Cooperation not competition
By Cliff Mills
Many have observed the big picture changes caused by pandemic and lock-down: businesses in turmoil and fearful of survival without external support; government struggling with its response to the virus and how to advise and guide citizens; but individuals and communities in the head-lines for doing what simply comes naturally — rolling up their sleeves and taking practical action to meet everyday needs. A topsy-turvy world where plenty of assumptions have been turned upside down.
Already, and before anybody even knows when and how, there is much talk about coming out of lock-down; of recovery and rebuilding. Already, there is also recognition that whatever happens, we don’t want to go back to where we were before.
We definitely don’t want to lose the power of that community response, the surge of energy and unconditional compassion for those in need. We definitely want to learn from the immediacy of that response, which didn’t wait for anyone to give permission, or to find the funding, or to organise structures. People and community, it now turns out, are not only much more important than previously recognised, they are also remarkably agile, resourceful, and effective.
In other respects, there is also no enthusiasm for picking up where we left off on 23rd March, with care workers underpaid and under-valued, and likewise many others who turn out to be essential — cleaners, delivery drivers, and workers in food and retail. We applaud them now at 8pm every Thursday, which suggests (unless we are rather hypocritical) that our views have changed.
If there are things we don’t like about how it was before, if there are some things we want to avoid returning to, and if we want to adopt new ways that recent weeks have taught us are better, what do we need to do? What needs to change? What is the learning, and how do we capture it?
Learning from children
There is an old, almost clichéd image often used in the sector where I work — two donkeys, pulling in different directions in their desire for food, until it dawns on them that if they work together, there is food enough for both of them.It is an image frequently trotted out (sorry) in the co-op sector, sometimes met with a rolling of the eyes (not that one again); or a wince at its simplicity (if only it was that easy).
I recently asked some children to explore this, and predictably some important learning emerged. One of them (Andrew) annotated it with a simple commentary, putting the story into words. The insight here is in the fourth panel (“Oh no”), the recognition that we’re getting something wrong: it’s not working.
Tom chose thought-bubbles to show what was going on in the donkeys’ minds. His fourth panel is revealing too: one donkey, presumably seeing that he needed to change direction, seems reluctant to do so (“I suppose”). The other donkey agrees (“okay”). I also wonder whether Tom displays a cynical streak, showing the donkeys eating one pile of hay while even then thinking about the next pile. Maybe that’s unfair: perhaps it just denotes forward thinking.
Evelyn decided to do her own story. Interestingly she chooses ants rather than donkeys, always a good illustration of cooperation in nature; interestingly, she doesn’t bother with the in-fighting — she goes straight to the basic logic of collaboration and simply depicts a story about sharing a burden to make it lighter (a feminine insight?).
The ants are chattering away to each other (that’s Evelyn) but they are also reflective and recognise their collective achievement.
So here is what the children show us from the story:
· recognising that things aren’t working because we’re getting something wrong (Andrew)
· needing to change, even if it’s not our preferred choice; and recognising that change involves reaching an agreement (Tom)
· recognising the benefit from working together, enjoying it and appreciating it (Evelyn).
The last and perhaps most interesting insight came from Nick. He goes a step further than the original which shows two very similar donkeys pulling against each other. Like Evelyn, Nick draws his own story, but he shows donkeys of two different colours. A legitimate criticism of the original is that by depicting two similar sized donkeys, it doesn’t reflect reality. Life is commonly unequal, and the stronger usually wins. Of course, that would ruin the story here: the stronger would simply eat both piles, and leave the weaker to starve; or panel four might show the stronger overpowering the weaker, or worse.
Nick doesn’t attempt to answer the conundrum; he just depicts difference, without further comment. We could read inclusivity into his version, thought maybe that’s a bit of a stretch. Certainly the original story lacks a bit of edge; arguably it is seen through rather idealistic eyes which start from an assumed, but unrealistic equality. You can only go so far with stories and illustrations.
But in essence, this is an Aesop-like fable showing (with the children’s help) that collaborating (or co-operating) should be the basis of living; that competing is ultimately self defeating; and that collaborating is something that needs to be learned, though it comes naturally to some.
Recovery phase
What has this got to do with planning recovery after a lock-down?
What we have all witnessed at the grass roots within communities in recent weeks is a massive amount of collaboration, mutual support, and self-help. Whilst humans (especially males) can be instinctively competitive, in a crisis the equally instinctive response is to collaborate: to put competition on hold, to take down barriers and just sort out the problems, whatever they are. That is the human response to Covid-19 . It is exactly the same human response which caused a group of people in poverty-stricken Rochdale in 1844 to set up a shop where you could buy the basics without any profit mark-up.
