tive score. If no team has a positive score, the facilitators keep the
prizes.
We have played the game with a wide range of groups, from
nonprofit to for-profit organizations, from lawyers to healthcare
professionals to the fiercest lions on Wall Street. The results, as
you can imagine, are very different. The healthcare workers started
the game with a mix: some cooperating, some competing. After a
while the group created a vision, shared among all the teams, that
they would give the prize money to United Way! This vision united
the group. They cooperated from that point on, won the prize
money, and gave it to charity.
The scenario was a bit different when we played this game with
professional investors at a financial analysts’ seminar at North-
western University. From the outset, it was war, with the exception
of one poor team that tried to wave the white flag and was buried,
never to recover for the rest of the game. The other teams battled
it out, tooth and nail, cutting deals, forming alliances and then
breaking them. Machiavelli would have burst his buttons. The final
round of the game found two teams tied for the lead. Sure enough,
one co-leader cut a deal with a losing team that allowed them to
share the winnings. Several observations resulted from watching
investors play the game:- Most of the participants delighted in the competition.
- No other group has ever approached that level of deal
making.
Golden Gloves or Golden Rule? 77Red Scores Blue Scores
All play red +3 —
All play blue —– 3
Some play red, some play blue –6+6Figure 9.1 Scoring of the Prisoner’s Dilemma.08-13 ware 77 1/19/01, 1:10 PM