Understanding the value behind the red-black management game

A very expensive management training, the red and black games are often plays. Various training companies also launched different versions, different focus on the game design, players in the game after a very difficult game, often harvested a lot, and even mention 醐 initiation of the feeling. The common experience is: win, cooperation, kindness, tolerance and so on. But if you realize that this is a stop, the value of the game, in fact, half are wasted. What this game tells us, is only cooperation and win? What this game reveals is only selfishness, narrowness, Wolidou, treachery, aggressiveness, and duplicity in the depths of human nature. Not just that. Let's take a look at the whole process of the game (because of the different design of the company, here to the standard version as an example): Personnel organization: A group of people divided into a, b two groups, the two groups are not allowed to exchange, after the internal discussion, the vote to the other hand, the card can only be red and black two colors. A correspondent is to be prepared to publish the other's cards between the two groups, and the correspondent must make sure that a or group B's results are valid before the team's cards are released. Rules of the game: 1, the two sides choose their own team leader, (a) the number of red cards and how many black are reported by the group leader, and the results of the vote of the Correspondents ' Panel in a minority-majority manner; 2. In the Panel, if one person abstained, the vote was invalid and the validity of the ballot was negated or confirmed by the correspondent; 3. The scoring rules are as follows: If both sides are out of the black, each is 3 points if one party is a red card, the other side for black, then out of the black side minus 5 points, the Red party is 5 points if both sides of the red card, each 3 points 4, the game must carry out 5 rounds of balloting, of which the second round of scoring X2, the fourth round of scoring X 3, the final outcome rule is: The cumulative is the highest winner. (In some training companies, there are two group negotiation sessions that allow two groups of people to communicate and, of course, they are often not able to keep their promises after negotiations.) The game process: the moderator announced that after the game, the group can not communicate, but the team could communicate fully, at the same time, the host will not answer any game participants raised any questions. The two groups were separated in two conference rooms, the crowd whack, a few people immediately volunteered to be the leader, and then each issued a campaign manifesto, and finally, is often confident, eloquent person elected. And then start voting, which is a more confusing process. A few people are not even concerned about the rules of the game, and some immediately express their views, some ask for a red card, others put black, at loggerheads. But in the end it's usually the red voice that has the upper hand, because their point is: either we lose each other or we win! The choice of black people have a lot of risk: if the other side out of the black, we have the opportunity to score, if the other election red, their own losses! More people are two-sided faction, as if the election red also line, choose Black also line. There was a debate in the crowd, and different points of view were trying to convince each other, and some people dozed off and bothered to ignore it. A good crowd.Like！ Then began to vote with a hand, the statistics vote, the result is always wrong, the original one is the number of the group did not verify, the second is that some people either held two hands, or do not raise their hands at all. Confusion, some people began to call for the change of team leader, some people think that the election is undemocratic, threatened to abstain, the process, the voice of a particularly large advantage. After several abstentions, everyone thought that abstaining was a waste of time, so unanimous: no abstention! Later, the person who intended to abstain also felt guilty and stopped shouting. Because the game usually starts at night, by this time it is often late at night 12 o'clock. Soon, the correspondent came and asked the team leader to report the vote. The group leader is not clear about the matter at this time, stammered, and drew a hiss. The correspondent said: I declare that your group's vote is invalid! As soon as the correspondent walked, all the people immediately open, there is a reflection on the issue, there is a request for the team leader, as well as the rules of the game, chaotic mess. If the leader's head is clear, the voice is big enough, still can maintain the situation, otherwise he can only active aside. If there is a change of team leader, the chaos will be repeated until a strong enough leader appears. The appeal of red is rising. Many wavering two-sided faction, began to prefer to choose red. The black is holding on, but their voices are getting smaller. The results of the group came out: Choose Red! Finally let the correspondent recognized the results of the vote, when the first round of the results came out: a group selected red, B group election red. Both sides have a negative 3 points. An interesting result is that if the male team leader, the results of the first round of the selection