Cooperation or collaboration ?

Why call this blog Cooperatics and not “Collaboratics” ? Both words, cooperation and collaboration, include the same notions: action and a sense of collectivity. Yet the two terms are not synonymous. First, their ethymology is not the same. Collaboration comes from the Latin “laborare” which means “work hard”, while cooperation comes from “opera”, which means “work, activity”. So this term does not have the same connotation of hardship as collaboration.

Besides, collaboration does not imply an individual desire to take part in a common work, while this desire is at the root of cooperation. Collaboration mostly takes place within a structure, and requires an overall plan, which is not needed in cooperation.

In the end, cooperation requires the free participation of individuals to a common work, because they have a personal interest in this participation. It is distinguished mainly by the fact that the person that cooperates brings his/her creativity. Much more than collaboration, cooperation features the concepts of interpersonal network and self-organization.

Cooperation (3): passion and restraint of passions, Charybde and Scylla

The ‘tit-for-tat’ strategy is distinguished by its regularity and its foreseeable nature . These two characteristics reinforce mutual confidence between partners. They also result in a network in which all relationships are not equal. Relationships maintained on a long term basis by repeated cooperative actions are worth potentially more than new relationships. It is a lesson which serial networkers from such social networks as LinkedIn and Viadeo would do well to contemplate. What is the use of having hundreds of connections in our network if nothing occurs after having added them? Such a social network behaves like a brain in which no nerve impulse circulates between the neurons.

Yet, regularity and foreseeability can be seriously thwarted by our passions and impulsive, chaotic reactions.

Who among us has never answered in an abrupt way to a misunderstood e-mail because we were in bad mood at the time, for reasons entirely unrelated with the sender of the message?

This kind of behavior creates misunderstandings which are real false notes in the cooperation.

In the long run, however, the fact that partners are able to overcome these sudden starts reinforces confidence. After all, we are only human.

Cooperation (2): The road to hell is paved with good intentions

To paraphrase French writer Gide, bad cooperation is done with beautiful feeling. More exactly, cooperation is not in the realm of sentiment. The example of the software tournaments organized by Axelrod proves it well enough: programmed robots with no emotions can demonstrate cooperative behavior. We will even see in a future paper that passion can thwart cooperation. Nevertheless, man is made of passion as much if not more than of reason. Whether we are delighted or must resign ourselves to it, it is that way. Thus the emotive dimension has necessarily an impact on cooperation. If cooperation is not about intentions, it is about communication of intentions. It is not only a matter of cooperating by acts but also of making known one’s intention to cooperate.

The plot thickens when we consider that cooperating with someone consists in carrying out an action favorable to his/her interests and that, conversely, a hostile behavior must be punished immediately by a hostile behavior of the same intensity. The problem is that everything is a matter of judgment:

how can I know the interests of my partner?

am I even always aware of my own interests?

if I punish a behavior which I consider hostile whereas it was neutral in my partner’s mind (error of judgment), my punishment is likely to be misunderstood

does there exist a scale which makes it possible to compare the intensity of the cooperative or unfavorable acts?

When we try to function in a cooperative mode with our partners, we should act in such a way that our actions are as understandable as possible. That requires certain competences in psychology and communication, to convey the right message: I acted in such way with you and I explain why to you.

Cooperation (1) : tit-for-tat

This paper is the first of a series of three articles originally published in French on cooperation and its issues in everyday life. In the present article, we will reconsider cooperation theory as brilliantly studied by
Robert Axelrod . Among other achievements, Robert Axelrod is the author of the book The Evolution of Cooperation.

The book reviews various strategies of interaction between members of a group. Among these strategies, there is the model called “tit-for-tat”. The principle of tit-for-tat cooperation consists in interacting in a cooperative mode with a partner as long as he/she does the same. At the first defection, the model suggests reacting immediately and with the same intensity; then, at the next turn, re-proposing cooperation. In any event, with this model, one never attacks first, one reacts to the first aggression and then starts again in a cooperative mode.

In his book, Robert Axelrod showed that this strategy was effective and could be essential, even in absence of friendship or love, on the sole strength of interests well understood by both parties. This model brings a long-term value and lasting benefit to human groups.

Axelrod describes and analyzes tournaments organized in the 1980s between artificial agents (small software), each having its own strategy. Some always cooperated, whatever the other’s behavior. To some extent, even when they were hit, they turned the other cheek; others always cooperated to a certain point where they deserted, “betraying” their partners; still others had a random behavior, etc. In the end, the model known as tit-for-tat proved to be one of the most robust.

As human beings, we can choose this strategy consciously, without being programmed. But is it so simple? Of course not. Next week, we will start surveying limits which hinder us in our willingness to cooperate.