|
Winners and Losersby Patti L. Auber, published November 2013
|
Readers (of a certain age) may remember something called the
New Games Movement that started in the late ‘60s and was popular in the ‘70s
and early ‘80s. New Games sought to
replace competitive sports with cooperative ones. One of the earliest such games developed was,
ironically enough, called Slaughter. In
Slaughter, two teams tried to push a large ball (originally designed to look
like the earth) over the other side’s line.
Think tug-of-war in reverse.
Whenever it seemed the ball was close to crossing one team’s line,
someone from the other team was encouraged to change sides to balance things
out and keep the game going. The goal
was to teach cooperation over competition and ensure that there was lots of physical
exertion but no winners or losers. The
guiding philosophy of the New Games Movement was Play Hard. Play Fair. Nobody
Hurt.
The New Games Movement fell into obscurity by the time of the Me Generation during the Reagan era. And judging by what I see and hear daily from the young mothers I know, it appears that competitive sports are more popular than ever, with endless rounds of practices and games for their children even taking precedence over dinner, homework, school, and sleep. Families’ lives seem to be relentlessly structured around each child’s game schedule, and the simple spirit of Play Hard, Play Fair, Nobody Hurt is often lost to the deadly serious business of Winning. Kids learn from their parents’ attitude of win at all costs.
It does cause me to wonder about the efficacy of putting so much energy into crushing the competition, whether it be in sports, in business, or in war. Often we think that the only way we can win is if someone else loses. That’s called a Zero Sum Game. In Zero Sum Games, someone can only win if someone else loses.
Robert Wright, in his book Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny proposes that our future—our biological and cultural evolution—is shaped and directed first and foremost by creating new interactions that are not zero-sum. In other words, we all win or lose together.
Like Robert Wright, I, too, believe that we are now at a point where Zero Sum Games are no longer useful. It seems to me that with the increasing complexity and globalization of our world, our interconnectedness makes inevitable the reality that if one person loses, we all lose. The only sustainable future for us is to seek and embrace win-win outcomes, economically, politically, socially, and environmentally. What benefits one of us benefits us all; what harms one ultimately harms all.
Isn’t this something we’ve known in business for some time? The way to be successful is to make our customer feel like they have been advantaged by our deal. Create value for the customer, and a company creates profit for itself. Both win. The problem arises when a company creates a false impression of value that enables it to make a sale. Ultimately, when the duplicity is discovered, a customer is lost. There are companies that knowingly choose this model of business: they rely on an unending stream of new customers rather than building long-term customer relationships. They tend to be short-lived, and often dissolve and re-form as their poor reputation impacts their ability to be profitable. They can be successful, but only in the short term. This is known as a social trap. Social trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains that in the long run lead to a loss for the group as a whole.
We no longer need nor benefit from the black-and-white paradigm of win/lose thinking. Perhaps it’s time to revisit the idea of the New Games Movement. Play Hard. Play Fair. Nobody Hurt. Everyone wins! That’s the ultimate victory, isn’t it?
“The only victories which leave no regret are those which are gained over ignorance.” —Napoleon Bonaparte
Citation: Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny by Robert Wright, Pantheon, 2000.
The New Games Movement fell into obscurity by the time of the Me Generation during the Reagan era. And judging by what I see and hear daily from the young mothers I know, it appears that competitive sports are more popular than ever, with endless rounds of practices and games for their children even taking precedence over dinner, homework, school, and sleep. Families’ lives seem to be relentlessly structured around each child’s game schedule, and the simple spirit of Play Hard, Play Fair, Nobody Hurt is often lost to the deadly serious business of Winning. Kids learn from their parents’ attitude of win at all costs.
It does cause me to wonder about the efficacy of putting so much energy into crushing the competition, whether it be in sports, in business, or in war. Often we think that the only way we can win is if someone else loses. That’s called a Zero Sum Game. In Zero Sum Games, someone can only win if someone else loses.
Robert Wright, in his book Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny proposes that our future—our biological and cultural evolution—is shaped and directed first and foremost by creating new interactions that are not zero-sum. In other words, we all win or lose together.
Like Robert Wright, I, too, believe that we are now at a point where Zero Sum Games are no longer useful. It seems to me that with the increasing complexity and globalization of our world, our interconnectedness makes inevitable the reality that if one person loses, we all lose. The only sustainable future for us is to seek and embrace win-win outcomes, economically, politically, socially, and environmentally. What benefits one of us benefits us all; what harms one ultimately harms all.
Isn’t this something we’ve known in business for some time? The way to be successful is to make our customer feel like they have been advantaged by our deal. Create value for the customer, and a company creates profit for itself. Both win. The problem arises when a company creates a false impression of value that enables it to make a sale. Ultimately, when the duplicity is discovered, a customer is lost. There are companies that knowingly choose this model of business: they rely on an unending stream of new customers rather than building long-term customer relationships. They tend to be short-lived, and often dissolve and re-form as their poor reputation impacts their ability to be profitable. They can be successful, but only in the short term. This is known as a social trap. Social trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains that in the long run lead to a loss for the group as a whole.
We no longer need nor benefit from the black-and-white paradigm of win/lose thinking. Perhaps it’s time to revisit the idea of the New Games Movement. Play Hard. Play Fair. Nobody Hurt. Everyone wins! That’s the ultimate victory, isn’t it?
“The only victories which leave no regret are those which are gained over ignorance.” —Napoleon Bonaparte
Citation: Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny by Robert Wright, Pantheon, 2000.