This was the birth of cooperation. But it wasn’t rocket-science: the Rochdale Pioneers simply recognised that the most important thing, if people weren’t to starve to death, was to provide access to the essentials without over-charging, without adulterating the produce, and without cheating on measures. A co-operative, collective endeavour because the competitive approach wasn’t working. Business as usual was killing people.
The cooperative, locally led, community-based, self-help response to the coronavirus crisis has put in the spotlight the enormous power and value of citizens and communities; and of cooperation. There isn’t just the market and the state: there are people too. In times of need, people can and do respond immediately (institutions take longer). People don’t need to be asked, or paid, or given permission — all they need to do is to cooperate with each other. It’s a simple human response. Those who want to help will join in. Others will take note and might follow later.
So here is my priority for the recovery phase: hold onto the idea of cooperation and embed it into the recovery phase, into its infrastructure, its operating systems and its culture. Change the way competition is hard-wired into the modern world. Make locally-led cooperation, not centrally-imposed competition, the foundation of the way we live, the way we organise society, the way we organise business.
That doesn’t sound like a particularly challenging proposition, but here’s why it is, and the historical precedent helps to explain it.
When the Rochdale Pioneers opened their shop, it posed a major threat to traditional business. If the co-op store didn’t include a profit mark-up on goods sold, its prices would be cheaper. If they sold uncontaminated goods, the contrast with what others were selling would be revealing. If they used scales on the counter to measure out quantities, people could see what an ounce and a pound looked like.
A simple honest solution therefore met with real hostility. The gas company refused to supply gas. Other shops would no longer allow people to buy things on credit if they were also shopping at the co-op. The pursuit of private profit fought back. Then as today, many people survived on credit; so not only did you have to become debt-free to benefit from using the co-op, you also had to build up capital there as part of the terms of membership. Like today, these were very challenging times. People were starving, but community-based self-help was the route out of this predicament, and in many places, it prevailed.
Traditional business is always threatened by cooperation and mutuality. That’s because investor-owned business is founded on the very idea of competition: that’s its life-blood. It is competition which drives the pursuit of private gain. It cannot allow competition to be undermined by cooperation. It has no answer to the proposition that businesses which exist for the common good are, ultimately, more efficient and better for people than businesses trading for private gain. The latter don’t need to take any account of the negative impact of their activities — save to the extent that the law or reputation require them to. So to make profits, they constantly aim to cut cost, save money on wages and overheads so that they can charge less. Competition will do the rest. The former have no time for competition because the primary objective is to get people what they need. They strive to meet people’s needs, and they want to minimise any negative impact. It may take them time, and they may not always get it right. But they try, and they can only do it with the support of the customers.
This isn’t an assault on all private business. Lots of privately-owned businesses behave responsibly, and strive to treat people fairly. But the basic model of investor-owned enterprise, whose shares are traded on exchanges, overtly and expressly puts the rewarding of shareholders as the top priority. The model depends on the maximising of shareholder value.
It isn’t to do with the people involved: it’s to do with the basis of how organisations are designed to operate. It’s the system that’s wrong. Business based on the pursuit of private gain, founded on competition, and owned and controlled by those who fund it, will deliver precisely what it sets out to deliver: private gain for its share-holder owners. That isn’t good for the rest of us.
So building a future, building the recovery phase on cooperation rather than competition poses immense challenges, and will face hostility. It poses a political challenge — it will need brave politicians to champion the common good when the global economy is dominated by the pursuit of private gain, and when so many institutions are programmed to assume that that domination is the natural and only possible state of affairs.
It poses a commercial challenge — to businesses which want to change the basis on which they operate from one where the primary focus is on rewarding shareholders to one focussed on serving people, communities and society. This transition will take brave employees, confident managers and imaginative owners; but it is an essential journey to take now.
Finally, it poses a major challenge to all of us. Are we prepared to walk away from the tempting, glamorous, cheap, convenient offer made to us by businesses which we know do not have our best interests at heart? Will we support the local, the values-based, the ones doing their best (it is hard), trying to trade without treating anybody unfairly? Yes, they may be more expensive, more inconvenient, and ultimately not the best available — “best” when viewed from just a purely personal viewpoint. So yes, it means a big change of attitude, by each of us.
Final reflections
I have found the children’s insights very powerful. If we want the future to be different, we have to start by recognising how we have been getting it wrong. Each of us then needs to decide to change, and we need to agree with each other that we will do so, even if we are reluctant. Finally, the decision to change must be built on consensus amongst everyone: nobody is to be excluded.
Are we going to go back to business as usual after the lock-down? I hope not. But we’ve all got to make the decision, and it will face opposition.
Cliff Mills, co-operative lawyer: 6th May, revised 12th May 2020
