No Contest : The Case Against Competition

Rating:
Summary: A Good Summary; Potentially Life-Changing
Review: Alfie Kohn's "No Contest: The Case Against Competition" (1986) was an unexpected find. I've been a believer in the free market system, with products getting better and cheaper through competition. That certainly seems to work, especially in computer hardware -- but this book has turned my thinking around. Hundreds of studies have shown that once a goal is established, cooperation will always produce better results (and better people) than competition. If two cooperative groups compete, results are usually due to the cooperative dynamics and are actually weakened by the inter-group competition. People working for pleasure and mutual support will be more creative and more productive than those working to best others. Also happier. Kohn carefully dispels arguments that competition is productive, necessary, or acceptable in moderation. He tears apart sports as a social model, showing that cheating is inherent and encouraged rather than an unfortunate aberration. ("We try to beat others in an effort to prove our own worth. Ultimately this strategy reveals itself as futile, since making our self-esteem contingent on winning means that it will always be in doubt. The more we compete, the more we *need* to compete.") Competition in all forms is shown to be toxic to individuals and to society. ("For enjoyment to derive wholly from the process of beating another person is more than a little disturbing...", and "Despite this evidence ... we continue trying to succeed at the price of other people's failure. Often *we* are those 'other people' who fail, but this scarcely diminishes our quest for victory or our belief that competition is good for us.")

You couldn't ask for a much better explanation of what's wrong with US culture. (Nearly all other societies are less competitive, and some are almost completely cooperative.) Kohn doesn't have much to say about how we can overhaul our culture, other than by substituting non-competitive games for what we currently teach children. He does suggest that our reduction in racial and gender discrimination shows we can also end competitive indoctrination. More immediately, I suggest that each of us look for ways to motivate our subordinates cooperatively rather than competitively.

Kohn doesn't address two questions that interest me: 1) Will competitive societies (and their sports-trained armies) tend to absorb non-competitive neighbors? Darwin saw competition everywhere in nature, but there are many species where cooperative behaviors are common and may have "won out" over millions of years. Will human greed, aggression, and [Western? male?] dominance structures allow cooperative societies room to develop? 2) Do competitive companies and societies set more goals, and more ambitious goals, than cooperative groups, outweighing the inherently low efficiency of competitive behavior? This would explain why competitive societies such as the US have progressed faster than non-competitive ones such as China. Something to think about. Meanwhile, I don't believe I can convince my daughter to drop out of competitive sports -- or even to read the book, which is rather dense and scholarly.

Rating:
Summary: A Good Summary; Potentially Life-Changing
Review: Alfie Kohn's "No Contest: The Case Against Competition" (1986) was an unexpected find. I've been a believer in the free market system, with products getting better and cheaper through competition. That certainly seems to work, especially in computer hardware -- but this book has turned my thinking around. Hundreds of studies have shown that once a goal is established, cooperation will always produce better results (and better people) than competition. If two cooperative groups compete, results are usually due to the cooperative dynamics and are actually weakened by the inter-group competition. People working for pleasure and mutual support will be more creative and more productive than those working to best others. Also happier. Kohn carefully dispels arguments that competition is productive, necessary, or acceptable in moderation. He tears apart sports as a social model, showing that cheating is inherent and encouraged rather than an unfortunate aberration. ("We try to beat others in an effort to prove our own worth. Ultimately this strategy reveals itself as futile, since making our self-esteem contingent on winning means that it will always be in doubt. The more we compete, the more we *need* to compete.") Competition in all forms is shown to be toxic to individuals and to society. ("For enjoyment to derive wholly from the process of beating another person is more than a little disturbing...", and "Despite this evidence ... we continue trying to succeed at the price of other people's failure. Often *we* are those 'other people' who fail, but this scarcely diminishes our quest for victory or our belief that competition is good for us.")

