Leidy Gonzalez Upper-Intermidiate English Blog
Monday, April 30, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
COOPERATION VS COMPETITION
COOPERATION VS COMPETITION
COOPERATION:
I think that is when we help at the other person to
obtain something objective to serve to the group or the society.
COMPETITION:
Is the ability to compete with somebody in different cases.
The competition we can see in the people and the animals. The people to compete
in the job, in the school, in sports, in beauty, between others. And the animals to compete to survive between
themselves.
I think that
the COOPERATION is more appropriate
for life.
As a future
teacher I think that we should focus on cooperation, because if everything helps
us like a group united, we will obtain knowledge that everyone need and this form
to stand out to compete.
COMPETITION:
In biology, ecology and sociology is a contest between organisms, animals,
individuals, groups, etc. for territory, a niche, or a location of resources, for resources and goods, for prestige, recognition
and awards, for mates and group or social status,
for leadership; it is the opposite of cooperation.
COOPERATION:
Cooperation or co-operation is the process of working or acting together. In its simplest form it involves things working in harmony, side by side, while in its more complicated forms, it can involve something as complex as the inner workings of a human being or even the social patterns of a nation. It is the alternative to working separately in competition. Cooperation can also be accomplished by computers, which can handle shared resources simultaneously, while sharing processor time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation
COMPETITION VS. COOPERATION
By Perry W. Buffington, Ph.D.
Which works better, competition or
cooperation? The answer,
without equivocation, is cooperation. Although most people are
surprised by this, scientists have repeatedly
verified it in
hundreds of studies since the late 1800s. Yet big business, the
educational system, the health-care community, and
most parents
continue to encourage competition, almost totally
neglecting the
power of cooperation. None of these groups realizes that
unabated competition may be costing billions of
dollars in sales
and overall decreases in human achievement. Furthermore,
researchers have shown that too much competition
may cause poor
health. Yet
we continue to hold the cherished belief that
competition (not cooperation), to paraphrase
Sigmund Freud, "is
the royal road to success."
If in fact competition brings out the
"beast" in us, then
research demonstrates that cooperation surely
brings out the
"best" in us. This finding has been held in virtually every
occupation, skill, or behavior tested. For instance, scientists
who consider themselves cooperative tend to have
more published
articles than their competitive colleagues. Cooperative
businesspeople have higher salaries. From elementary grades to
college, cooperative students have higher grade
point averages.
Personnel directors who work together have fewer
job vacancies
to fill.
And, not surprisingly, cooperation increases
creativity.
Unfortunately, most people are not taught
cooperative skills.
Dr. David W. Johnson and Dr. Roger T. Johnson,
professors at
the University of Minnesota and co-directors of the
Cooperative Learning Center, concur and add that
education and
psychology have been at odds on the issue for
years. Roger
Johnson explains, "If we are to teach people
to be cooperative,
then education and psychology must work
together. You see, a
typical classroom teacher is taught to keep
students quiet and
apart, indirectly fostering competition. Yet ... people learn
best when they work cooperatively with each
other. Children who
experience this type of learning at an early age
carry it with
them as they mature."
David Johnson adds, "More students feel good
about
themselves as learners when they cooperate. Their self-esteem
goes up, they have a better sense of community,
belonging, and
acceptance.
One can also extrapolate this finding to any
setting."
The Cooperative Learning Center, cooperatively
chaired by
the Johnsons, has been researching and training
cooperative
skills for over 15 years. According to Roger Johnson, the Center
has "a research base of over 500 studies
dating back to the turn
of the century."
Given their research and training tradition, the
Johnsons are concerned that too much unsupported emphasis is placed on
competition.
Moreover, they feel that the means by which
individuals once learned cooperative skills are eroding.
Roger explains, "There are a lot of reasons to
worry. Some
of the standard ways that people once learned to
cooperate -
home, churches, communities - are not operating as
they did a
generation ago.
Teaching young people how to cooperate does not
receive the appropriate level of
interest." As a result,
competition breeds unabated. Few are teaching, practicing, or
promoting a better idea.
To counteract this problem, the Johnsons work
through
education. Says
David Johnson, "Although we do some work with
big business, we prefer to work with the school
system. That way
we teach students, the next business generation,
how to be
cooperative and influence corporate America
indirectly. Once
people experience cooperation, they find out that
it's a better,
even easier way."
It seems that cooperation has an impact on
individuals
working together in several key areas. Not only does it create a
more fluid leadership, but it allows everyone to participate
actively without fear of censure. Cooperation also has an
impact on an individual's perception of the work
environment.
Another area directly impacted by cooperation is,
perhaps
surprisingly, health. A fascinating study conducted by the
Cooperative Learning Center took a statistical look
at
competitive hockey players. The study examined the relation
between cooperation/competition and mental and
mental and
physical health.