is almost a red card, and female leaders, but also occasionally choose black. Of course, if the correspondents toss a few more times, the chances of women being elected team leaders are slim. The subsequent rounds of voting have been relatively fluid, and the results have been quicker. In the three games I experienced, the following results were found: the first round of the second round (x2) The third round of the fourth round (x 3 The fifth round a group B group A group B group A group B group A group B group a group B group the first red Red Red black, red, red, red, black, red, black and black. Their final score is: The first game: Group A -2,b-22 second field: Group A-10, Group B-20 third: Group A +32,b-26 it needs to be explained that the third Team Group B was a very determined woman, she insisted on not moving to encourage everyone to choose black, of course, the team members also because of her firm pay the price, make 50 push-ups, and she did 100. I believe that those who have experienced these three games will not feel the same way. For the first game, in fact, in the third round of voting, the situation is very favourable, I suggest you to cast black, so confuse each other, even if the other side out of the red, we suffer less loss (because the second round of the score to X2, and the fourth round of the score to X3), so in the third round, we have to red card, the other side has been misled, This round is likely to black, and this round of scoring, with final effect! In the second game, both sides of the smallThe change of team leader almost became a farce, finally, the instructor mercilessly scolded: see your Cumulative total score is how much! You waste a lot of resources, but the end is lost! The third game is dramatic, it seems that Group B finally touched the Group A in the fourth round, they also began to black, of course, this is the strong posture, because they have the chance to win. Many people do this game sleepless night, a lot of people finish the game after a small flow of face, this is what the sacred game, how to shock the heart effect? It's just a game. Isn't life a game? But the most important difference in the game of life is that we have only one chance--that life has only one chance for each and every one of us. The game does not play well, we can start again, we can even change the rules of the game in order to obtain the results of our favorable, but our life? We have no ability to change any of the rules, and even we will have the game near the end of the game to know the rules and moral, this is a sad and helpless fact! Let us recall that the game gives us the Reflection and enlightenment: First, the team of human Nature Select the group leader and the process of voting, is a human focus on the unfolding process. We can see some people publicity, some people are silent, some people confused. For any leader, awakening the "silent Majority" is the first goal to lead the team to win. When the correspondent denied the group's voting results, the group often immediately generated commotion, when the team leader if not strong enough, he will lose status, but if the team leader is too strong, he also led the group into the misunderstanding, the third game results illustrate this point. After experiencing the initial disordered state, there are three kinds of people whose face is basically clear, let's take a close look at their eyes, their inner world. The first person, who insists on a red card, represents aggression, aggression, selfishness and self supremacy in the depths of human nature. Their slogan is: either win the whole world, or completely lose, or perish with the opponents! This is a very typical gambler mentality. Or, this is the behavior of wolves. The second kind of people, they are moderate, tolerant, they hope and competition together to make the market bigger, to achieve a win. They are rational, but more idealistic: what do they think of their tolerance, kindness, kindness, will be able to get the same response from each other, how do they know will be able to win? Their ideals are conditional, they need to live in a suitable environment. Or that's the behavior of the sheep. The third kind of people, they are blind, confused, they do not have enough wisdom to tell right from wrong, they don't even know what they are supposed to do, they are very susceptible to inducement, they can say that their mind is basically immature, or irresponsible, so they either go with the flow, either say nothing or simply give up. That, in the course of the game, there is no that is rational, but also realistic, full of wisdom, that is, to understand the positive and tolerant, but also know the timelyThe one who gave up? No. Because this is the game design of the trap, game designers only want to pass this game, focus on exposing human nature hidden, dark things, after all, everyone is not perfect, have their own blind spots and misunderstandings, unfortunately, they do not know it. Therefore, the focus on exposing human weaknesses is the subtlety of game design. II. cooperation and communication, enterprising and giving up, the strong and the weak when do we attack, but when? Some people at the beginning of the game, want to be in some way with the members of another team to communicate, and finally to achieve a winning pattern, but ultimately do not want to do so, because: