Finding positive-sum outcomes in zero-sum games
How might you unlock more win-wins in your product work?
In my previous post, I touched on the power of intrinsic competition. In today’s post, I will explore a dynamic you find in more traditional forms of extrinsic competition. And similar to my previous post, I will take inspiration from the world of sports.
Before we go further - I would like to invite you to watch this clip of the men’s high jump competition in the 2021 Tokyo Olympics.
In case the video above is regionally restricted for you, you should be able to see this shorter clip from the official Olympics YouTube channel. Alternatively, you should be able to find a reasonable local version by searching for “Tamberi Barshim olympics”.
To explain what happened in this clip: Barshim & Tamberi had competed intensely for more than 2 hours in the tournament. Having already distanced themselves from the rest of the field, they then proceeded to match each other toe-to-toe for multiple 1-on-1 jumps. And ultimately, after both hitting their highest successful jumps at the same 2.37m mark, they both failed to clear their final bars. They ended the standard competition in a tie.
What happened next was magical. As the tournament official approached to instruct them about the rules of a tie-breaker “jump-off” to determine who would take hom the gold - they decided to break the mould:
Official: “we can continue with the jump-off”
Barshim [interrupting the official]: “can we have two golds?”
Official: “it’s possible. depends if you decide…”
Barshim [to Tamberi]: “history, my friend. olympic champions!”
This break interaction then sparked a moment of wild celebration from both camps, a memory of incredible sportsmanship for the history books, and a lesson for us all in the power of positive-sum thinking.
How might we break the mould?
Almost 3 years on, this story still sticks with me. Even amidst the highest stakes of the Olympics & in a sport whose linear format is designed to crown a single gold medalist, Barshim & Tamberi agreed - with no hesitation - to exit with a win-win.
This example, among others, has inspired me to reflect differently on our typical product work, and the many day-to-day interactions that have seemingly zero-sum dynamics. How might we consider applying a similar positive-sum mindset instead? If we were to do so, we might approach very common, challenging product work activities very differently, ex:
Developing a product strategy that has complex tradeoffs of what matters to users versus the business versus our external partners, etc.
Getting aligning from difficult stakeholders on a controversial product decision that may incur a cost or risk to them
Fighting for budget & resource allocation for your segment of the broader product portfolio
These are all scenarios that present themselves as zero-sum in nature. For one party to win, the other must lose. And in many cases, in the face of real constraints, this is unfortunately true. But I will posit (assert?) that they likely do not need to be true as often as we end up seeing.
If I go back to Barshim-Tamberi, I identified 3 key ingredients from them that led to them changing a zero-sum game into a positive-sum outcome:
Intent: Barshim & Tamberi were long-time friends, competitors and rivals. They trained together frequently. They also supported each other when they both experienced career-threatening injuries in the past. To better understand their mindset and relationship, watch this behind the scenes clip with interviews of them after the event. While they were both passionate about their desire to win, they had no desire to see the other lose.
Creativity: as humans, we are always operating under a set of explicit or implicit constraints. It takes strong judgment and guiding principles to understand if the constraints you are working with are either enabling or limiting in nature. In this example, Barshim & Tamberi naturally intuited that a tiebreaker would be a limiting constraint to their shared desire to win. It is why - when an alternative was available - they took it with no hesitation. Which brings me to my next point.
Agency: if placed in a similar situation, how many of us would’ve just gone with the flow? How many of us would’ve prevented the implicit narrowing that was bound to happen, if the official had the chance to complete his sentence? What was powerful in that moment was not just the competitors sensing something problematic, but in Barshim’s decision to say & do something about it. His interruption - nay, his intervention - was what unlocked the positive-sum outcome.
Or as Robert Frost would say…
“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”
The Road Not Taken
As you go into your work this week, I encourage you to reflect on the zero-sum games that you are playing or being forced to play. And how might you - with the right intent, a bit of creativity and high agency - shift them to be more positive-sum in nature.
Who knows - perhaps a small adjustment here or there may be all that you need - to make all the difference?
Great story and reminder!