and in any case, that isn't the main point of this post. after listening compre, i went for the "person of influence" workshop, which was basically a workshop for leadership skills. i want to focus on the highlight of the workshop, which was a game based on the prisoner's dilemma to teach the dangers of predatory competition between peers:
the game worked like this: we were split into four companies, each with a starting capital of $10000. every round, each company would wager some money by holding up either a red or black card. in general, if there is a mix of red and black cards amongst the four then the red cards will win big and the black cards will lose, if all are red then all will lose, and if all are black then all will win small. collectively it is obvious that all should choose black so that all can win, but choosing red is better from the individual companies' perspective as it presents a chance to earn bigger winnings, and also acts as a safeguard in case other companies betray the group and also choose red. communication between companies was allowed in some rounds and banned in others, creating many different mindgames to be played amongst the companies.
the trouble came in one particular round where communication was allowed. after realising that choosing black was mutually beneficial, representatives from the four companies discussed over what cards they should put up. three of the companies agreed to put up the black card, while the last one (i'll call it company X) was still sitting on the fence by the end of the discussion. when it was time to reveal the choices, the three companies had indeed shown black cards, while company X showed a red card, thus "betraying" everyone, and causing one company in particular (let's call it company Y) to lose nearly all their money because they placed a significant amount of money on the pact. after that incident, the workshop conductor opened up the possibility of loaning money to company Y to allow them to continue playing. company X was the first to offer a $10000 loan, but at a hefty 25% interest, and was quickly rejected. at this point of time, there was significant real-life animosity between X and Y. finally, the three companies formed a cartel against X: one company would show black at minimum wager while the other two would show red and go all in (ensuring that they would not meet an all-red scenario) and the winnings were split between the three companies, thus causing X to finish in last place despite their cut-throat competitive style.
this game left a very deep impression in me. for one thing, it's probably the first game conducted in a workshop i've seen that directly proves a point. i've seen many games that only prove ideas in their figurative form and not the actual ideas themselves; for example, the game might be a three-legged race and the moral might be that it is important to be close to your people, but then i'll be left thinking "you've only proven that it's important to be close in a three-legged race; how does this prove that it's of any use in a leadership setting?" but in this case, you actually see the consequences of placing and misplacing your trust in other people; it's an actual mindgame that involves believing and deceiving people.
the other reason, and personally the more impactful one, is that it made me truly see the great value that people place in trust. when X "betrayed" the other companies and caused Y to lose nearly everything, there was actual animosity between them. think about it: we are talking about fake money here, nothing but numbers hastily scribbled on a piece paper with a whiteboard marker. no sane person would get angry purely over losing fake money. then were the people in Y simply being petty? of course not. they were angry because X betrayed their trust.
you keep hearing that integrity is important. you hear it from parents and teachers. heck, you even hear it from barney and sesame street. ever since we learned how to listen, one of the most oft-drilled messages is "integrity is important". we've become so jaded to messages like this that we take it for granted:
"is integrity important?"
"of course!"
"why."
"erm..."
well, today i saw why. integrity is important because people take it as a sign that they can entrust you to do what's right amidst even the most tempting of distractions; they count on you to do it, and when you don't it is akin to letting them go at the last moment of their leap of faith. and people do not take kindly to that.
