COOPERATION

Cooperation

View more PowerPoint from LEIDY GONZALEZ

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition

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