GRE Issue Topic 121

Sample 1:

The debate raised in the argument is fundamentally one of competition vs. collaboration. The genesis of this argument is as old as human life itself. According to Charles Darwin, evolution was a struggle, a competition amongst species and genes and only the strongest survived. This indicates that competition is inherent in our nature and the very reason for our existence today. However the importance of community living, with its foundation on collaboration, must not be undermined. In prehistoric times raising offspring’s was a largely communal exercise. In an article published in the Harvard Business Review Ron Ashkenas, extends the argument that as the world becomes increasingly complex, learning how NOT to compete would be the litmus test for ensuring success. I would be examining both sides of the argument and presenting the final analysis in the conclusion.

All life forms are in a constant struggle with their environment and their chance of survival is directly and highly correlated with pushing the strong over the weak. When the predator attacks the prey, it is a lone struggle for each member of the species, and the foremost though is to ensure personal safety. The selfish herd theory extended by W.D.Hamilton asserts that while a species appears to be fleeing to safety in a pack, it is essentially driven by individual self-interest.(or Charles darwin’s example of the gazelle jumping high on spotting a predator which appears as an unselfish behavior but in fact is a display of one’s health so that the predator is motivated to chance a weaker member)Competition then can be viewed as an in-built mechanism in each species and an inclination that is hard to counter. Indeed, evolution negates the need to overcome this tendency of the selfish gene and encourages severe competition so that the best genes are passed on. The same then is true also for leaders and each field, each government and each business in order to ensure its survival must compete with others, optimizing on their strengths and maximizing on their effectiveness.

In technical fields as well, promoting competition can be the fastest and most effective route to solving conundrums faced by humanity. Competition in this context ensures that the stalwarts in each field are recognized and appreciated, which would serve as impetus for excelling further. Given the paucity of resources and the criticality of finding answers to pressing problems, our interest would be accelerated if the intelligentsia from the field are involved in problem solving. While with collaboration too the solutions would likely be arrived at, speed and dexterity take precedence over cooperative brainstorming. History is replete with examples of individual contributors to each field who perhaps were able to best exploit their genius in isolation from others.

Research conducted on trying to find an answer to this debate, have however revealed insights that competition serves to expend our energies which could otherwise be used more productively on focusing at the task on hand. Studies mapping cognitive processes to brain functions have pointed out that excelling in an endeavor and competing with others are two distinct processes which would reduce efficiency if attempted in conjunction. It has also been indicated that there are harmful health effects of competition and instead groups that work in collaboration are happier, relaxed and more in control over their circumstances. No doubt healthy physical and mental processes would have an exponential effect on performance. If leaders then are to work in the interest of their field, bypassing personal actuations of fame and recognition, they need to learn to work in harmony with each other, play on the strengths of others and cogitate answers in discussions with their peers.

Unrestrained competition, in contrast to popular belief, actually divests focus from the common goal and each individual is motivated solely by personal gains. This mindset is deleterious in every scenario and the synergies and economies that could be exploited are frittered away in exhibitions of one-upmanship. For instance, the environmental department and the trade and commerce department in any government ministry and usually at cross purposes with each other. Environmental concerns are often seen as impediments in industrial growth and development, with each department accusing the other of not being sensitive to their views. However for the larger good of the nation, is it imperative that these ministries do not see themselves as independent silos but instead find a way of working together that would serve to provide livelihood to millions of citizens in an environmentally responsible way.

In conclusion, I would tend to agree with Ron and believe that in the coming century human advancement would be in direct proportion to our ability to work together with others, empathize and solve problems keeping in mind a macro view. The prey would be able to better defend its turf; the experts would be able to arrive at solutions that are bolstered by taking into consideration myriad views. Competition driven by narrow self serving interests has been the accepted way of progress thus far and might be more alluring in the short run, but would have severe implications in the long run.