Wise birds and the workplace

The assumptions of the hawk-dove game in evolutionary game theory are (1) that individuals are competing for a resource and, (2) that they meet at random.  The two available strategies are:

Hawk - this means fighting for the resource, which can incur cost through injury both to the opponent and to themselves.

Dove - this means never fighting for the resource, and backing away.

Where the value of the resource is worth less than the cost of injury then we should expect to see relatively few Hawks in a population.  As the chances of meeting another Hawk increase so too do the chances of sustaining a serious injury, that would not be offset by acquiring the resource. Moreover, in a Hawk-biased populations, any mutant Dove would do very well.  This is the essence of frequency dependent selection, and in these circumstances neither strategy would become what is termed an evolutionarily stable strategy.

Evolutionary game theory helps us to understand possible selection scenarios, and the rise of certain strategies that will maximize average life-time inclusive fitness.  There is much to discuss, but that is not the focus of this blog entry. Instead I seek to draw a rough comparison with dynamics in the workplace.

Earlier this week I had reason to reflect on the kind of resource academics seek to access.  A quick ponder generated this list:

1) Time
2) Funding
3) Space
4) Power

The last resource impacting on the first three, I assume, for power allows one to disproportionately access resources relative to the powerless.

Time, funding and space are available in most departments, but those competing for them do not truly meet at random.  Indeed, the mechanisms of resource acquisition are a part of the departmental structure - bidding processes, departmental policy meetings etc. - and individuals have specified roles within the department that guarantee contact with these features.  All told, most academics can predict, with a great deal of certainty, exactly when and where they are going to come into contact with one another around resource issues.

Space is often a resource that is owned, and ownership adds extra dynamic to the hawk-dove game.  Indeed, the Bourgeoise strategy states that those who own, or hold a resource should act as a Hawk, whilst those who do not should back off and signal in a Dove-like fashion.  This is evolutionarily stable only when the value of the resource is worth less than the cost, and when ownership is arbitrarily assigned.

In my recent experience, where there has been an overhaul in space within the university due to changes in the overall campus, some allocations have been perceived as arbitrary - a mere consequence of various transitions, rather than a brokered deal.  In one particular case, however, this perception was asymmetric such that one party felt that a deal had been brokered and that they were the owner, whilst the other felt that there had never been a deal and they just happened to own that space.  The latter has interestingly displayed very Hawkish tendencies (moving occupants and their property, making bold statements about rights etc.) whilst the former has refused to engage in direct confrontation but rather sought to renegotiate for shared use.  Interestingly this was an interdepartmental dispute about space for student use, which does appear to be almost at random.  Also, there are few if any sanctions available which makes the costs of being a Hawk apparently very low.

Because this is an imperfect analogy, and because the opportunity for negotiation brings with it a chance to change the resource value to cost ratio, this version of a Bourgeoise strategy is unlikely to be stable.  The trick now is to make cooperation more valuable, either by attaching gains for both to the space in question, or through some kind of reciprocal arrangement over time.

This all seems perfectly reasonable, and the Hawkish initiation can be happily seen as a necessary stimulus to create a better future.  But it has also been my experience, elsewhere, that some individuals play a constant Hawk during any resource related interaction.  There are not many of these individuals, and I have not encountered a great many Doves either, which leads to the thought that perhaps academics at least think they are accessing resources at random (and also that they are not tied tightly to the social fabric of the department) and that there is some general perception that the costs of being a Hawk are high, relative to the available resource. Which all brings to mind Wallace Sayre's Law, of course.

What might those costs be?  One may well be injury to reputation such that opportunities for collaboration may well dry up, the benefit of the doubt may not be attributed in reviewing decisions, gossip and negativity will accumulate etc.  And, of course, if the Hawk is particularly hawkish, then the costs of employment law can be keenly felt. Meanwhile, the sense of disconnection from the structures of the department that allow resource acquisition, and the consequent distance from the society of the department itself, may be caused by transitions in role, life-history as well as dispositional factors.  The disposition is not equivalent to sociopathy, which is the deliberate free-riding of cooperative alliance.  Perhaps, instead, it is some sort of down-regulation of social cognition.  Not so much a lack of empathy as a lack of insight into how the social economy works, how resources are used, replenished, by whom and when.

I assume organizational psychologists think about these issues and will tend toward institutional restructuring.  My gut feeling is that small scale societies have dealt with this issue in part through lots of contact and many rituals to make plain the situation.

A final thought - this was a rough comparison.  In evolutionary game theory we are asked to imagine scenarios.  So, for example, we imagine a population that is entirely made up of hawks  and recognize that a mutant dove strategy would do well and increase in relative fitness.  What is the equivalent of a mutation in the workplace population?  Retirements and new appointments, elevations and new designations.  Do appointment panels think about such dynamics, I wonder.