first, the group can not communicate; In the voting, it was suggested that we should take the initiative to be honest! Attract all the blame, integrity is a price! It is true that once a group is injured, it quickly becomes aggressive. Isn't that the epitome of our lives? Once cheated in business, immediately no longer believe anyone, including their own parents, was a man wearing glasses cheated once, later to see wearing glasses, feel all eyes face odious. Besides, we live in a world of asymmetric information, we are eager to communicate, but how much do we really need to communicate? Once the communication is not smooth, we give up easily, we began to think that the root of the problem in each other, because the other side is so unreasonable, unreasonable, ruthless. Some people say that the strong can give each other a black, because he has the risk tolerance, so weak? The weak can only wait for the opportunity (when the other party out of the black), otherwise can only lose? Another subtlety of game design is the design of a "waiver" of such a choice, you are also one of your rights AH. In the game, people easily give up the "give up" this right, because if this will delay everyone's time. In the team, sometimes we will give up easily, because we have to consider the interests of the collective. But let's look back at the game's winning and losing rules: the highest of the cumulative score wins. In fact, if we insist on abstaining, at least we can get "0" points, not both sides have a very high negative score! So it was said that quitting is also a kind of wisdom, as in 36 of the "Walk as the", in some cases, this is the highest wisdom. The real strong, must have the wisdom of the strong, that is "the mentality of the strong, weak posture." They can put their body low, they are humble and gentle, their "integrity", do not have to hang on the face, not to mention the sound, it is their basic belief. Such a strong, where are they? A world that is truly dominated by the strong will surely give the weak a mechanism to exit and protect it. But the real weak, can not grasp this opportunity? People who know how to quit are often no longer weak, and those who do not know how to quit are the ones who really need protection, but they often don't understand who can help them. Iii. change and unchanging, wisdom and responsibility, commitment and belief I asked the team leader who led the group to fail.To keep you in the end? Why do you have to encourage people to choose black, even after voting, you can be "dismissed" pressure, but also efforts to encourage people to choose black? She smiled lightly: is the responsibility. It's a responsibility! What a dull and Higo language! Reflect on how often we are in the team, and how many times we dare to stand up to our own principles and unswervingly move towards our goals rather than change our goals. Because we are too easy to become flexible, our reason is that the world is changing, the only constant is change itself, so our goals can be adjusted, direction can be changed, the strategy can be rebuilt. Our reason is, people in rivers and lakes, involuntarily ah. And there are times when we go our own way and listen to no objections or criticisms, and we think that this is right, that we are absolutely determined to do it, that the final result, perhaps we succeed, may fail, how can we reflect on it? Do you just say to yourself: This is Providence, this is the arrangement, three points personnel, seven destiny? If so, these words do not need us to speak out, because the absolute truth everyone knows, speak out, but become nonsense. So what is the guiding principle that we are not? The first is responsibility. As a team leader, you have to pay for the team. A mother, when their children are in trouble, often bursts out of incredible power to save their children, we in the praise of this great motherhood, we may wish to think, this power from where? Isn't that the responsibility? In real life, how many leaders for the team to pay, than the mother to the children pay? State-owned enterprises obviously do not, because the leader is appointed by the superior, unlike the mother of the children, experienced the pain of pregnancy, once childbirth, not as the mother of the children, blood, heart and heart matched. Some of the leading mobile phones are powered up 24 hours, some people think it is a fetter, only the minority understand, this is the responsibility. The second is wisdom, the wisdom on the basis of responsibility, or the responsibility on the basis of wisdom. At first we may not be smart, but responsibility can help us do it; At first we were not strong enough, and it was our responsibility to help us do that. A wise duty can prevent us from making the wrong direction. The leader of Black, who insisted on the third round after two red cards, was commended for her sense of responsibility, but where did her wisdom go? After the first round of cards, the results of their own disadvantage, then they should reflect on the strategy, if the sheep's mercy to contain the wolf attack, sheep really will lose everything, and the Wolf will get everything. I asked her, why didn't you choose to abstain? She was speechless. If we are willing to contribute to the team, then we should spare no effort to become the leader of the team, or play an important role in the team, because this