Nice guys can finish first

Ever thought the other guy was a loser for giving his all for the team even if others weren’t pulling their weight? The prevailing thinking is that the ‘do gooder’ strategy is a dumb strategy, particularly in situations where short-term incentives exist to act selfishly.

In a recent study, authored by Mark Weber, a professor at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, calls such individuals ‘consistent contributors’ – people who contribute all the time, regardless of others’ choices.

According to Weber, ‘consistent contributers’ can influence a group to become more efficient in achieving its goals by making cooperative, collective behaviour seem acceptable and appropriate, and thereby encouraging others to act similarly.

“The prevailing wisdom in some scholarly circles is that ‘consistent contributors’ shouldn’t exist, that if they do they’re ’suckers’, and that people will exploit them,” says Weber.

“But our study consistently found cooperative actors even in places you might least expect them, and when they’re there, they seem to set a tone and shape how their fellow group members understand situations,” says Weber.

“Their clear, consistent behaviour elicits cooperation, and once you get a few people cooperating with each other, they seem to enjoy cooperating. Groups become more productive, more economically efficient and, anecdotally, people enjoy being a part of them more as a result.”

The paper re-analysed data from two previous experiments by experimental economists and presented findings from two additional experiments. Participants were given endowments they could keep for themselves or contribute to the group, benefiting everyone.

Taken together, the experiments found ‘consistent contributers’ commonly emerged, benefited from rather than suffered from their risky actions, and members of their groups cooperated more often than those in groups containing more ‘rational’ actors.

“When you join a new group you have a strategic choice to make – are you going to be a ‘consistent contributor’ or risk being in a group without one?” says Weber. “Our findings should remind people that they can have a big effect on the groups with which they interact.”

reference

Weber, J. M. & Murnigham, J. K. (2008). Suckers or saviors? Consistent contributors in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 95, 1340-1353.

Similar Posts:

• The Five Dysfunctions of a Team
• Can personality prevent dementia?
• Working Together…When Apart
• Live longer with the right personality
• The affliction of presenteeism