Question

Discussion: Relating Strategically to Others

(Note: Please do not attempt to solve if you cannot answer all. Also, do not attempt to solve if you have answered in my last post. I am looking for a completely different answer

In the internationally-bestselling strategy book, Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life, authors Dixit and Nalebuff teach strategies from game theory that can help individuals and organizations to win in competitive relationships. The teach how to anticipate the response of a rival and how to beat the rival. This book advocates competition, and does so appropriately, as sometimes we must compete. Sometimes we compete against adversaries, or even evil people or organizations or governments, that must be defeated. However, all of life is not about competing.

In the readings from Covey, you learned about "Six Paradigms of Human Interaction," one of which was "Win-Win or No Deal." Covey considers this the most ideal of the human interactions and gives a number of reasons why. Clearly, this is a means to cooperate rather than compete.

Questions:

1) How does Dixit & Nalebuff's approach equate to Covey's "Win-Lose" paradigm?

2) How do you think most people see the majority of human interactions, as opportunities to compete or to cooperate?

3) Can Covey's "Win-Win or No Deal" approach be "strategic" in the ultimate effects it may accrue?

4) How would you compare and contrast the competitive approach of Dixit and Nalebuff versus the cooperative approach of Covey?

5) Which of the six paradigms of human interaction do you operate out of most often? Would it help you to expand your repertoire of positive, effective, strategic interactions?

Answer 1

1) Dixit and Nalebuff's game theory teaches us that we need to strategically decide what action we must take when there is a competitive situation. What moves to take to win the game when there is competition. Covey's "win-lose" paradigm also equates to the game theory of Dixit and Nalebuff, It says covey's game theory is dependent on what the player percieves the outcome to be compared to the other player. "Win-lose" situation arises when one party/side percieves the results to be positive. This happens when there is situation of competition between two parties. This is how the two approaches equate with each other- on the "basis of competition"

2) Majority of the people see human interactions as opportunities to compete rather than cooperate. In todays competitive world there is only competition and very less cooperation. Each one wants to reach the top, be it a small company or a big player. Small companies compete to reach the top and top companies compete to stay where they are- on the top. So, basically, each one is competing with the other and most of the human interactions are competition based. No one likes loosing or giving up and adjusting with the situations.

3) Yes, "win-win or no deal " approach is a strategic approach as the results are satisfactory for both parties. In this approach both parties win or both agree to walk away, if they do not feel the outcome would be beneficial or as they desire. This is a situation where it is a good idea for choosing "no deal", as the result of coming together would not be satisfactory or beneficial for each side/ party.

Though it is a "no-deal" situation it may be possible that it turns out a "win-win" situation in future as both the parties have invested enough time and effort to understand the other.

4) Like the name suggests Dixit and Nalebuff's approach is competion based and covey's approach is cooperation based. Dixit and Nalebuff believe in being prepared with strategies and tactics on how to compete with ur opponent or the other party. Whereas, Covey's approach is based on what each side percieves the outcome would be. It is only win- lose situation according to Dixit and Nalebuff whereas, there are six situations possible according to the cooperative approach of Covey's being "win-win" , "win-lose", "lose-win" , "lose-lose", "win", "win-win or no-deal".

5) I operate on the "win-win or no-deal" paradigm primararily because it is a situation where either both of us ( me and the other side) win and the outcome is postive and in both of our favour. It is a situation where the outcome should be in the interest of both/all the parties. Else, it is a "no deal" when even one of us thinks the outcome would not be profitable for any one of us. There is no point go ahead when there is diagreement. We could hope for a "win-win" outcome in future.