Strategy of Compassion Versus Strategy of Manipulation
September 2nd, 2007Last Sunday’s strategy discussion was about a war of information between conspiracy theorists and government officials. Today’s Sunday strategy discussion is a little different. I’ve been thinking that there are really two diametrically opposed schools of thought with respect to conflict. On one hand, Machiavelli (The Prince) believed in the manipulation of people and situations to defeat an opponent. On the other, Jesus (at least sometimes) believed that one gained the spiritual upper hand by turning the other cheek.
Machiavellian Strategy
Machiavelli’s strategic philosophy, similar to that of Sun Tzu (The Art of War
The strategy of manipulation excels in some situations, but in others it does rather poorly. In situations where the involved parties are in direct conflict over resources it does well to not trust others and work toward your own ends. On the other hand, it does poorly when parties are interdependent. In relationships for example, a win through Machiavellian means is generally a short term win that decreases the value of the relationship over the long term.
Compassion Strategy
In contrast, the strategy of compassion argues that it is more beneficial to build your adversary up in recognition of the link between you. As your adversary does better, so you do better. It’s the ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy, because you try to respond to attacks with compassion.
This strategy excels in the very situation in which strategy of manipulation fails. When parties are interdependent, the strategy of compassion tends to increase the value of the situation to all parties, even if your short term value is lower than it would be under a strategy of manipulation. Conversely, if the parties benefit to the detriment of others, the strategy of compassion ensures a loss.
The Right Strategy for the Right Situation
Another way to say it is that the strategy of manipulation is the right strategy for a zero-sum game, while the strategy of compassion is the right strategy for a non-zero sum game (by the way, my favorite game theory book is Game Theory Evolving
Thinking of conflict in terms of whether or not it is a zero-sum game can really help. Is the argument with your spouse a zero-sum game? Does he/she have to lose for you to win? Most of us would probably say no, but sometimes we forget that in the middle of the fight.
What about the Iraq war? Is it a zero-sum game? How you answer this question probably dictates whether you think we should be in Iraq in the first place, but it also depends on what you think the goals are. If the goal is to ensure our access to oil, then it is pretty close to a zero-sum game. If the goal is to promote democracy, then the stronger their democracy, the more we benefit.
The real strength of recognizing these two strategies is that sometimes we get them mixed up. We think of things as an either or situation when there are other solutions that lift both people up. Or perhaps we try to help out another only to be stabbed in the back.
I’ve had to sit down recently with my relationship and consider my approach. Relationships are usually a non-zero sum game, but was I employing a strategy of manipulation? In what ways was I holding winning the argument above the strength of the relationship?
I suspect that there are other strategic paradigms than these two. For this sunday’s strategic discussion, send me some examples of real life zero-sum or non-zero sum games. What type of conflict is the Iraq war? When is a relationship a zero-sum game instead of a non-zero sum game? What about investing in the stock market or buying a car? I’ll post the salient points of the discussion next Sunday.
-zot
Support The Decision Strategist.Popularity: 7%
