Ant colonies and the prisoner's dilemma; an organizational dilemma

E.O. Wilson, an evolutionary biologist (entomologist) working at Harvard, was recently the focus of a New Yorker article on ants and altruism. Wilson is an ant man. He’s spent a career studying and writing about them. He’s one of the most accomplished scientist in his field and made his name half a century ago when he identified the scent-producing gland in the ant enabling colony members to find their way to food and back home. Altruism is a double-edged sword. A group that acts purely altruistically will be destroyed by its competitors. As an extreme example, a “for profit” enterprise that gives its profits away won’t compete for long. What about at the individual level within a group? A group composed of individuals that work at least partially selflessly will promote the interests of the group before themselves and make the group stronger. At what expense? Most likely individual gain. A group that is composed of individuals acting purely selflessly may eventually be carved up by competitive individuals who join the group. Or, perhaps, the culture of the group will be sufficient to exclude them; the selfish intruders simply leave. An ant colony is a great model for thinking about this: within the colony, the ants work toward a common goal and show extreme amounts of altruism. These colonies, admittedly, are formidable feats of construction; some are enormous. At the colony level, however, altruism is not the driving force. These colonies are expansive, territorial and ferocious; not terribly neighborly. They are certainly not altruistic. So the dynamics that mediate individual relations within a group (balance of altruism versus selfishness) are not the same dynamics that mediate group behavior.

In game theory, the “prisoner’s dilemma” is a great way to model the individual component of this dynamic. Briefly, two individuals are detained for a crime and are not allowed to communicate. They are each offered a deal: if both prisoner A and prisoner B confess, they each get 3 months of jail time. But if one prisoner confesses while the other remains silent, the “defector” who confesses will go free while the silent one gets a year in jail. However, If they both remain silent, they each get one month. What to do? The dilemma for the prisoner is that the optimal outcome for the individual is to “rat out” your partner and go free if your partner doesn’t confess. The optimal outcome for the group (both prisoners) is to keep your mouth shut, expect your partner to do the same, and serve minimal time. But what happens in reality? When the game is simulated, prisoner behavior is to maximize individual gain and confess, yielding a sub-optimal outcome and 3 months of jail time. Within organizations, an individual will “remain silent” and act altruistically if there is something to be gained - but only if other individuals are motivated to behave similarly. The selfless individual within a group who is surrounded by selfish people will be eaten up (like the prisoner who remains silent while the other confesses). How does an organization surmount this obstacle? Clearly, an organization that has a component of altruistic behavior at the individual level will be more competitive at the group level (don’t believe me? remember the ant colonies?). Here’s where organizational leadership and “vision” play a role. You think all “mission statements” are mere window dressing? Wallpaper? I’m referring to  real structural ones – the ones that hold up the building and define the organization (if you’ve never worked for an organization like this, trust me, they do exist). The provenance of this vision is the leadership of the organization. A principal role of an organization’s leadership is to foster an environment where individuals frame their work in terms of the organization’s goals, not the individual’s.

A History of Russia, by Nicholas Riasanovsky

This single volume digestible sweeping history of Russia is now in its 8^th edition. I recently finished the 4^th edition which ends in the early 1980’s before the “wall” came down and before Soviet influence over a significant portion of Asia and eastern Europe waned. This is not just a chronological view of historical events. The author weaves politics, life-style, arts, as well as religion, war, intrigue and individual personalities into a nice narrative. I knew little of Russia prior to reading this book. I know a little bit more now. I suppose it helps having this overview if one were to read a Tolstoy novel (e.g. War and Peace – which I have read) or, perhaps, some Dostoevsky whose stories have more meaning if one is familiar with the social customs and manner of living of 19^th century Russians (his, too, I have read, though faultingly, especially the Brothers Karamazov which is a beast of a novel and one I truly felt I didn’t understand). Riasanovsky does a great job with the history – I highly recommend the effort if you are interested in a broad view of Russia, past and present.

