A Winning Strategy

(click for?podcast)?(7:46 min.)

I’ve been writing and talking about Zero-Sum vs. Non-Zero Sum approaches for years. “Kind Ambition” even devoted a couple chapters to their differences. They each have advantages and disadvantages, so it really comes down to using the right tool for the right job, as always.

Just for a quick review, in case this is unfamiliar territory, while developing their study of game theory in 1944, the brilliant John von Newman and Oskar Morgenstern made a remarkable distinction between Zero-Sum and Non-Zero Sum approaches. In Zero-Sum games, the fortunes of the players are inversely related. I have to lose for you to win, and vice versa. Examples might include Tennis, Chess, and Boxing. In Non-Zero-Sum, there are options where either of us can advance without the other losing, and both of us can actually advance.

If I have too many apples and you have too many bananas, we can trade our surpluses, and both win. This is Non-Zero-Sum.

In the 1980s, Political Scientist and Economist Robert Axelrod did extensive research into a non-zero-sum game called the “Prisoner’s Dilemma.” In thousands of interaction permutations run through computers, the most points (or dollars in the real world) were always won through a more cooperative process.

The cooperative process gave all players more points, even as they competed. The lesson here is that superior?getting along skills?make more money than adversarial aggression. That often means simply being more civil and open-minded, so that I don’t incite defensiveness, and everything freezes. There’s a more collaborative mindset involved.

Increasingly, as a species, we’re walking backwards a bit, back into more of the Zero-Sum ways of thinking, when we’ve actually proven time and time again that Non-Zero-Sum results in far more benefits and achievements.

We’re constantly being fed messages advocating competition and fighting in a dog-eat-dog world. Unfortunately, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a highly competitive environment, we often sink to a combative, adversarial mentality, even within a single organization.?This kind of in-fighting is always counterproductive to the actual desired outcome. To borrow from a sports metaphor, you don’t tackle your own teammate and hope to win the game.

No matter who we’re dealing with, burning bridges has never been the most logical approach. We never know when we might need them for something down the line, so even a business competitor could turn out to be an ally.

This means we need to be?thinking?more than?reacting, and most of all we need to?communicate?with one another; really communicate. In zero-sum there’s no thinking or communication. It’s just kill or be killed. Cooperation requires communication.

The more complex the systems we live within, the more the need for cooperation. We become more specialized and need each other more. Social complexity has grown and evolved just as biological complexity did. And of course, communication played both causal and facilitative roles in this development.

So what can we do to get back on track with a more intelligent, evolved approach to our interactions?

It’s going to start with a mindset shift, as any successful action will. We first need to bring the issue to top of mind awareness, as it’s generally a cultural habit, so a lot is likely unconscious.

Once cooperating is top of mind, we need to start thinking longer-term. Short-term, reactionary approaches are rarely sustainable, and someone's toes often get scrunched.?We're?in charge; not our phones. We need to stop looking for overnight results. We're biological creatures living in biological time.

Actively look for mutually beneficial solutions wherever possible. Keep trying to put yourself in a “how can?we?score,” mind-set instead of a “how can?I?score” mind-set.

Shift the focus of your problem-solving processes, meeting dynamics, and your communications to Non-Zero Sumness, and the health and survival of the vehicle you share will be assured, whether that’s a family or an organization.

Side effect: this tends to generate serotonin rather than dopamine, which means it's far more sustainable, and doesn't require increased stimulus, as the neurons aren't getting exhausted. They're getting fed. Get more done - with more fun - for everyone.