Forms of Cooperation

Nechansky, Helmut

doi:10.1002/sres.2513

Cited by 3 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, very often different things are understood by “cooperation” when referring to the necessities of cooperation: Investigations of cooperation often have a completely different understanding, ranging from any mutual activities, by pursuing mutually stipulated goals, to altruistic services to others. Nechansky (2018) developed an overarching framework to order these definitions and investigates into “cooperation in the widest sense, understood as mutual activity towards mutually accepted goal values. It considers goal‐setting processes preceding cooperation, and the resulting different systems of goal values pursed and the related levels of utility achieved by cooperating parties.…”

Section: Discussion: Freedom and Truthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These different systems of goal‐values and achieved levels of utility provide a framework to distinguish eight forms of cooperation: They may express sharing ideals; agreement of equals or unequals; the uniting of cooperating units; the agreement of representatives; the restricted integration of newcomers; hierarchical top‐down subjection; or altruistic bottom‐up subordination. Finally, it is shown that market exchange neither applies nor leads to any of these forms of cooperation.” (Nechansky, 2018, Abstract).…”

Section: Discussion: Freedom and Truthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With respect options for cooperation between agencies (individuals, or organisations, or institutions) we refer to Nechansky (2018), who identifies eight diverse forms of cooperation within societies, depending on a variety and similarity of purpose and goals: ideal cooperation of equals; the stipulated cooperation of equals; the cooperation of unequals; the cooperation of co-operators; cooperation via misuse of the power of representatives; cooperation with newcomers; hierarchical cooperation; and altruistic cooperation. …”

Section: Society and Individuals Needs And Desires Organisation And Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beyond these eight forms of cooperation, Nechansky (2018) also comes to the conclusion that a precondition of market exchange are unshared individual goal values. Therefore, it is not easy to perceive how selling a product to someone else might trigger cooperative endeavour.…”

Section: Society and Individuals Needs And Desires Organisation And Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Freedom of science

Fink

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance of “freedom of science” (“academic freedom”) for the advancement of society and mankind, which, however, is permanently endangered by powerful organisations, groups and individuals, who in pursuit of their one-sided interests are seeking to constrain information about the truth. As a broad term, freedom of science embraces freedom in research, learning, teaching and publication. All of these activities should be dedicated to identifying the truth and learning about the truth. Design/methodology/approach Three theoretical approaches are of importance for framing issues related to freedom of science, which in this paper are integrated into the framework of mindset agency theory: freedom is a value; “freedom” is claimed by agents who pursue specific interests (goals), which might constrain others; and individuals are agents who are interacting with each other within a social system – cooperation, ignorance or conflict. Findings Freedom as a value is at the core of intellectual autonomy. Intellectual autonomy is a necessary condition for innovation and advancement of knowledge. The observable modes of interaction/coexistence among researchers are influenced by individual research goals and by the researchers’ access to resources, which may be deliberately constrained by opponents or other researchers as competitors. Research limitations/implications For further research, which is beyond this paper, the authors can refer to: analyses of challenges of “academic freedom” – in terms of ethics, protection of individual human rights, political pressures and conflicts of interests; the issues of truth, i.e. the impact of fake news and creation of “alternate facts”; and the relation between academic freedom and employment (academic tenure) in present-day societies. Owing to lack of space, this paper cannot deal with the danger emerging from powerful organisations or powerful individuals, who are challenging freedom of science. Social implications If there is no freedom of science then social progress is constrained. If there is no access to right data, decisions will be wrong. Originality/value So far, a comprehensive cybernetic model was not published, which supports systems thinking about scholars and teachers (inter)acting in research organisations.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Freedom and Truthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion: Freedom and Truthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Society and Individuals Needs And Desires Organisation And Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Society and Individuals Needs And Desires Organisation And Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Freedom of science

Fink

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite being highly desirable for human interaction, definitions of cooperation are quite different. They range from the obligation to be done by more than one person, to involving rational choices, when selfishness is not justified economically, lack of interest, or hierarchy (Nechansky, 2018).…”

Section: Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer control, trust, and humility as antecedents of cooperation: an exploratory study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the relationship between peer control, a construct of management accounting generally associated with negative aspects, and humility in performance evaluation, a mediator of cooperation. We also examined the association between trust and cooperation. To address all these relationships, we did a single entity survey in a Brazilian subsidiary of a multinational insurance company, through a representative sample of 147 respondents. The results show that peer control is positively associated with cooperation and with humility in performance evaluation, and the latter is positively associated with cooperation. In addition, trust is also positively associated with cooperation. The results contribute to the literature by developing the humility construct in performance evaluation, which is the attitude after the manager is informed of the achieved outcomes, and by trying untested relationships, such as the role of peer control in cooperation. Results can also be useful for organizations that seek cooperation of their employees, suggesting that they should use peer control, since they contribute to an attitude of humility in evaluating performance, and therefore, to cooperation.

show abstract

The dyadic utility space and the interaction – utility matrix: how individual goal-setting determines realizable utilities in dyadic relations

Nechansky¹

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe paper analyzes how the goal-setting of two individuals or social units A and B determines the utilities, which the two parties can gain in a dyadic interaction.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis is based on a dyadic utility space representing the utilities of A and B along the x and y axis, respectively. In this space the goal-orientation of an individual action is mapped with a vector, where its angle shows the combination of utilities of A and B aimed at, and the length corresponds to the strength of an action.FindingsAnalyzing actions of A and responses of B in the dyadic utility space allows (a) calculating single and joint utilities, (b) identifying the narrow range of equal utility for both and (c) identifying four vectors for maximizing different combinations of utility. Studying combinations of these four vectors in a 4 × 4 ‘Interaction - Utility Matrix’ shows how the goal-setting of A for a prime action widely predetermines, before a response of B, the realizable dyadic utility for both.Practical implicationsThe dyadic utility space allows illustrating any dyadic interaction: It shows all possible dyadic “payoffs” investigated in game theory; it allows studying repeated exchange and resulting accumulation of utility; it allows mapping power relations.Originality/valueThe paper shows the interrelation between cybernetic principles of control, goal-orientated human behavior and the utility concept of social sciences. And it allows rejecting Adam Smith’s 18th myth of an “invisible hand”.

show abstract

Forms of Cooperation

Cited by 3 publications

References 17 publications

Freedom of science

Freedom of science

Peer control, trust, and humility as antecedents of cooperation: an exploratory study

The dyadic utility space and the interaction – utility matrix: how individual goal-setting determines realizable utilities in dyadic relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About