I don't own a business, but I have encountered these behaviours at a smaller scale.
Now I think about this situation as a variation of the prisoners dilemma. If both parties play nice, each one gets a smaller payoff. If one is an asshole and the other is nice, the asshole gets a bigger payoff (by shafting the nice party). This article proposes that being nice is beneficial for all parties in the long term. That holds true also in the prisoners dilemma, if the game repeats over time.
Now, why do people still act that way? One option, as this article presumes, is that people are simply not aware that is the best option in the long term.
The second, most insidious option, is that they are aware, and do it in purpose. Maybe the world is still big enough that you can play a first game with different people until your fame catches up. Maybe the payoff for being an asshole is so high that a single win is enough to retire.
Sometimes I feel like humans do not understand that we're the prisoners and nature is the police.
Nature does not care about killing us. The universe will feel no remorse if an asteroid kills us all or we do it ourselves with nukes. Corona doesn't feel shame.
We're prisoners in so many ways. When are we going to start cooperating to try to escape our death sentence? Or are we content to fight each other over scraps while we await our fate?
> Sometimes I feel like humans do not understand that we're the prisoners and nature is the police.
Understanding that cooperation provides higher benefit to players compared to competition requires prior education among the players. It is literally part of any Introduction to Economics course.
The problem is a) under-education b) irrational players.
You assume that all parties have same IQ, same previous experience, equally informed, share same moral values, and share same goal. In this case, yes, they are doing wrong.
Now I think about this situation as a variation of the prisoners dilemma. If both parties play nice, each one gets a smaller payoff. If one is an asshole and the other is nice, the asshole gets a bigger payoff (by shafting the nice party). This article proposes that being nice is beneficial for all parties in the long term. That holds true also in the prisoners dilemma, if the game repeats over time.
Now, why do people still act that way? One option, as this article presumes, is that people are simply not aware that is the best option in the long term.
The second, most insidious option, is that they are aware, and do it in purpose. Maybe the world is still big enough that you can play a first game with different people until your fame catches up. Maybe the payoff for being an asshole is so high that a single win is enough to retire.