Jean-Michel Cornu : Cooperation in 28 keywords

5. The three types of influence in a group: person , group structure , environment

JM Cornu - La Coopération en 28 mots-clés - 5. Les trois types d'influence dans un groupe : personne, structure des groupes, environnement

Small summary of the previous episodes. We have seen that there were several aspects in a group and we have seen 3 or 4 that are quite counterintuitive. The interesting thing is that we observed an “a priori” choice, which means that rather than optimizing a group, it's better to have an abundance of choices, and choose afterwards when we are obviously in a strategy of cooperation. In other cases, it is not necessarily the best choice. Obviously that's something that is linked to environment. I mean that my environment should be an environment of abundance : either I have a lot of bananas, or I have a lot of information, or I have a lot of money (which rarely happens), etc.
Second aspect, we have seen that the size was important and that what was happening above 100 persons was different than what was happening below 100. That a group under 12 persons was totally different according to the rule that below 12 : "The one who does nothing is a disaster. The one who works is normal”. We saw that it did not work very well between 12 and 100. In a group a little larger, up to 100 persons, someone who does nothing is the norm. So all the people who are inactive are your friends and then if someone reacts, well enjoy! There are about 10 % or even 1 % of people who are proactive. Finally, this is an aspect which is not linked to the environment any more but to the structure of the group, that is to say its size. Not even to people, but to the size .

Third aspect that we have seen : the aspects of convergence and there, what is interesting is that we get interested in people. Will the people's interests focus, diverge, be in opposition ? We talked of the need for a bit of everything : more convergence, a little divergence and a little opposition. That when this opposition, conflict, was too important, we could try to turn it into a crisis, adding things a little bit in all directions. But there, we are in a system of people. Finally, when looking at the different aspects of the group - and there are a few here that we can scan more easily - some are linked to people. A group is primarily a group of people. And so the people and the part they play are important. It is also a structure: with a size, a culture, etc. Things that are almost independent of the people. We will give examples later. And there are things that depend on the group's environment. The group can be within a firm, it may be in another group, it may be in a larger community which expects, or not, production from the group. Briefly, it will depend on environment. All aspects that we will see here depend on either individuals, or groups, or environment, and now we will see a further aspect, a bit special, the fourth really counterintuitive. Then we will overfly simple things, because finally it's common sense, and often we manage the group with common sense. As mentioned earlier the problem is that : a little common sense is OK but we tend to forget it and then secondly, some of the aspects that we have seen : that the post factum choices, those on the size or on the convergence are not so intuitive for everyone. And the one we are going to deal with now about implication is not as completely intuitive. After, for all that is left, what is needed is a lot of common sense and a map to navigate .