I would start by expressing my debt and gratitude. To God, to my near and dear, and to a professional community and its Association of whom I have been very fortunate to be a part, for a while now.
The community has been sitting on a minefield of opportunity for a while now, with a decisive chance to craft a glorious, meaningful and inspiring future, as opposed to the opposite.
But there is a problem. Newton's first law is proving to be just too powerful; inertia has been the norm, collective action with a missionary zeal and visionary direction has been largely absent.
A recent occasion brought this into sharp relief. It is time to elect the next set of office bearers for the Association. Elections were notified; however, not a single nomination was received for any of the five posts for the fourteen posts on offer! Yes, that is right: zero nominations from a community with a few hundred members.
Is it surprising? Well, it was, for me! And for many others too, I would presume.
However, a little reflection leads me to believe that it there was no need to be surprised; the situation lends itself to a convincing explanation, if only we understand the situation well and analyze it correctly.
The Freerider Problem
I think this is a classic instance of the freerider problem.
Given below is a simplistic, yet sufficiently realistic, game-theoretic formulation of the problem.
1) The Decision
So, both you and I are members of the said Association. The fundamental decision facing both of us is reduced to the following: Should I or should I not contribute actively in the functioning of Association?
2) The Decision Factors
We can identify the following two factors that can influence an individual's decision:
- Net Benefit (to the individual) of a strong Association – b, comprising elements such as:
- More and better avenues for personal fulfillment at work (benefit)
- Less room to game the system to secure undue favours/postings (cost)
- Net Cost of individual contribution - c, comprising elements such as:
- Investment of time and effort in making the contribution (cost)
- Learning and growth in the act of contributing (benefit)
- Appreciation and recognition from colleagues for contributing (benefit)
Note:
- While the former is the personal benefit due to a strong Association (outcome), the latter is the personal cost incurred in the process of building one.
- These are perceived values (assumed to be same for all members)
- As indicated above, the word 'net' allows the presence of both benefits and costs for each of the two variables; however, both b and c are assumed to be positive (so we assume that the cost of individual contribution exceeds the benefit of the same)
3) The 'Game Play'
Following is the payoff table for this game:
Others don’t contribute
|
Others contribute
|
|
You don’t contribute
|
0,0
|
b, b-c
|
You contribute
|
-c, 0
|
b-c, b-c
|
(The first figure in each cell indicates the payoff for you, the second one for others).
This is a simplistic representation of what is actually an n-person game (with n decision makers).
So, what do we have? If no one contributes, there is no pain, no gain. If everyone contributes, everyone incurs the same benefit and cost (bottom right cell), resulting in a net individual payoff of b-c to every Association member.
Now comes the more interesting part. If you don't contribute while others contribute, you will still derive the same benefit from a strong Association as everyone else (assuming your marginal/incremental contribution to the collective benefit is negligible when everyone else is active); however, others have paid a cost for this, while it comes free for you - you are a freerider!
On the other hand, if others freeride on you, the benefit is zero to everyone (assuming that you will be able to accomplish nothing by yourself); however, you have paid a very heavy cost this time!
We are now ready for the climax!
4) The Decision
Let's wear your shoes, and inhabit your mind. There are two possible scenarios that can occur: others contribute, or they don't.
Here is what the payoff table looks like, in the scenario when others don't contribute:
If you contribute, your payoff is -c (a negative value); if you don't contribute, it is 0. So the better option for you in this case is: Don't contribute.
And in the scenario when others contribute:
In this case, if you contribute, your payoff is b-c, while if you don't contribute, it is b. Since b is greater than b-c, the better option for you in this case too is: Don't contribute.
Having considered the two possible scenarios, your better option in every scenario is: Don't Contribute!
5) The Implications
What happens if every member of the Association thinks like this? No one contributes! Which is one possible explanation for the situation we are facing.
6) Any Way Out?
Note that the game has been assumed to be one-step (not multi-step), parallel (not sequential) and two-person (not n-person).
And it is heavily dependent on b and c - i.e., on the members' perceptions of the benefits of a strong Association, and the perceived benefits and costs of the act of contributing actively to it. Changing these values is one possible remedy, that can completely transform the outcome. For example, just imagine what would happen if c were negative! In other words, if there is a net benefit (and not cost) to be gained from the act of contributing to the Association. The Association and the community would benefit from active contribution by one and all!
In the same vein, the members would do well to ask themselves: Are we making an accurate estimate of the benefit of a strong Association? Can we do a better job of communicating the same amongst our fellow members? Doing so can alter the mean value of b, again fundamentally changing the game for good.
And indeed, the model does not consider that life is sequential and evolutionary. In fact, this has supposedly contributed to the current situation; members who actively contributed apparently had to contend with little company, fighting thereby a losing battle. This has led to very unfavourable values for both b and c.
At the same time, this also gives us room for hope! If some members are willing to take the seemingly irrational act of contributing actively, it can potentially alter the game dynamics, inspiring more people to join in. Thereby changing people's expectations and inspiring action.
At the same time, this also gives us room for hope! If some members are willing to take the seemingly irrational act of contributing actively, it can potentially alter the game dynamics, inspiring more people to join in. Thereby changing people's expectations and inspiring action.
But it is an uphill task indeed. For irrationality does come naturally to humans, but few people may choose to be irrational by design, on purpose!
The Case for Effective Leadership
An effective leadership can hopefully address all of the above issues: it can inspire individuals enough to see meaning (and thereby benefit) in contributing to the Association; it can better communicate the potential of a strong Association and also enable the community to better discover its true potential; and it can help enroll more people into a unifying vision that elevates, guides and energizes. And help everyone stay hungry and foolish.
What do you think about what you just read? Your feedback is most welcome and would be highly valued. Thank you!
Further Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment