The first case involves partners of approximately equal capabilities. One person wishes to purchase something – an object or some kind of service – from the other. Rarely does the process involve an exchange as simple as: “This costs such and such an amount”, and the other side replies, “OK.” As a rule, the price is often discussed in a process commonly known as bargaining or haggling. This requires pulling every “predatory” string in the partners’ behavioral repertoire – without one side or the other harboring any hard feelings. Quite the opposite. In the Orient, for example, business partners typically show no inclination to shorten or even avoid the negotiations. The struggle has become socially acceptable, a recognized form of art in which intellectual weapons come to play. Even though both partners know that the deal will be closed, neither shows any interest in bringing the game to an early end, much like a good game of chess. Once the terms of sale have been agreed upon, both are satisfied – neither can be said to have beat a hasty retreat. In fact, such negotiations, even if they were extremely tough, often spawn friendships and mutual respect. Sometimes lasting partnerships arise in this manner because each party has experienced the abilities of the other first hand. Such partnerships can then set their sights on third parties.

The second case, when viewed from the historical perspective, is more important because it demonstrates how exchanges of goods or services can, and often did, give rise to a full range of  communal structures. The basic “predatory” energy gain employed by animals and humans is once again the cornerstone. Some people are more industrious than others. In early human assemblages, the less diligent tended to subordinate themselves to the leadership of the industrious. Both partners benefited: the latter needed helpers to fully develop their capabilities, and the helpers were happy to play their role for a fair share of the rewards. This share could be modest because the “rank and file” reaped a crucial benefit on a second level – a greater level of security. Over long stretches of history, security was a key consideration, whether it involved protection from predatory animals or from much more dangerous human opponents. Joining ranks with competent leaders improved your chances of making booty and, equally important, increased your personal protection and that for your family, your children, and your possessions.

Naturally, the leaders of such predatory bands received the lion’s share of the booty. On the other hand, they were also responsible for equipping and motivating their compatriots, whose needs had to be satisfied if they were to be relied upon. Such leaders, initially of a clan, later of hordes or of entire peoples – a duke, a king or perhaps some other potentate – enjoyed great privileges. The thirst for luxury or power knew no bounds. If such a leader took a fancy to a pretty woman, there was little to stop him from fulfilling his desires. The best food and drinks were just good enough. Once the community became sedentary, no palace could be big enough.

Such leaders naturally also had the final say in all matters related to the land within their sphere of influence. Since property was the foundation for producing food, for securing a livelihood, the ruler had everything firmly under control. The power base could be cemented by making key cronies dignitaries and property owners, eventually giving rise to full-blown feudal systems. The result was an ever-widening gap between rich and poor and an ever more autocratic rule of law, ultimately triggering radical changes, revolutions, and governments of every imaginable color. A third power base – after the ability to provide security and to rule over land and property – arose with the dawn of the industrial era: the possession of capital, of money to build production facilities. This further promoted the gap between rich and poor, increased the arbitrariness of the new ruling class… and led to new revolutions spearheaded by the teachings of Marx. The results spanned from communism to the various forms of socialism that exist today. The historical sequence of factors determining social cohesion and community structure was therefore: predatory activity, satisfying security needs, the power to rule over land and property, and, finally, commanding capital or money.

The two examples at the onset of this chapter – the first involving evenly matched partners, the second involving unevenly matched leaders and subordinates – show that transactions based on predatory principles can in fact lead to successful and even large-scale exchanges of goods and services as well as to various forms of government. This information can now be combined with the recognition that the rational production of additional, “artificial” organs prompted the invention of money, of various professions, of businesses and state-operated security systems. New services were then added, further concentrating communal structures. In every case, the predatory “bag of tricks” determined the strategy. And the balance of power determined what one partner transferred to the other in terms of booty and security, rights and privileges, goods or money. The balance reflected mutual interdependencies, limits to the exploitation of others, and the occasional explosions that dethrone or redistribute when oppression becomes excessive. And this brings us right up to speed for the 7th premise, which treats the practical aspects of gaining energy via transactions.

The key consideration in using transactions to acquire the output of others, in particular money, is the degree to which the customer is satisfied with the purchase. Simply put, if you buy shoes that are very comfortable or if you finally find a doctor that successfully diagnosed and treated your illness, then you have every cause to return to that shoemaker or to that doctor when your old shoes are worn out or you again fall ill. What you want is good value for your money, and if you receive it – or if your expectations are exceeded – then you become a regular customer. Chances are you will urge your close friends to do the same. Rather than being a one-off transaction, this form of business continues to improve as customer satisfaction increases. We have a fundamental reversal of predatory gain. Whereas the latter relies on maximum profit from a single act, the former relies on customer satisfaction. No predator can be successful by pursuing the grotesque notion of making its prey happy: ruthlessness is the correct tactic. In this new line of trade, consideration becomes the primary tool. Rather than momentary profit, success is reflected in the invisible bonds between your clientele and the goods or services you sell. Accordingly, clients who are in dire straits or whose needs are urgent should never be exploited by floating prices. While this may yield a good profit, customers tend to go to the competition the next time around. Charging a fair price to someone in a tight spot will be remembered and rewarded. Cleverness, not kindness, forges the invisible bonds.