is to do their own responsibility. Of course, our position in the team, on the one hand, depends on our responsibility, on the one hand, also depends on our ability. But if we become team leaders, it doesn't meanWe must make an offensive or defensive strategy, we can also choose to give up, but also to give up the omission, which is our right ah, why should we easily give up this right? Then think of Zhuge Liang's six out of the mountain. In the heart of the traditional literati, the six dying represents a responsibility, "dedication, the", this is the first time before the Wang Lin to make a commitment. In the face of mediocre incompetent boss, if he is really responsible for the world, why he did not replace it? In the face of knowing not to be for it to regain the Battle of the central Plains, why he insisted on the mountain, until the war on the battlefield? This may not be a question of wisdom and responsibility, but of faith. Faith is not to be blamed. For a faith-based team leader, he can make mistakes as well as die, but we can't afford to be respectful. Four, game and Nash equilibrium, the ultimate truth of the universe, the red-black game from the Tuke (Tucker) 1950 proposed a famous game model "Prisoner Dilemma", in game theory, this is a complete information static game typical case. (The so-called complete information game means that each game party is fully aware of other players in various cases of loss or gain, but also know their own in various cases of loss or profit.) The basic assumption of the game of Prisoner's dilemma is as follows: The police seized two criminals who committed crimes in partnership, but lacked sufficient evidence to testify against their crimes. As long as a person confessed to a crime, can be confirmed guilty. In order to obtain the required confessions, the police detained the two prisoners separately to prevent them from forming alliance. If both of them refuse to plead guilty, they will be sentenced to 1 years ' imprisonment on lesser charges and, if one of the two men confessed, leniency, immediately released, and the person who does not plead guilty will be sentenced to 8 years ' imprisonment, and if they confess their guilt, they will be given 5 years ' imprisonment. On the premise that the two cannot collude and are completely rational, it must be that everyone pursues the maximization of their interests without regard for the interests of their associates, and the two sides will not trust each other's spirit of cooperation, the final result, can only achieve the result of their not ideal (each sentenced to 5 years), that they can not escape the "prisoner dilemma." The outcome is also called the "Nash Equilibrium", also known as the Non cooperative equilibrium. This paper does not discuss game theory and Nash equilibrium in depth, because there are too many factors to determine the result of the game: whether both sides know the information is complete (many people play half, not clear rules); Whether the agreement of both parties is complied with (if someone violates the agreement, he is the greatest benefit), whether the two sides are rational (think of the leader who insists on black) and so on. After many games, I was surprised to find that the real "win-win" situation, never appeared. Why? Is this a game trap or a life trap? The fundamental laws of thermodynamics tell us that we can neither create nor destroy energy. The sum of energy in the universe is fixed at first, and neverChange, energy, though neither created nor destroyed, can be transformed from one form to another, which is the first law of thermodynamics. In that case, do we arbitrarily consume the energy of nature? The second law of thermodynamics states that when energy is transferred from one state to another, we "get a certain amount of punishment". The penalty is that we lose a certain amount of energy that can be used to do some work in the future. This is called entropy. Entropy is a unit of energy, but it can no longer be converted to work, that is, it is useless. In other words, the world we live in seems to be no different from day to day, even more beautiful, but it inevitably goes to the dead. When the silence goes to an end, the universe explodes again, all over again. This is what Buddhism says: To be, to live, to be bad, to be empty, and that is the truth of the universe. Contemporary Science and Ancient wisdom, is surprisingly similar! This article is reproduced to--Chinese enterprise Learning Network--suxue. Once you understand the ultimate truth of the universe, what is the point of losing and winning in one place? What needs to be explained, the red-black game basically will not have the winner. No one in this game will feel that they really win, all the people in the reflection, for their own life of the blind spots and misconceptions, for the deep desire for human nature, for the people and people formed a society. Finally, I think of the four questions raised by Mr Li Ka-shing when he met with mainland Chinese businessmen this April, and then, as the end of this article: 1, when we dream of greater success, do we have more hard work to prepare? 2. When we dream to be leaders, do we have the humility to serve the people? 3. We often only wish to change others, do we know when to change ourselves? 4. When we criticize others every day, do we know how to reflect on ourselves?