You couldn't ask for a much better explanation of what's wrong with US culture. (Nearly all other societies are less competitive, and some are almost completely cooperative.) Kohn doesn't have much to say about how we can overhaul our culture, other than by substituting non-competitive games for what we currently teach children. He does suggest that our reduction in racial and gender discrimination shows we can also end competitive indoctrination. More immediately, I suggest that each of us look for ways to motivate our subordinates cooperatively rather than competitively.

Kohn doesn't address two questions that interest me: 1) Will competitive societies (and their sports-trained armies) tend to absorb non-competitive neighbors? Darwin saw competition everywhere in nature, but there are many species where cooperative behaviors are common and may have "won out" over millions of years. Will human greed, aggression, and [Western? male?] dominance structures allow cooperative societies room to develop? 2) Do competitive companies and societies set more goals, and more ambitious goals, than cooperative groups, outweighing the inherently low efficiency of competitive behavior? This would explain why competitive societies such as the US have progressed faster than non-competitive ones such as China. Something to think about. Meanwhile, I don't believe I can convince my daughter to drop out of competitive sports -- or even to read the book, which is rather dense and scholarly.

Rating:
Summary: Competition is Conflict
Review: Alfie Kohn's book "No Contest: The Case Against Competition" articulates much of what I've always felt and knew to be true about competition, both in the economic sphere, in our personal lives and wherever the twain shall meet. Competition has ruined many more lives than it has benefitted. Even those it benefits are constantly looking over their shoulders. Kohn does a superlative job of debunking the myths, the "holy truths" about competition that we ALL have had rammed down our throats: that it's "human nature" (I'm really tired of that one) and that it "brings out our best". Too few of us stop to question this platitudinous common wisdom. Kohn goes a long way toward proving that co-operation is, indeed, a superior form of social organization that needs to be nurtured just as competition has for so long. Unfortunately, most experiments in co-operative (socialist) economics have either been destroyed from without (the US the all-time biggest despoiler) or have been forced to try to survive encircled by hostile, or competitive entities. I am pessimistic. Not enough people are aware of Kohn's research or writings and it's bound to have too little effect. I hope I'm wrong. The capitalist juggernaut rolls on with a monied interest in perpetuating conflict, the competitive ethic among children and adults everywhere while at the same time, ironically, seeking to crush competition. Is it any wonder we live in a conflict-ridden society where most peoples' prescription for this is more and "better" competition? "Lean and mean" has become the indivdual and corporate mantra. It all goes to confirm the Marxist maxim: "The ruling ideas are always the ideas of the ruling class."I

Rating:
Summary: yeah right, cooperate in business
Review: Alfie Kohn's competing view to America's sacrosanct blind obsession with competition is well researched and articulated. Although Kohn provides a powerful argument against competition, it is unfortunate that he provides no advice on how this stance can cooperate and thrive peacefully in tandem with the practice of competition...

Rating:
Summary: URGENT-please read immediately!
Review: As a mother might respond to a child's clever proposition : "I don't think so."

Competition does not kill, any more than greed does. Unbridled competition does have adverse consequences, but continuous attention to self-improvement is a fundamental tenet of not only the quality movement in manufacturing, it is fundamental to economic development and progress around the world. The "greed is good" mantra has been completely misconceptualized. Much of human progress has been built on the effort to compete -- if only with internal goals and personal standards -- to improve. Read a good book like David Landes' "Wealth and poverty of nations" to see why this is so. Progress does not come from stealing someone else's land, but from people working to improve themselves, to achieve their competitive goals.

When competion means "cheat the other guy", both sides eventually lose. This is one reason why the former Soviet Union seems unable to adopt market competitiveness: They see competition as a simple, one person wins, the other person must lose proposition. When former Soviet officials and factory managers were promoted because they were well connected or sociable, the entire country and economy collapsed. Well-performing people find only discouragement in such a system. Is it any surprise that their system failed?