This difference crops up in later chapters and upends many long-held dogmas. The above example shows that professionally establishing long-term success has nothing to do with handing gifts to strangers. The catchword is confidence-building. In the predator-prey relationship, this trait is at best a ploy or ruse. In business, “good and evil” are irrelevant criteria. Neither animal predators nor business partners are good or evil in any ethical sense. Viewed soberly, “good” can only mean having mastered your line of business. If you do it incorrectly you are simply doing a bad job. The criterion “evil” can only be applied when the activity runs counter to the morals and laws of the community. This is almost always the case in theft, but sometimes in business transactions as well.

An additional difference between perfect predatory and business strategies lies in the effort at rationalizing, albeit within narrow limits. In both it is equally opportune and profitable to reach the goal cheaply (less energy), more precisely (higher probability), and as rapidly as possible. This requires optimal techniques, whereby the more experienced and better equipped are at an advantage. Minimizing mistakes – and missed opportunities – is a second cornerstone in both lines of trade. Speed is equally essential, in predation because otherwise the prey will escape, in business because customer demand can more quickly be met, creating satisfaction. In both cases, delays open the door for the competition.

These three points of agreement are contrasted by one fundamental difference: the treatment of employees. Rationalizing operations according to the predatory mentality means extracting maximum performance from subordinates with the least personal effort. Perfect behavior in business transactions, however, calls for treating subordinates (whose services have been purchased with money) in a manner that motivates them to peak performance in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust. This will be an issue in the second part of the book when we discuss the gulf between employers and employees. The situation is more like to a symbiosis, where capabilities are exchanged, and the psychosplit hampers or hinders this process for a variety of reasons.

Another innate tendency in all animals, all predators, is to keep an eye out for the competition. This deep-seated mistrust helps ensure that they don’t end up in someone else’s stomach. How does this translate into the world of business? Are the underlying behavior control mechanisms helpful here or merely another disruptive factor?

Minding the competition is an essential part of doing business. The immediate competition relies on the same source of income and is therefore a dangerous rival. Keeping that competition at bay, defending your market niche, and countering intruders is as important as when animals defend the territories that nourish them (Fig. 6). Your competition has probably gained a wealth of experience that you can profit from. At the very least, you can avoid making the same or similar mistakes and revise your own strategies by observing their missteps. As in the animal kingdom, your competition can provide important clues about the demand for particular products and services. You can also orient yourself if you want to break into a market. On the other hand, shadowing your competitors has decisive disadvantages. First, any success story will quickly attract others, ultimately leading to an oversupply and heightened competition in that sector. Humans have the enormous advantage of not being bound to a particular line of work. As opposed to animals, we can acquire new capabilities and specialize in one area or the other by improving our bodies with the relevant additional organs. We can thus become highly paid and much-sought-after problem-solvers in many sectors. Note that the very problems that only few (or none) have tackled often turn out to be the “hottest items” –  those with the greatest market potential. Slavishly emulating my competition can straightjacket my intellect and fantasy into pursuing highly unprofitable avenues, focusing on the forest rather than the gaps between the trees – the gaps representing potentially profitable needs that others have failed to recognize.

Fig. 6: Economic behavior in a coral reef. The illustration shows the territories of four male demoiselles Abudefduf leucozona (left top). Eibl-Eibesfeldt, using the scientific diving method in the reef, recorded the swimming patterns of these territorial fishes on a writing pad. Each fish had, and defended, its territory, which provided it with the necessary food. Whenever a rival approached the invisible borders, it was attacked. The same holds true in the business world: those who have cornered some aspect of the market make every effort to defend it. Those who “hold the territory” are willing to put up a fight against the competitors. The most important weapon here, however, is customer satisfaction. Thus, sales representatives wander back and forth, visit and query customers, make new contacts, attempt to wrest market segments from the competition. In both cases, survival means controlling the territory that feeds you, which can be quite large in humans. From I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1987.
 

Today, the innate fear of enemies and mistrust of the unknown have lost some of their original urgency, but remain sand in the cogwheels of the business world. Particularly in today’s anonymous cities, we often don’t even know who lives in the apartment next door and are confronted with newspapers full of stories about crime and unpredictable human behavior²³. This general undertone of mistrust hampers human contacts, stops many projects in their tracks, and nips good ideas in the bud. We will deal with this phenomenon later.

Result:
The innate instinctive tendencies we inherited from our long list of predatory ancestors are by no means helpful and do not provide a useful platform for our entirely new form of energy gain via two-tiered business transactions, i.e. earning money to then pay for food and other services. But aren’t we particularly good learners? Shouldn’t it be a simple matter to salvage the useful and jettison the ballast on our new path? The answer is provided in the final two premises, which wind up the case I wish to present.
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "8^th Premise: Conditioning makes the customer the key stimulus for predatory behavior"