Annals of the Former World, by John McPhee

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The first terrestrial plants appeared about 400 million years ago and aerobic life (humans are aerobic creatures, as are amoebae – well, they can be anaerobic too, and many bacteria) appeared somewhere between 500 million and 1 billion years ago. Think about this – a full 90% of the earth’s history had no land vegetation. Photosynthesis? a few billion years ago. The “Cambrian” explosion was around 500 million years ago when large life forms emerged en masse; these were not the “dinosaurs” that we all know and love. These were earlier creatures that were essentially wiped out during the Permian extinction around 250 million years ago (we don’t know what happened). Dinosaurs emerged after this catastrophic event during the Triassic period and hung around until 65 million years ago at which time another catastrophic event wiped out most life on the planet (?asteroid collision). Are these numbers meaningful? We cannot fairly relate to the enormity of this expanse of time. McPhee writes, “…geologists will sometimes use the calendar year as a unit to represent the time scale, and in such terms the Precambrian runs from New Year’s Day until well after Halloween. Dinosaurs appear in the middle of December and are gone the day after Christmas. The last ice sheet melts on December 31^st at one minute before midnight, and the Roman Empire lasts five seconds.” Some perspective. This voluminous work covers many years of McPhee’s life as he traveled around the country with geologists learning about the American terrain and how it came into being. Interwoven are amusing and sometimes fascinating accounts of the people that have come up with the theories and the history of the study of Geology. This tome is a joy to read, although sometimes difficult to understand (unless you are a geologist which I am not). Nevertheless, it is well worth the effort. Informative, entertaining, and humbling. We would do well to learn about the rock under our feet.

Our Kind of Traitor, by John le Carré (read in the spring/summer 2011)

Not one of his best, even of the post-Cold War era novels. Nevertheless it still has that characteristic brooding feel that all le Carré novels have – that sense, mostly real, that much is lurking beneath the surface and you’re going to have to stick around for some time before you are afforded a glimmer. Russian thieves, on a grand scale, intermixed with international bankers and English politicians. It leaves that funny taste in your mouth at the end, not whole satisfied with the outcome and a bit afraid and sad – is that a reflection of our fear that our world is truly as he portrays? Or just what it might become? If you are a veteran le Carré reader, it’s worth the effort (barely). If you are new to his work, you might try something more substantive like the George Smiley books (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy or the Honourable Schoolboy) or even one of my favorites, A Small Town in Germany or the psychologically dense A Perfect Spy. Of his post-cold war era novels, Single and Single stands out as does Absolute Friends. There are many more goodies out there. He really is one of my favorite writers, carrying on the rich tradition of English spy novelists led by Conrad (The Secret Agent – I know, Conrad was Polish, but who cares) and Graham Greene (The Human Factor, among others).

The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan (read in the spring 2011)

An eye-opening, clear introduction to the merits of a rationalist approach to the world. Why do we think “ghost” or “monster” when something in our closet creaks? Why is not just the wind? Or the house slightly shifting? Sagan explores our propensity/need/impulse to assign extraordinary explanations for phenomena more simply explained by the mundane. He takes us into the Inquisition, the burning of witches, reports of alien abduction, and many other fantastic beliefs which, he would argue and I would agree, impede our social evolution. His is a lucid and engaging writing style, a clear articulation of the struggle between the rationalist and those around us who see conspiracy in every government action, a space alien in every light in the sky.

Drood, by Dan Simmons

Fourth time is not the charm. I’ve devoured three other Simmons’ novels in the past year (The Terror, Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion) – all great reads in their own way. Drood is about Charles Dickens and a strange man named Edwin Drood told from the perspective of one of Dickens’ close friends. If you are a Dickens fan (I am not) this tale may be to your liking. It was not to mine. Not to take anything away from Simmons – his other works have treated me well. This novel is slow. I gave it 300+ pages before retiring. Too many other tales to read and too little time.

The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell

Serial-esque foray into the psychology of epidemics. Fashion, business, TV, cigarettes, suicide, crime, and disease are among the areas of fodder for Mr. Gladwell’s persuasive and artful dissection of what makes certain ideas take off and others stall on the launching pad. Failure doesn’t always have a lot to do with how good the idea is. Plenty of good ideas never make it because they don’t take root in the collective conscience of the public or because necessary influential people aren’t involved. The author identifies three different key components of why things may go “viral” and gives us examples of each. “The few” are those influential people who have connected themselves more widely and effectively in their world and become the catalyst for a new idea taking root. The “stickiness” is how well something retains its allure after people are exposed to it. A great idea might be compelling for a short period of time, but it has limited value if it doesn’t remain in the audience’s mind. The “context” is the environment in which the idea resides. Sometimes success of an idea or product can be achieved simply by changing the context of how it is marketed. Mr. Gladwell provides a different way for us to look at what makes good ideas work (and fail) with evidence and research to support his claims. There is likely something in here for most everybody, both in work and home life. Of particular value to me are the sections in which he discusses early childhood learning (Sesame Street and other TV programs) and adolescent smoking. A quick and thought-provoking read.