The Center evaluated 57 collegiate and
semiprofessional ice-hockey players (aged 18-29
years) trying out
for the 1980
Olympic team. Using sophisticated
personality
measures and a social-interaction scale, the
researchers found
that cooperation does much more than help people
get along.
In this study, the more cooperative individuals
were better
adjusted psychologically and physically healthier
than their more
competitive colleagues. It seems that competition, or the
constant feeling that you have to work against
something, has
unhealthy physical side effects. Cooperation, and other
pro-social/unselfish behaviors, tend to have
positive side
effects.
To that point, limited evidence suggests that
cooperation
generates a type of "runner's high." Although the research is
not definitive, it is promising. Like those individuals who
exercise regularly, people who are cooperative and
help others
also experience a type of "high," which
might better be described
as calmness or sense of freedom from stress. As the researchers
have shown, once this cooperation, not competition,
is preferred.
Additionally, individuals who develop a cooperative
stance
tend to feel more in control of their lives and do
not live for
approval from others. They tend to feel good. This is in sharp
contrast to the constant intensity of the
competitive individual.
As with everything, too much of a good thing can be
a
problem. In
the case of cooperation, as psychologists point out,
too much can lead to "group-think,"
"yes-man syndrome," or
inappropriate conformity.
Scott G. Isaksen, director for Studies in
Creativity at
Buffalo State College in Buffalo, New York,
explains, "If
everyone is so caught up in cooperation with the
other side that
they lose a critical respect for the issue, they
can all decide
to do the wrong thing unanimously. Although there's no doubt
that a
cooperative environment increases the number of
ideas, improves
the quality of the outcome, and facilitates a
better working
environment, cooperation must be done in such a way
as to protect
the integrity of the project at hand." Simply put, cooperation
is the rule, but objectivity must be maintained.
There are ways to facilitate cooperation, and they
are the
same no matter the environment, from big business
to peewee
football.
1. Focus on
doing well. Isaksen points out that attempting to
do well and trying to beat others are two separate
mental
processes.
It is impossible to concentrate on both.
Of the
two, cooperating with yourself and others to create
a
positive outcome has more rewards.
2. Allow
ample time. Cooperation comes to a
grinding halt as
time pressures increase. Time pressures produce non-agreement,
decreased information exchanges, and firmer
negotiator demands.
The perception of available time
facilitates cooperation.
3. Use
similar language. If someone is hoping
you will
cooperate with him or her on a particular venture,
ask
questions using the same works they used to
describe the
plan originally. Isaksen explains, "This
creates what
psychologists call 'congruence,' and you will
appear to be
more cooperative and interested even though you are
critically challenging and gathering additional
information.
4. Share
leadership. Isaksen sees cooperation as a form of
leadership, equally shared by all group
members. By sharing
the leadership, you allow others to take on
initiative and
to be integral parts of the group. There is an increased
sense of "ownership" of plans and ideas
by all members, and
the work environment is pleasurable.
5. Learn
cooperative problem-solving tools. Isaksen points out
that these are really creativity tools by another
name. For
instance, he says, "A simple tool is
brainstorming.
What happens is that someone invites another to
offer wild
suggestions so that others can find ways in which
they can
tag along, create, or cooperate." Other techniques include
suspending judgment, clarifying goals and
objectives before
seeking cooperation, and evaluating others' plans
in a non-threatening
manner.
6. Practice
reciprocity. When someone helps you out,
make it a
point to help them.
Express your gratitude by helping them
before they expect it. A policy of general reciprocity -
people helping people - facilitates
cooperation. This
particular technique has been shown empirically
(especially
in international studies) as one of the few ways to
gain an
adversary's cooperation.
7. Share
resources and information. When people
are vying for
knowledge, work space, personnel, or anything to
help them
get the job done, cooperation decreases. Resource exchange,
however, encourages one person to work with another.
8.
Reinforce team efforts. Rather
than praising one person for
a job well done, utilize a team approach to problem
solving.
When the team does well, the entire group is
rewarded. This
minimizes individual competition, and maximizes
cooperation.
Distribute the rewards equally among group members.
9. Act
cooperatively. Research supports the
fact that
individuals who have witnessed a cooperative act
will
"pass it on," sharing some degree of
cooperation with the
next person they meet. Anytime you help another person
feel better, you have increased the probability
that he or
she will be cooperative toward you. As Isaksen summarizes,
"Actions speak louder than words and encourage
another
person to cooperate with you."
10. For your
health's sake, experience cooperation.
Make it a
point to notice how much better you feel when you
cooperate with others. As the researchers suggest, once you
experience the positive feelings, there seems to be
no other
way to work except cooperatively.
Cooperation is a valuable commodity and works best
when it
is freely given and indirectly encouraged. It promotes goodwill
toward men and women, and is a gift that is always
appropriate.
And there's no better time to be cooperative. After all, 'tis
the season.
http://www.charleswarner.us/articles/competit.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)