A critique on how competition cannot be measured or recreated.

In Berg’s “competition and cooperation: The wisdom to know when” she uses the RED and BLUE game model to represent her point of view of business ethics and competition in a business environment. To analyze the paper from a factual perspective, Berg gave a detailed and a manual like description on how to conduct the trails and explained the results from most of the outcomes thus we could say the results are credible and well rounded. However, if I were to critique the paper from an empirical point of view I would believe the results to be doubtful and show minimal correlation to what Berg really wants to measure.

Though Berg attempts to acknowledge flaws in her experiment, she never coherently stated variables or logical fallacies in her methodology. For example, she wrote a Fair play is an important mechanism claiming when we are in danger of being treated unfairly, we tend to mobilize all our resources to prevent the other team. I agree with this statement only to an academic standpoint because we cannot overgeneralize human behavior in an ever-changing economy, lets apply Berg’s results to a relationship between 2 business operating in the same market, according to Berg in most cases after cooperating with conflicts both teams would only a smaller negative store, though comparatively speaking this is an positive exchange it doesn’t make sense from a business perspective no business would collaborate to only lose less money, if this scenario is to happen in real life business would most likely relocate or minimize lost of selling product at cost and use the funds to reinvest in assets that don’t have conflicting interest. In my opinion cooperation in losing situation is the only short-term solution to prevent more loses, but ultimately the reason behind why one of the business not having susses would always because the other has conflicting interest, it would be more effective to eliminate the competition or just avoid the competition.

Applying Berg’s framework to an individual level in a workplace environment, cooperation and competition are co-existing we cannot just assume teamwork promotes success, I argue that for a firm to be successful you need employees that are competitive and is able to work cooperatively at the same time. Some CEO’s might also argue that they prefer employees that are more competitive than others as they are self-motivated. Thus highlighting some flaws within Berg’s methodology, though her framework does explain how individuals would react to competition and how it may draw unethical attention, I believe it fails to acknowledge that business activities or behavior cannot be replicated as it’s impossible to account for all the factors and some may even be unaccountable.

Though I have shed a negative light on Berg’s paper so far I believe it also carries a lot of insightful points to be discussed, one point I would like to discuss is the relationship between competition and the good and evil of a person. Berg highlighted the importance of trust, for example, I enjoyed her analysis on what would happen if the one team tries to deceive another team, as these situations are very realistic and perfectly represent competition I remember encountering a story a manager told me during my internship, she said its very popular for individuals to come to an interview just to see how much there salary would be if they worked here and verbal agreement to join the company but to just to use it as leverage for other companies to match the offer or pay the individual even more. Suggesting the word of mouth cannot be trusted. Does may suggest in-order to be competitive one must be evil or be dishonest, as if the individual was honest about his intentions they may not receive the greatest possible salary, this idea was also highlighted during her trials where it may only temporary benefits.

The set of trails she run highly mimicked my groups business presentation we have to give on Thursday, both describe an experiment they are going to run and give analysis on the results, however for paper “The gender gap in competitiveness” by Mollerstorm and Whohlich they provide more background research and further backing on their results despite it being a shorter paper. For example before explain their own experiment she credited many other previous examples, as a reader than give me a sense of security of what I am about to read would have a high degree of truth, also Mollerstorm and which also recreated the experiment on 2 platforms to prove their variable don’t only exist on a particular setting. This is a problem Berg could’ve considered as the idea of the experiment being just a game may have hindered the results, the participants may have made different choices if the skates were higher. Moreover, both business competition related papers have a common trend is based on facts rather than empirical or normative critiques, which is something to consider if we have such ideas included in the research paper we are about to right. Both papers felt like a report than a commentary, which suggesting research in a business context should have a factual approach rather than aiming for a balanced argument.

In relation to other post made, I wanna give my opinion on Anais’s argument of competition is not always given which I believe to be false, she mentioned how when 2 parties have a common goal competition would no longer be needed using reproduction as an example. I would like to respond to this argument, I believe if one has a common goal their field of competition become each other, taking reproduction or being a parent as an example, they could be competing against each other to become better parents. Though it can also be argued that argument may bring harm to the child but it may also encourage them to improve.
After completing 3 written response I have realized that I often critique papers more than appreciating them, which I find interesting as most articles are written by credible sources and written by individuals more knowledgeable than myself. However when I ask myself to explain my perspective on competition on a certain field I am only able to compose of the limited amount of ideas regarding the topic, is this my body’s way to compete, are humans more likely to find ways to falsify others arguments than we try to accept them? As of now, I believe competition is a double edge sword it may harm or aid us, it depends on what field we apply it to and who we are.

Image used


1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s