Introduction
Researchers and business administrators attempt to develop models that can best support decision-making within organizations. Their main objective is to construct a framework that enables every member of the team to express his/her opinions and make valuable recommendations. In this way, they strive to improve the strategies of a firm. This paper is aimed at discussing such a tool as co-evolutionary gaming. This tool is based on the assumption that teams or organizations should focus on the possible responses of their competitors or opponents to develop the most optimal policies (Cares & Miskel, 2007). Overall, it is possible to argue that this technique can significantly improve decision-making, provided that this tool is applied correctly. Moreover, business administrators should remember the limitations of this model to achieve the expected results.
The main peculiarities of co-evolutionary gaming
The concept of co-evolutionary gaming was introduced by Jeff Cares and Jim Miskel (2007) in their article. The model relies on the premise that the decision should be taken only after analyzing various moves and responses of the rivals (Cares & Miskel, 2007, p. 20). To a great extent, this model is aimed at emulating the natural environment in which a species has to respond to changes in the behavior of other species (Cares & Miskel, 2007). This tool can be applied in different situations. For instance, a company that introduces a new product should not focus only on the available information about the market. They also need to think about the possible reactions of the rivals that will also try to retain their competitive positions. Therefore, it is vital to find ways of opposing this counter-strategy of other firms. The main peculiarity of this model is that people working on a particular problem should be divided into several groups that will represent different sides. For example, one of the teams should evaluate various alternatives and propose the most optimal product that can suit the needs of clients. In turn, the other team should act as the main competitor of a company, and its goal is to suggest the concept of the product that can bring more revenues to an organization. The co-evolutionary gaming should include several steps and responses (Cares & Miskel, 2007, p. 21). To some degree, this approach resembles a game of chess. This form of interaction can help the management evaluate their initial policies and take the most optimal choices. Moreover, this tool is supposed to make companies more agile; with its help, companies can better respond to the changes in the strategies of their competitors.
The implications of co-evolutionary gaming for the communication process
Overall, this technique can positively influence communication within teams. It can make interactions between individuals more open since employees will be encouraged to undertake an independent evaluation of different policies, actions, or decisions. One can argue that co-evolutionary thinking can reduce the risk of groupthink in institutions. This problem becomes particularly essential when team members are reluctant to express their opinions, especially if these opinions do not coincide with the views of the senior executives or the majority (Forsyth, 2009, p. 337). The main consequence of groupthink is the inability of management to evaluate their choices or plans. Co-evolutionary gaming prompts individuals to assess the decisions of others without facing any criticism (Halverson & Tirmizi, 2008). This is the main advantage of this model.
Nevertheless, the application of this technique can be made more productive with the help of such a tool as a Johari window. The main peculiarity of Johari is that an individual is asked to select from a set of adjectives to describe his/her personality. In turn, other teams are also asked to describe this person by selecting adjectives from the same list (Halverson & Tirmizi, 2008). This procedure can show whether a person’s assessment of his/her behavior coincides with the opinions of other people. This tool is beneficial because it enables team members to learn more about themselves, especially about their strengths or weaknesses.
Moreover, leaders can better evaluate the qualities of team members. By combining the Johari window and co-evolutionary gaming, senior executives can improve decision-making in their companies. The managers should pay close attention to the personal characteristics of team members. Johari window can provide this information to a leader. This is the main strength of this tool. Overall, decision-making models are beneficial if they are accompanied by other tools that can throw light on the behavior of individuals. These people can have different attitudes, values, interests, and skills. A manager should either reconcile these differences or find ways of exploiting these differences. If it is not done, businesses are not likely to benefit from the use of co-evolutionary. This is one of the main points that can be made.
The limitations of co-evolutionary gaming
Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that co-evolutionary gaming can have certain limitations. First of all, this method is appropriate in those cases, when organizations have a certain amount of time at their disposal. As a rule, such games can last for more than several days (Cares & Miskel, 2007). However, this method may not be appropriate when senior executives have to take urgent actions. Therefore, it is not always relevant to the need of companies. Secondly, this approach can give rise to conflicts because, very often, people are unable or unwilling to recognize the idea of one another (Segal & Smith, 2012, unpaged). This are the main pitfalls that practitioners.
Furthermore, co-evolutionary gaming can be useful if a manager divides a group into equally-skilled teams. Provided that one of the groups includes more experienced or skillful employees, this approach will not bring any significant benefits to a company. The problem is that the members of one group can agree with the ideas of their colleagues without trying to dispute or question them. These are the main limitations that business administrators should be aware of. By relying only on co-evolutionary gaming, managers may not achieve the results.
Conclusion
Overall, it is possible to argue that the application of co-evolutionary gaming can bring several benefits to the teams. First of all, this technique can help organizations look at the same problem or tasks from different perspectives. Secondly, managers can minimize the risk of groupthink and get a more objective evaluation of their ideas. Nevertheless, this technique can lead to conflicts within teams if managers forget about the difference between workers. This model can be made more productive with the help of such a tool as a Johari window that can provide deep insights into the behavior of people.
Reference List
Cares, J., & Miskel, J. (2007). Take Your Third Move First. Harvard Business Review, 85(3), 20-21.
Forsyth, D. (2009). Group Dynamics. New York: Cengage Learning.
Halverson, C., & Tirmizi, S. (2008). Effective Multicultural Teams: Theory and Practice. New York: Springer.
Segal, J., & Smith, M. (2012). Conflict resolution skills: Building the skills that can turn conflicts into opportunities. Web.