Leadership Game Theory: Better for All
There is no end to the pushback and resistance I receive when people first see the Influential Leadership System’s Philosophy Framework and its core Philosophy.
The pushback tends to come from two groups of people:
- Those who do not consider themselves to be leaders, in the legacy sense, but want ‘their leaders to be strong’, not questioning, strategic, thoughtful and inclusive.
What they imply is that ‘their kind of leader’ must be a dictator of some form—someone who is brash, abrasive, abusive and works towards their own narrow benefit at the expense of others. This style of legacy leadership is so prevalent that many people imagine it is normal.
- The self-appointed legacy leaders fill the second group. Their game is zero-sum behaviour, like the first group imagines leadership to be.
This legacy approach is also what often drives people with anti-social egos and acquisitive tendencies to want to be ‘leaders’ because they can be the main beneficiaries of their positions, titles and personalities.
So, when Influential Leadership comes along and sets up a philosophy that says we are all actually better off together and offers a win-win leadership arrangement, there are naysayers.
But, they are wrong.
The Philosophy
I argue that Game Theory justifies and confirms the Influential Leadership practice.
However, before I set out Game Theory let us be reminded of the Influential Leadership Philosophy elements.
The Philosophy Framework states (in the first person):
To have ‘a philosophy’ in leadership, I purposefully choose principles (values) that I embed into my leadership (and life) practices, rooting them into my world view and my place in it, and ensuring that they define my leadership (and life) behaviours in relation to others and the world in general.
Such a philosophy includes considerations of right and wrong, just and unjust, productive and unproductive behaviours, and these in the dimension of time.
The Influential Leadership Philosophy is thus…
the unconditional acceptance that the quality and value of each life is inseparable from other’s lives and that whatever we do when we choose to lead must be for the common good.
Game Theory and the Prisoners’ Dilemma
Game Theory (also known as the Prisoners’ Dilemma in its simple form) has been around for 70-odd years.
There are many Game Theory models and variations, but they all tend to enjoy the same conclusion—that we are better off if we cooperate.
For a start, refer to the opening infographic.
This is the basic version.
Here is the logic of the situation.
Jack and Tegan have been arrested for armed robbery.
The two accused are placed in separate cells unable to communicate with each other.
Jack and Tegan are interested in their personal wellbeing and freedom rather than about the welfare of their accomplice.
A smart prosecutor offers each accused the following options (unbeknown to the other):[i]
- You may choose to confess or remain silent.
- If you confess and your accomplice remains silent, I will drop charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice gets 20 years.
- Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do 20 years.
- If you both confess, I get two convictions, but I’ll see to it that you both get parole after five years.
- If you both remain silent, I’ll settle for minor sentences on firearm possession (one year each).
The dilemma Jack and Tegan face is that whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent (no jail time and 20 years for the other).
The outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each (five years) than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent (one year each).
The ‘game’ illustrates a conflict between individual and group rationality and associated benefits.
A group whose members pursue rational self-interest end up worse off than a group whose members act contrary to deemed rational self-interest.
While the two-person model is instructive, there are more complex experiments that point in the same direction—that we are better off cooperating in a win-win manner, than each fighting for the largest slice today (and all going hungry tomorrow).
There is an insightful video of more complex simulations here (What Game Theory Reveals About Life, The Universe, and Everything) that reinforces the key takeout for Influential Leadership, that cooperation pays, even among rivals!
Influential Leadership is Smart
So, our Leadership Philosophy that demands we practice Leadership inclusively, and very importantly, appreciating a time dimension—is rational, smart and the best for us with others.
Let’s be smart in the week ahead, practice Influential Leadership!
Regards,
Colin @ Karoo
We Activate Apex Skills!
Leadership Weekly Note: 2824.080724
e: colind@karoo.world
Follow The Karoo Influential Leadership on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/KarooInfluentialLeadership
[i] The set-up is based on material from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the infographic is from Britannica.
