The interaction matrix: from individual goal-setting to the four modes of coexistence

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show how individual acts of goal-setting of two persons or systems A and B determine, which modes of coexistence become possible in an interaction of the two. Design/methodology/approach – Some person or system A can approach another person or system B with an inclination to realize one of four goal-setting processes: first, A sets goals for B; second, A sets no own goals; third, A pursues own goals alone; and fourth, A and B develop mutual goals. And an interaction of A and B can lead to just four modes of coexistence: first, conflict – A and B fight; second, hierarchy – A submits to B; third, independence in niches – A and B do not interact; and fourth, cooperation – A and B work together. Findings – Placing the inclinations of A and B to realize one of the four goal-setting processes in a 4×4 matrix leads to the interaction matrix. It shows that individual goal-setting processes predetermine and limit the available modes of coexistence, i.e. cause certain patterns of interactions. Practical implications – The interaction matrix can be applied to all interactions between persons, groups and social units generally. Originality/value – The paper introduces a theoretical framework covering all options of goal-orientated behavior. It explains the interrelation between individual goal-setting of persons and systems and the resulting behavioral options in interactions. It is applicable to all behavioral sciences.

Forms of Cooperation

“…This is cooperation in the sense of the GIZ GmbH (). (And this is the understanding used in the papers Nechansky, , , , which have a different focus than this paper. )…”

“…(Let us mention here that Nechansky, uses a quite similar, relatively narrow view of cooperation, when investigating possibilities of coexistence in dyadic relations. There, cooperation is understood as compromising on individual interests, to stipulate mutual goal‐values in absence of hierarchical relations and to realize them in an egalitarian partnership.…”

“…For Axelrod (), cooperation is a second choice, whenever selfishness probably does not pay. For the GIZ GmbH () and Nechansky (), cooperation does only show if all parties were involved in stipulating mutually attractive objectives and that in absence of any hierarchical power; it is worth noting that according to this definition, all work following Axelrod () does not deal with cooperation. And Bowles and Gintis () finally equal cooperation with altruism; here, a cooperating person need not get anything for himself or herself.…”

“…To capture the variety of these states and the related notions of cooperation in the widest sense , we introduce here a rather wide definition of cooperation (Let us emphasize again that due to the different and wider focus of this paper, this definition here is different from that used in Nechansky, , , ).…”

“…We call these mutually accepted states pursued in cooperation goal values (Nechansky, , ). This notion is used in control theory to describe that state, which a controller system (be it biological, social, or technical), tries to realize: Control aims at a goal value; and gaining control means acting on any states deviating from the goal value, reducing the deviations till the goal is reached.…”