However, a sense of similarity can help influence a person positively, as can instances of them moving towards the same goals. The circumstances and situations of the individuals are put in, are a critical point here. Context can sway a person’s feelings.
With cooperation, there is a correlation with the inclusion of others and the ability to learn from one another, sharing ideas and reaching a more well-rounded and diverse conclusion. When the right people cooperate, it can lead to a stronger competitive force against an opposition..
Simple tasks benefit from competition, complex ones from cooperation
Certain situations and ordeals call for certain choices between competition or cooperation. Simpler and more repetitive tasks generate better or more outcomes in a competitive environment. It may also be more suited for individuals or teams who are already optimally coordinated. Conversely, more complex activities which are less repetitive are more efficient when managed cooperatively.
Decisions between these two methods also depend on individual skills and abilities. Teams composed of more introverted members will typically find it easier to express themselves in a cooperative environment. More complex situations or more elaborate projects are better addressed as well. Errors which may arise are less likely to occur in a cooperative set-up.
The finance industry continuously deals with ever-changing environments and complex issues. Ambiguity is often present and difficult situations are much more likely to arise. As such, all heads are required to find solutions to current issues in order to achieve the best results possible. A cooperative environment is by far the best setup to enhance and develop businesses. It results in the best outcome possible with no excess energy required and wasted.
Considering sports, the competitive nature is almost immediately prominent. It’s what the players involved are craving. I have noticed, through experience, that a cooperative approach in a team is by far the most effective way for a positive result. It allows players to synergize and is quite powerful as a whole.
Individuals and their environments influence their decision
A competitive team member who is assisted by his peers cooperatively may yield a productive team. The former may be a great leader and the latter a great team, thus providing the strength and endurance to achieve ambitious results. On the other hand, a team member who is too competitive with too many leaders may cause infighting which can lead to the loss of energy and disappointing results. Team leaders need to be aware of this and the natural propensity for competition in each team member.
In every environment, some individuals lean towards competition, where others lean towards cooperation. Good leaders are ones with a sensible nature towards team dynamics and personalities. These dynamics are constantly changing and often require a sustained effort from the team leader. I find these dynamics incredibly interesting as it shows how these two methods perform in their natural environments.
Marc-Andre Pepin 