Article

Leadership Games in Collective Action

Rationality and Society (Impact Factor: 0.91). 04/1995; DOI: 10.1177/1043463195007002008
1 Follower
 · 
103 Views
  • Source
    • "Many observers of the open source software phenomenon point to the paramount role many leaders have had in the development of an open source software project (Pavlicek 2000). In fact, it has already been argued that various forms of leadership extending beyond simple authoritarian leadership can have a positive effect on motivation of contributors for collective action (see Coloner 1995, Frolich et al. 1971, Salisbury 1969). However, leadership is likely to be very different from the leadership we have observed in the private investment—and perhaps even the collective action model of innovation. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Currently, two models of innovation are prevalent in organization science. The "private investment" model assumes returns to the innovator result from private goods and efficient regimes of intellectual property protection. The "collective action" model assumes that under conditions of market failure, innovators collaborate in order to produce a public good. The phenomenon of open source software development shows that users program to solve their own as well as shared technical problems, and freely reveal their innovations without appropriating private returns from selling the software. In this paper, we propose that open source software development is an exemplar of a compound "private-collective" model of innovation that contains elements of both the private investment and the collective action models and can offer society the "best of both worlds" under many conditions. We describe a new set of research questions this model raises for scholars in organization science. We offer some details regarding the types of data available for open source projects in order to ease access for researchers who are unfamiliar with these, and also offer some advice on conducting empirical studies on open source software development processes.
    Organization Science 04/2009; 14(2). DOI:10.2139/ssrn.1410789 · 4.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The members of the group, who enjoy the collective and private benefits that leaders provide, have an incentive, then, to accept and contribute to the beneficial position of the leaders, giving them their support or votes. More recently, Colomer (1995) has found that his analysis "supports the conclusion that leadership can explain the creation of organizations for collective action and that leadership effects reinforce the differences in the relative strength of different kinds of groups" (p.225). While these theories of collective action highlight the significance of leadership they do not follow the broader tradition of inquiry into leadership in delineating its distinctiveness. "
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The article introduces the concept of hegemony to leadership theory, which has developed mainly as a critique of hegemonic stability theory. We argue that it makes sense to combine the two theories by introducing the concept of 'size' into neoliberal thinking about International Political Economy. We accept the neo-institutional hypothesis that a hegemon is not needed to provide public goods, and demonstrate with non-cooperative games how multiple leaders may jointly provide public goods. A game-theoretic model is developed illustrating with Nash equilibria the conditions under which a hegemon rationally switches from hegemony to leadership. It also shows why followers rationally switch from free-riding in their consumption of the public goods to taking part in leading, in the sense of contributing to covering the cost of the production of the public goods. The emergence of joint leadership leads to multiple equilibria in the sense of allowing for multiple stable leadership constellations. The actors are in a mixed-motive or coordination game where they have different preferences for the equilibria, and thus different preferences for which strategies to choose, and for who is to take part in covering the cost of the production of the public goods. Two aspects of joint leadership 'after hegemony' are treated, namely coercive and benevolent leadership on the one hand, and collective action in the sense of joint leadership on the other hand. Finally, future leadership constellations and the quest for international order are discussed. Der Artikel führt das Konzept der Hegemonie in die Leadership-Theorie ein, die ursprünglich als Kritik an der Theorie hegemonialer Stabilität entstand. Es macht jedoch Sinn, die zwei Theorien auf der Grundlage einer Konzeption der Akteursgröße innerhalb der neoliberalen Internationalen Politischen Ökonomie zu kombinieren. Ausgehend von der These des Neo-Institutionalismus, daß die Existenz eines Hegemons keine notwendige Bedingung für die Produktion öffentlicher Güter ist, wird mit Hilfe der nicht-kooperativen Spieltheorie gezeigt, wie verschiedene 'leaders' gemeinsam öffentliche Güter produzieren können. Darauf aufbauend wird ein spieltheoretisches Modell entwickelt, welches Nash-Gleichgewichte benutzt, um die Bedingungen zu illustrieren, unter denen es für ein Hegemon rational ist, für gemeinsame 'leadership' zu optieren. Gleichzeitig wird verdeutlicht, warum 'followers' rational ihr Trittbrettfahren einstellen und sich an der Bereitstellung der öffentlichen Güter beteiligen. Dies führt zur Ausprägung von multiplen Gleichgewichten. Die Akteure finden sich in einem Koordinationsspiel, in dem sie jeweils unterschiedliche Gleichgewichte und damit auch unterschiedliche individuelle Strategien präferieren. Der Konflikt entsteht an der Frage, welche Akteure sich 'after hegemony' an der Produktion der öffentlichen Güter beteiligen. Dabei sollte zwischen wohlwollend und zwangsgestützten 'Joint-leadership'-Systemen einerseits und impliziten gemeinsamen Aktionen andererseits unterschieden werden. Abschließend werden mögliche, vom Modell nahegelegte, künftige Leadership-Konstellationen und die sich daraus ergebende internationale Ordnung diskutiert.
Show more