No, we don't want our kids or our employees to fight one another to get their way and to acheive their short-term wins, but the alternative to not rewarding good work is futile to unthinkable. And, no, the "losers" are not killed, crushed or discarded. They need to be trained, better educated, and shown that good work brings success.

Bad tests are perhaps worse than no tests at all. But do you want a doctor who can't pass anatomy to perform surgery? We need better tests, not fewer or none. And a test need not be designed to create competition between test takers. They can all score well. But they need to pass the test. Or go back and repeat the material.

Some of the roots of this "don't compete" concept resides in some dated, misleading research about the negative impact of pay-for-performance schemes on intrinsic motivation. The experiments used to make this point used inherently silly or boring tasks, labeled them "intrinsically motivating", then found that people turned against these "tasks" once they were paid.

My guess is that Mr. Kohn gets royalties on his book. He competes for attention in the reading marketplace and he benefits when his sales improve. Isn't that competition? Isn't that pay for performance? But you don't find his books near the top of any best sellers lists. He can't compete, but he does offer solace to naysayers and those who can't or won't compete. If he writes a good book, he wins.

This book does not compute, nor does it compete. Competition is like democracy. It may not be the best but it is markedly superior to all the other practices that have been tried.

Rating:
Summary: Competition Kills
Review: I've lived in a country which had been forcibly brought into the Soviet Union. Countless stories from relatives and friends have corroborated how horrible the repression was during Soviet times. The Soviet Union was, indeed, the Evil Empire. But there was an enormous social safety net--no one was homeless, nightly social activities were available in the smallest of villages, and the elderly and sick were cared for. Since the robber capitalists moved in, the elderly are in poverty and must depend on relatives and friends for survival, hospitals have few supplies and require that patients pay for necessities or bring their own, children roam the streets with nothing to do because entertainment costs a fortune, and no one trusts anyone now that it's "every person for him/herself." Brother has turned against brother. I don't know what can reverse this tragedy other than voluntary socialism. Communism was not voluntary but most repressive, not unlike corporate capitalism. Alfie Kohn may have opened a few eyes but the masses are still blind and/or fearful of standing up to the perpetual propaganda that floods us from the moment of birth to compete, put down, and stand on the other's corpse. Even the strongest competition-crazed capitalist believes in cooperation and socialism; if she didn't she would send her kids to work and allow her parents to starve. How far that socialism and cooperation extends depends on the love in one's heart. Unfortunately, most believers in competion and capitalism limit their circle of love to extend only so far. Cooperation and socialism expands that love to include the entire family of humanity. Competition is the Devil. Yes, incentives for trying harder are necessary, otherwise freeloading sets in. But to put one person, group, or society against another leads to fear, distrust, hatred, and eventually violence. More in my upcoming book.

Rating:
Summary: Competition's destructive side
Review: In response to the negative review, it is ridiculous to talk about human progress built on the effort to compete when the negative results of this so-called progress are so evident, both in terms of the rampant unhappiness and low self-esteem of people in the "wealthy" world in spite of their success, as well as the horrific destruction of natural resources in the wake of such progress. The majority of people are in jobs that they detest, competing with one another for things they don't even want. Obviously, this outdated competitive model is questionable. It is also ridiculous to say that writing a book or expressing oneself is necessarily a competitive act. To put one's thoughts "out there" doesn't mean that you are concerned with how your book does in comparison to someone else's. I know that for myself, as an author, it is not a consideration. If it's helpful to people, and they buy it, then I make a living, which has nothing to do whatsoever with competition unless I make it so. If they don't, so be it. Mr. Kohn has proposed something very valuable to anyone who works with children - as an educator, parent or volunteer. It is quite obvious to see children shrink when competition is required. They need to know that who they are is even more important than what they do. That creates people who strive to compete with themselves and not others, which is never more than comparing apples and oranges anyway, as we are all unique and tests are inadequate to show that. I recommend this book to anyone who is a supervisor, manager, teacher or parent.

