The Prisoner’s Dilemma: How Cooperation Trumps Competition

Surveys consistently rank the U.S. as the most individualist culture in the world. Our ideal man or woman is independent and self-reliant. Unlike collectivist cultures (Japan, China, Mexico, etc.) we give primacy to the individual over family, community or social class. 

For Americans coming of age in the middle of the 20th century, one Hollywood actor above all others embodied the virtues and bravado of rugged individualism — John Wayne. In John Wayne’s America: The Politics of Celebrity Garry Wills described Wayne (aka Marion Morrison) as our “American Adam — untrammeled, unspoiled, free to roam, breathing a larger air than the cramped men behind desks.” 

In business we are expected to be hyper-competitive. The rules of the game are win, win, win. George C. Scott in his title role as General George S. Patton said it best: “America hates a loser.” But is fierce, no-holds-barred competition the only way to win? Are there strategies that are more effective? How about cooperation?

Game theory — a mathematical theory of situations in which two or more players decide the best course of action — proves it’s not the self-interested, results-oriented, victory-obsessed player who triumphs. It’s the cooperative player.

A classic game theory scenario is The Prisoner’s Dilemma. “Two prisoners jointly charged with a crime are held apart, and each is given the option of confessing, or not confessing,” according to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. “If neither confesses, the prosecutor will find a lesser charge, and each will serve two (2) years in jail. If each confesses, the prosecutor convicts them both, and they will serve six (6) years each. If prisoner A confesses and B does not, A is released and B serves ten (10) years. If B confesses and A does not, B is released and A serves ten (10) years.”

The best outcome would be for both prisoners not to confess. The prosecutor would then have to give them each two years in jail. But they would have to trust each other and cooperate, i.e., not confess. If neither trusted each other, they would both confess and get six years. And if prisoner A trusted prisoner B but B squealed, then prisoner A would get ten years. Likewise, if prisoner B trusted A but A squealed, then prisoner B would get 10 years.

Clearly, the game shows that a positive result (less time in jail) is not attained by pursuing your self-interests. Instead, it’s best achieved through cooperation. It’s not intuitive, but it is intriguing.

So the next time you think it’s wise to crush your opponent, think again. It might make sense to cooperate and get a bigger payoff.

Copyright © 2009 by Vince Reardon