Cooperation
The concept of cooperation is an idea that focuses just as much on the ability to take advantage of someone as the thought of working together for mutual benefit. It raises the question of what point does a mutual partnership and arrangement outlive its usefulness and competing for success become a desirable alternative. In which situations would one approach be deemed more appropriate over the other and how much can be gained from behaving in either way?
A very good example to put this concept into context is a game called 'The Prisoners' Dilemma'. Created by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950, then formalised by Albert W. Tucker in 1992, the game requires two players to privately decide whether they wish to 'Cooperate' or 'Compete' with or against each other. If both players cooperate then their is an equal reward. If one player cooperates but the other competes, the competing player gains a high reward. If both players choose to compete then there is a minimal reward for both of them. This does well to provide the example that despite best interests, two 'rational' individuals may choose to not cooperate.
Affiliation
Affiliation is a concept that focuses on a much more personal and social level. It is the idea around our need to be affiliated with certain individuals but also touches upon maintaining the desired levels of affiliation. As humans we naturally have a need for affiliation. The inclination can vary from person to person but where this ties in with professional networking is that due to our needs for affiliation, does this mean our professional networks develop due to instinctive behavior over a conscious effort? Is networking a result of our needs and not a calculated decision on reviewing the benefits?
These two ideas show contrasting processes although I feel they can merge together in many situations. I view cooperation as a conscious and very deliberate process, where as affiliation is more reflective of our human nature.
In my previous post I spoke of how I viewed the importance of networking to vary depending on the professional context of a dancer. I made my point in a very two dimensional manner only looking at the frequency of a network's use as a variable. After exploring cooperation and affiliation I see there are more angles to view networking from. I now feel that additional to the context of profession, a personal need and desire can affect how important networking is. Not only that but not every contact is necessarily of the same importance to someone. I explained networking purely by size but didn't consider the hierarchies or tiers of certain contacts. To me that makes the idea of cooperation more interesting by introducing the concept of critically evaluating each contact to make decisions on how 'useful' one would deem them to be.
As interesting a thought cooperation is. I can't say that it applies to my personal experience as a professional dancer however there are certain situations where it could apply in the dance world in general. One situation may be when a choreographer is offering a short term contract. Cooperation comes into play because they will need dancers to stage a piece but may have no interest in continuing the employment of a dancer once said show is finished. It could relate on a more personal level if a dancer has a guest contract with a theatre. They are cooperating in order to travel to a new place or to possibly receive a generous payment!
Perhaps the reason I don't recognise elements of cooperation in my working life is because I personally don't view opportunities and partnerships in a removed and selfish manner. That then boils down to ethics. It's all very well looking into what can provide you with the most gain but one thing that is equally if not more important to me is maintaining a healthy working relationship and atmosphere. It connects to my thoughts on reputation as well because people will wish to work with friendly and professional colleagues. The thought of "Cooperate until maximum benefit produced then defect." makes me visualise large corporations trying to get the most money they can. I feel the process is much more apparent in calculated business decisions than what appears on personal levels. Affiliation is much more apparent in my personal experience purely because it's nice to be sociable and have friends! Regardless of whether any of those 'contacts' can do anything for me.
I do acknowledge that so far I have mainly viewed cooperation in a selfish manner and that there must be more friendly examples. I guess that I cooperate with my employer in order to pursue my vocation and make a living.
As I look back on what I've read and written, I feel that my initial concept of networking was very shallow and basic. Just by viewing these two ideas it has raised new thoughts on ethics and social context. Whilst my grip on the term seemed quite basic I now feel my thoughts and opinions on the subject have extra dimensions and much more depth.
Another great post.
ReplyDeleteI liked your point about the theories and that they "can merge together in many situations". I discussed this at the end of my blog about how different levels of management in our working atmosphere require different theoretical approaches, would you agree?
I too agree that cooperation networking can come across a bit "unfriendly" at times. It was nice to read through this post and understand your learning as you went through it. I too had a shallow understanding of networking before approaching this blog topic and feel I broadened my learning and will be able to in-cooperate it into my working practice.
I do agree, I only made a small mention on the idea of hierarchy of contacts which as an idea could have developed into how one approaches their behavior depending on context. It's great to see your thoughts on that developed further. Gives me more awareness of the subject!
DeleteI think it's great be both learned something and broadened our understanding of the term 'Networking'.