Rating:
Summary: The competitive mindset can be unlearned
Review: In this inspiring and well-researched book Alfie Kohn describes how we, in our compulsion to rank ourselves against one another, turn almost everything into a contest (at work, at school, at play, at home). Often, we assume that working toward a goal and setting standards for ourselves can only take place if we compete against others. By perceiving tasks or play as a contest we often define the situation to be one of MEGA: mutually exclusive goal attainment.

This means: my success depends on your failure. Is this wise? No! Is this inevitable? No! This book brilliantly shows how: 1) competitiveness is NOT an inevitable feature of human nature (in fact, human nature is overwhelmingly characterised by its opposite - co-operation), 2) superior performance not only does not require competition; it usually seems to require its absence (because competition often distracts people from the task at hand, the collective does usually not benefit from our individual struggles against each other), 3) competition in sports might be less healthy than we usually think because it contributes to the competitive mindset (while research shows that non-competitive games can be at least as enjoyable and challenging as competitive ones), 4) competition does not build good character; it undermines self esteem (most competitors lose most of the time because by definition not everyone can win), 5) competition damages relationships, 6) a competitive mindset makes transforming of organizations and society harder (those things requiring a collective effort and a long-term commitment).

I think many people reading this book will recognize in themselves their tendency to think competitively and will feel challenged and inspired to change. And that's a good thing. Our fates are linked. People need to, and can choose to, build a culture in which pro-social behaviors and a co-operative mindset are stimulated. The competitive mindset can be unlearned. By developing a habit to see and define tasks as co-operative we can defy the usual egoism/altruism dichotomy: by helping the other person you are helping yourself.

