Lonely at the top?
It all depends on how you reached the top and what kind of top did you reach.
In a zero sum game, you get to the top by fighting and defeating the rest of the world. By the time you get there, nobody loves you. That kind of top is like a mountain peak, a very small, cold and lonely spot.
In a collaborative game, you get to the top by networking, supporting others and sharing. It is a wide and supportive top. More like the high plateaus described by Maslow, than the mountain peaks.
Fungus
Showing posts with label zero sum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zero sum. Show all posts
Monday, April 13, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Collaboration
We play two kinds of games.
The zero sum game is the kind where you have only one prize and all contestants fight to get it. It is a game where the winner takes it all and all the other players lose. The kind of game we are used to seeing in the sports screen and in the movies. Most people use this metaphor to describe the business world. The hero skilfully steals the treasure, gets the girl, and lives happily ever after. Hail to the victor.
Big thrill. Very popular in some parts.
The other kind is less thrilling.
According to Hollywood, it's not interesting, and according to Wall Street, it's not worth the effort.
Collaborative games, are based on the idea that if the players work together, the prize can be made bigger, and there will be enough for all. Sir Thomas More, in his "Utopia" described an imaginary society based on collaboration.
Not possible, says Hollywood. It's a jungle out there.
Red in claw and tooth.
Ruth Benedict in "Patterns of Culture" describes a living society built on these principles. She coined the word "synergy" for this kind of collaboration.
The word stuck, but the idea did not. Most business management training in the last 20 years use this magic word: "Synergy...", they say, "is the art of making two plus two larger than four", and they smile, forgetting the collaboration part.
We play two kinds of games, but one of them takes brains, respect, patience, and trust. No wonder we'd rather fight and lose than collaborate and win.
Blame Charles Darwin for that.
Fungus
The zero sum game is the kind where you have only one prize and all contestants fight to get it. It is a game where the winner takes it all and all the other players lose. The kind of game we are used to seeing in the sports screen and in the movies. Most people use this metaphor to describe the business world. The hero skilfully steals the treasure, gets the girl, and lives happily ever after. Hail to the victor.
Big thrill. Very popular in some parts.
The other kind is less thrilling.
According to Hollywood, it's not interesting, and according to Wall Street, it's not worth the effort.
Collaborative games, are based on the idea that if the players work together, the prize can be made bigger, and there will be enough for all. Sir Thomas More, in his "Utopia" described an imaginary society based on collaboration.
Not possible, says Hollywood. It's a jungle out there.
Red in claw and tooth.
Ruth Benedict in "Patterns of Culture" describes a living society built on these principles. She coined the word "synergy" for this kind of collaboration.
The word stuck, but the idea did not. Most business management training in the last 20 years use this magic word: "Synergy...", they say, "is the art of making two plus two larger than four", and they smile, forgetting the collaboration part.
We play two kinds of games, but one of them takes brains, respect, patience, and trust. No wonder we'd rather fight and lose than collaborate and win.
Blame Charles Darwin for that.
Fungus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
