SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The effect of the social environment on cooperation has received attention in studies of nonhuman animal behavior but has been largely overlooked in human research. Research with animals in the wild and under controlled conditions in captivity has consistently shown that social dynamics, and specifically the nature of the dominance hierarchy, has a large impact on cooperative outcomes. Although variable in form, every animal society has some form of dominance hierarchy. Hierarchy is defined as priority of access to resources and probability of winning competitive encounters, and reflects underlying assymetries in power. A hierarchy can be characterized in terms of linearity and steepness, with the former providing information about the degree of transitivity between individuals and the latter indicating the extent to which individuals differ from each other in winning encounters or accessing resources. Among nonhuman primates, it has been demonsrated repeatedly that the characteristics of dominance hierarchies impact cooperative outcomes, with steep and linear hierarchies being associated with decreased cooperation. For example, experiments have shown that cooperation is impeded among chimpanzees living in steep and linear hierarchies, whereas it emerges more easily among species with more relaxed hierarchies such as cottontop tamarins.
A great deal of research has focused on human cooperative behavior, but these experiments have primarily been conducted with anonymous participants, leaving the influence of social relationships on cooperation largely overlooked. Although the influence of hierarchy on cooperation has rarely been examined, researchers have considered hierarchy's influence on economic issues such as market entry, bargaining, and learning. Other work has investigated how disproportionate power in sanctioning influences cooperation, and both empirical and modeling investigations have been directed at how group status impacts cooperation and competition with other groups. In the current study, we hypothesize that social relationships, and specifically hierarchical relationships reflecting power assymetries between individuals, will have a negative impact on human cooperation as it does in our nonhuman primate relatives. In order to test the effect of social hierarchy on cooperation, we present participants with a task inspired by nonhuman primate research in which two individuals of known social rank are presented with the opportunity to invest in a cooperative task, and, if a threshold of investment is met and cooperation is achieved, the higher ranking of the two investors controls the distribution of the resource. To investigate how human cooperation is impacted by the presence of a social hierarchy, we compare cooperative success in the presence of a hierarchy (with both earned and arbitrarily assigned ranks) to success in a condition when hierarchy is absent.
It's an important topic at a time when many worldwide are remarking on how broken the current models of hierarchy and social organization are.
DOI: 10.1038/srep18634
(Score: 2, Interesting) by YeaWhatevs on Monday December 28 2015, @04:44PM
If your definition of being the leader is effectively "being the boss", then yes you probably need a hierarchy to manage your minions.
If you go with the other definition, "the one out front", then it's pretty plain to see you don't require a hierarchy; you just need to come up with the best solution to whatever the problem is. For example, Netflix is the home video leader by consensus, more of us watch it than other video services, but not by appointment, we am not part of their command hierarchy.
This is all so fun to talk about, but my real interest lies in knowing the best performing solution. I would believe that the no-hierarchy case can limit the damage that an incompetent leader/boss could inflict, but I'm not completely sold that the no-hierarchy outperforms a hierarchy in the general case. I think it's more like, hierarchies tend to have a more singular focus, which improves their performance at doing a specific thing, as designed, but also tends to produce an insular thought mono-culture so that the company is blindsided by the next, improved solution.
Speaking of getting blindsided, you could just as easily argue that the hierarchy has nothing to do with it, that in certain markets consumers crave variety, and that having a successful brand is tantamount to obsolescence.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday December 28 2015, @05:29PM
My definition of the "leader" is "a (wo)man with a plan", that is somebody who has figured out what the group should do and is going to direct the people involved in how to make it happen.
And that can happen in a lot of contexts. For example, I have a buddy who is generally seen as a leader of a bunch of hippies. He has no formal authority whatsoever, but if he describes a plan, it more-or-less happens the way he planned it and he is often found directing people who have volunteered to help make it happen. And yes, that means he's on top of an informal hierarchy, because he can and does kick people out (by socially isolating them) if they're causing a problem, and delegates work and decisions to the more effective hippies (who in turn have similar kinds of authority over the group doing whatever they're informally in charge of).
We humans do this quite naturally in the absence of any kind of formal structure.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by YeaWhatevs on Monday December 28 2015, @06:04PM
> if he describes a plan, it more-or-less happens the way he planned it ... because he can and does kick people out (by socially isolating them) ...
I just threw up in my mouth a little. What you're describing is a personality cult. That is WAY MORE EVIL than the corporate version.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Monday December 28 2015, @08:34PM
You described what I call a "manager." I define a leader and someone who works *with* a group toward a *common* goal.