Rating:
Summary: A discussion about Kohns concept of Productive Learning
Review: No Contest, a truly inspiring book created by Alfie Kohn, discusses the root of all problems. This root or as he calls it, competition, is the cause of all destructive competitive behavior. This destructive force causes man to turn against his own kind, and leaves him with a stone heart. In his book Kohn talks about our educational system, and says that it is nothing more than a race for an ultimate prize. I agree with Kohn because I have seen and experienced this evil nature. Kohn says that we need to ingrain something called cooperative learning in our lives. He describes this as something that promotes the discovery and development of higher quality cognitive strategies for learning. Kohn also states that it is much better than the "individual reasoning found in competitiveness and individualistic learning situations"(50). This new concept is something that I have felt to be a wonderful experience, and I believe it to be the wave of the future. I once knew a boy named Timmy back in sixth grade who had trouble at school because his teacher wouldn't let him or anyone else take part in cooperative learning. This student, known as a loser to his peers, tried with all his might but couldn't take part in the race of competition. Everyday, we see kids like Timmy lagging behind at school because they are just not the competitive type. These kids try to be the best, and try to be part of the ever-competitive world but they just can't do it. Kids like my friend Timmy get yelled at, and are labeled as kids who are not competitive enough by their teachers. I ask myself do we really need competition, and what are we going to prove by being so competitive? Alfie Kohn, the guru on cooperative learning, says that we should all cooperate instead of killing each other in the race of being better than others. He talks about our educational system, and says that it's not going in the right direction, and that the right values are not being instilled. Competition is one of those things that we, as a whole, seem to think that we can not live without. For example, our educational system says that we have no other way of succeeding but to compete. This means that little Timmy, who has trouble reading, will have to be the best. This is to say that Timmy won't be getting any help from his peers because his teacher feels that cooperation, in other words, is really cheating. Hence Timmy might fail his class, get a bad grade in reading, and will hear from his teacher that he is not putting forth the effort. Timmy, like our everyday sixth grader, knows that there is no alternative but to compete with his classmates. Is this what education is really about? No, we don't want an environment in which we can not fulfill a task without feeling that we are in a race with someone for an ultimate prize. I mean, shouldn't we have an environment which enforces cooperative learning for little Timmy rather than having him in a win/lose situation? My friend Timmy tried to do well at school but he could not do so because he needed help and a lot of attention. I tried to give him all the help that I could but I had to do it all in secrecy because the teacher banned the class from helping each other. She described helping others as major crime, and said that you will go nowhere in life without competition. Timmy, who heard these remarks, used to cry and say "I wish that I was dead". Kohn says in context to the above that, "I am appalled when I read that forty-nine teenagers from one school district have been hospitalized for depression, suicide, attempts, or substance abuse, all apparently connected to the stress caused by academic competition"(237). Everyday kids think about what Kohn said, and feel as if they have no real value in life. They start thinking like this because the most valued things in life are grades and status in various positions. When one realizes that one doesn't have these things then one starts to move to a state of depression. If we stop competition in schools, and move toward cooperative learning, as defined by Alfie Kohn, then we will stop anxiety, emotional problems and most importantly isolation (123). It will provide us with valuable tools to help us get a better chance at success. Also activities created by cooperative learning will give students like Timmy a chance to practice at their own pace, and this means that Timmy will have a better chance to succeed . My teacher in sixth grade used to say that when you work on your own you learn more because you are the only one with all the information. If everyone gets the knowledge from the books and retains it then there is no loss, and when you share information things tend to get jumbled. I disagreed with her but I never openly said so like my friend Timmy because I wanted to pass her class. I always thought that when information is shared, a whole new perspective is introduced, and this argument correlates with what Alfie Kohn stumbled upon. He says that, seventy-three students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were disciplined for cheating, mostly for working in small groups to write computer programs together for fear of being unable to keep up with the class otherwise. Many felt that the required work is clearly impossible to do by straightforward [ I i.e., solitary ] means, according to the faculty member who chairs MITs committee on Discipline(239). It's very sad to see students working together, and then being accused for just cooperating. I mean the students at M.I.T were just helping each other as Timmy and I used to. Helping each other does not mean that one is cheating; it is just a way to share information, and get new ideas. When teachers start saying that one should compete or work independently, as Kohn would say, students like Timmy are left behind, and have little hope of succeeding. Don't you think Timmy will do well on the essay when his teacher will divide a book into sections and, assign each section to a different group member so they can prepare an outline to teach others? Assigning group members different sections will cause the members of the group to learn more, grasp information faster, get their questions answered, and finally feel relieved because there was no stress involved. When one starts to go on the road of cooperative learning one understands the material better, and starts to limit competition, thus increasing productivity. Kohn notes, "that working together to achieve a common goal produces higher achievement and greater productivity than does working alone is so well confirmed by so much research that it stands as one of the strongest principles of social, and organizational psychology" (205). Cooperative learning is not just enforced by Alfie Kohn but it is also recommended by the American Federation of Teachers. In a recent pamphlet they say that "Cooperative learning is designed to assist individuals in becoming self-supporting, efficient, contributing members of our society. Cooperative learning is also an instructional plan or method which involves regularly scheduled employment that gives student-learners an opportunity to experience theory in practice, while developing competencies through supervised training, and in return producing productivity"(Hentloff 27 ). Kohns method of enforcing cooperative learning in the classroom reminds me of my father, who is a physics professor at Milwaukee Area Technical College. He remarks: I may not agree with all of Kohns ideas but the idea of a cooperative learning environment has really fascinated me. I use cooperative learning all the time especially when I give lab work. When I first came to this country I instructed my students to use the old way of learning which was working on your own but after a couple of years I tried this new approach of teaching which Kohn calls cooperative learning. I picked up this new concept from a retired professor, and after hearing this I used it on my class, and it did wonders for them.

Rating:
Summary: yeah right, cooperate in business
Review: Replace competition with cooperation in business? LOL. I would like to see the airline industry begin to 'cooperate' and not be so competitive. Yeah. Cooperate and set prices. Or cooperate and divide up the market. Opps, that would be collusion.

The author, Alfie Kohn, should be required to run a business before he writes such a book.