Organizational Development: A Manual for Managers and ... - FPDL

Chapter 1.6 Interaction and Cooperation
Rationality of correlated actions
Each individual organism aims at maximizing its chances for survival and tends to behave
rationally starting from its perception of what the situation is, and its notion of how it will or could
develop in the future. In a more or less stable environment, the situation changes in a predictable -
to a certain extent - and controllable - to a certain extent - manner. Increasing the level of
predictability, as well as level of controllability, would increase the chances for survival.
The results for an organism of certain behavioural choices may also depend on the changing state
of the environment. This environment may be indifferent to an organism, not depending on it and
not fully predictable: (How cold will the weather be in April?, What will be the dollar exchange rate
in relation to the Euro by the end of next year?). Thus, any choice of behaviour by an organism in
this case will encompass risk, because it can be based on assumptions only. Such one-way
interrelations between organisms, which tend to determine the future, but exist in an unpredictable
environment that does not care about an organism’s worries, were called ‘games with the nature’,
a bit like unrequited love.
Some elements of the environment may be other organisms. Then the rationality of the possible
behaviour of the one may also depend on the future behaviour of other organisms that strive for
their own objectives. In this case, the objectives of two or more interdependent subjects are
incompatible; one may achieve its goals at the expense of other subjects only (as in a gambling
game) – such interrelations were called ‘antagonistic games’ (e.g. one saves as much as another
loses, one accepts more risk thus creating less risk for another, etc.).
Objectives of interdependent subjects are not necessarily opposite or antagonistic. They may not
even be strictly interrelated, but the possibility to satisfy one’s own interests may be somehow
different depending on what method for meeting his objectives the other subject has chosen. For
example, when someone wants to sleep in the late evening while the other one wants to listen to
music at the same time and in the same room - it looks purely antagonistic at first glance.
However, the one who wants to sleep may have no objection to the other listening using
headphones; there would be no conflict of interests in that case. Thus, if the music lover would
agree on listening with good headphones (and enjoy even better sound) – then it would be okay
with the one who wants to sleep. But in this case, he may be obliged to buy headphones for his
neighbour, providing the neighbour will agree not to use loudspeakers after a certain time. Or they
could agree on sharing the cost of purchasing new headphones, which could be to their mutual
benefit. This kind of game we call business games. Interdependent subjects do not necessary
61