The reframing worked—as it does with the competition that can occur between two competing projects. Two programs are initiated (at least as pilot projects) and vie for attention and for success. The competition might be vitalizing for both parties. The “victory” comes not from winning the battle for acceptance over the other idea. Rather the “victory” comes from demonstrating that this idea works better than the other idea. Each side is encouraged to extend its better effort. If the “space race” led to creation of new technologies by both the United States and Soviet Union, then a similar “race” between two ideas might yield new processes, technologies and uses of human resources that benefits the overall system in which the competition is taking place.
There is another matter to be addressed in this reframing of the diversity. It concerns resources (money, staffing, time, attention, etc.). While this was not a problem for Mary and Dorothy Rodger, it is often a problem when two projects (building on two differing ideas) are competing for the existing resources. They are engaged in a “win-lose” struggle. Neither project often has sufficient resources to be successful when two projects are initiated at the same time. The “pie” simply isn’t big enough to be shared by the two projects. There can, instead, be an effort to expand the size of the pie—find more resources. This is an example of a higher order purpose. In this case, the competing parties both agree that it is important to generate more resources.
This is also an example of enablement. A bigger pie increases the changes that both projects will succeed. Suddenly, the fund-raisers are more important. A capital campaign might be launched that “enables” both projects to succeed. Dues are increased or admission to all events sponsored by the organization comes at a higher price. To ensure that these “enabling” changes are successful requires better public relations and community outreach. Other departments in the organization become that much more important as attention turns to expanding the resources available to support both projects.
Does this reframing make sense? It only works if some slow thinking takes place at the top of the organization to ensure that the competing parties don’t tear apart the organization. While the “space race” might have yielded positive results, the “arms race” led only to resources being allocated to projects that threatened rather than benefited humankind. While two parties in an organization might be competing with one another, the overall organization must collaborate in bringing about better outcomes for both of these parties.
Furthermore, there must be a balancing of resources. There must be assurance that the “playing field” is level for both parties. There had to be roughly the same number of words offered by Dorothy and Mary Rodgers. Budgets must be of comparable size for two projects seeking to accomplish the same goal(s) by different means. Under the right conditions, this reframing can lead to a wonderful “harmony of interests” (to quote from a 19th Century vision of a successful community) (Sun and Bergquist, 2021).
The analogy of a finely tuned String Quintet might be relevant. The diverse sounds of the four string instruments are beautifully offset by the percussive sound of the piano. There is creative “competition” among the five sounds—and this competition yields a beautiful harmony. The challenge for those musicians who are performing the quintet is to insure that all five “voices” are heard and appreciated.
