J.Baudrillard pointed out that in contemporary world I - The Other interaction strategy undergoes depersonalization. One of most important and alarming phenomena of Russian communicative culture - which not only prevents economic multicultural communication but also is a basis to social and organizational deformations - is an underdeveloped notion of The Other in national culture.Communicative effect management, consumer behaviour management... Dreams about manageable world face reality of arrogance towards individuality, pococuranteism to right of The Other to be different, disregard to targets of compatibility, contextual interaction.Not occasionally new tones are found in concept of A. Giddens, which reveals situational contexts of presence and co-presence in social interaction. In his interpretation structural properties of social systems reflect the dialectics of presence and absence in time and space, which connects simplest forms of social action with structural properties of society. According to Giddens, when conditions of co-presence change from point of view of social and psychological aspects (compatibility, mediated social interaction), relations with those physically absent require different social mechanisms. Thus, absent others, who at any moment can intrude by means of a mobile phone into time and space of a mobile phone user, create premises for re-estimation of compatibility, private and public, far and close. Thereby, owning a small portable means of distant communication creates conditions for new complex forms of social interaction both with present and absent others.In situation of co-presence mutual interaction depends on basic social and psychological parameters of interdependence. A high level of dependence (and interdependence) is often connected with subjective feeling of dependence and with focus on long-term relationships (i.e. with a degree of commitment to them). This kind of involvement is a powerful determinant of pro-social behaviour in context of personal connections, as well as formal organizations; while growth of independence, on contrary, is often related to decrease of pro-social behaviour. For example, availability of good alternatives, which reduce dependence, is more often connected with a stronger focus on personal achievements. When dependence is high possibilities of exploitation from side of one or both partners are low. Such interactions and relationships are more stable and imply mutual cooperation. If level of mutuality in dependence is low, exploiting potential is much higher, what is usually connected with lower stability in relations and less pronounced cooperation.It is symptomatic what head of international institute specializing in language, communication skills, and cross-cultural training R. Lewis advises on business communications with Russian partners: dissidence... is in general not popular with Russians. Security has historically been found in group, conformist behaviour. Do not try to separate a Russian from his or her 'group' whatever that may be.Dependence and coherence of interaction are understood in a different aspect by David Deutsch, who specified interdependence groups of three types (cooperative, mixed motivation, competitive) and pointed out that group type influences on communicative potential. These researches show that cooperative type has less communicative threats, consistency of actions and mutual attraction are higher in such groups in contrast to competitive groups, which have more communicative contradictions. In mixed motivation groups, characterized by a combination of cooperative and competitive elements, there is a social dilemma, in which an individual member is better to produce as little as possible, but in interests of group, on contrary, it is best when everyone contributes to common objective (van Knippenberg, Wilke). …