Change is the only constant, Schopenhauer declared. And to ignore it is tantamount to refusing to see reality. It does not seem logical that the theoretical frameworks used to explain economic reality can remain untouchable for several decades. We are not living in an era of change, but rather a change of era, and in this radical transformation of society and productive forces, competitiveness models that were once as valid asPorter's Five Forces may now be becoming obsolete.
On the subject of the relationship between competition, cooperation, and that hybrid model some callcoopetition, we recently came across a very interesting interview in the prestigious Harvard Business Review with organizational psychologist Adam Grant from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. We found the conversation so relevant that we decided to include a summary of it here on the BRAINTRUST blog, a space for debate.
In Grant's opinion, the main mistake is to consider your "rival" as an enemy, under the premise of "being better at something, and being better than the other." In his experience, your rival can also be a great ally, and although this approach is not very instinctive, it can yield great results. Grant, who has based much of his career on observing competitiveness in sport, says that "if you want to be the best, you have to train with the best." And what is true for an athlete is also true for a professional or middle manager, as direct competitors are people who generate more pressure and demonstrate knowledge, skills, and abilities. Therefore, they force those around them to "raise their game."
As an example, we have the case of some elite athletes who train alongside their rivals and even help each other. Something totally unexpected, a priori, since "running is supposed to be zero-sum." Why do they do it? Because they believe that "this is the only way to achieve excellence."
Although extra precautions must be taken when participating in a crowded market, these opportunities also exist in so-called "red oceans." For example, in the airline market, the interviewee cites the case of a small company calledSurf Air, whose market proposition was to avoid traffic congestion in California. There was a market for this, a need had been identified, and the main investor was not exactly a novice in business. But after investing a million dollars, he did not achieve great results, so he went to talk to a competitor: JetSuite. And that competitor decided it was worth "rescuing" the failed airline, putting it back on the market, and gaining an ally with whom to establish synergies.
Beyond specific cases, there are sectors in which written or even unwritten codes are observed, whereby all "players" accept a set of rules that involve not undermining their rivals. This corporatefair play even leads to pointing out one's own mistakes and "offside" situations that may occur. "And there are rarely disagreements, and people are really motivated to win," Grant says in this regard. This is the case, among others, in the technology industry, where, in his opinion, "it is almost taboo to leave your employer and jump to a major rival," because it is not only damaging to the company itself, but also detrimental to the "friendly rivalry" between companies.
In fact, the employee arena is often a cause for a change in perspective in this regard: if a cooperative relationship is built for joint success, areas of internal competition that are beneficial to the company can be maintained. "We have a certain mutual respect, and then we try to outdo each other. But the loser buys dinner for the winner, or we encourage each other and are happy that one of us has won." It's a shift from "ruthless cooperation" (pretending to have a good relationship and then stabbing each other in the back) to "friendly competition."
"If an organization only measures, rewards, and promotes individual results, it will be very difficult to see market competitors as potential allies. But if you work in an organization that says, 'We are going to take seriously the idea that we don't just care about individual results, because we care about the impact of your results on your team,' then you can also start to say, 'If my rival is successful, and I am successful, and we can make the team more successful, that creates more opportunities for promotion,'" explains the organizational psychologist.
Returning to sport as a source of inspiration ("it's where you see the most vivid examples"), he makes the following observation: what made Phil Jackson "a coaching genius" with the NBA's Chicago Bulls was not only his brilliant strategy, but above all because he convinced Michael Jordan that the most important yardstick was not how many points he personally scored in a game, but his ability to build and lead a team that took to the court to win games.
"And I think that's basically what you have to do when you're trying to build a team or an organization where rivalry is going to be collaborative or friendly: you have to put team performance on a par with or above individual performance," Grant concludes.
Photo byDanielle MacInnesonUnsplash
