This paper examines coevolutionary gaming as a strategic tool for enhancing group decision-making in organizations. The author explains how this methodology—designed to navigate complex strategy landscapes by examining multiple perspectives—can improve corporate decision processes while building team cohesion. The paper explores how the Johari Window communication model and Tuckman's group development stages interact with coevolutionary gaming, analyzes its impact on group decision biases like risky shift and groupthink, and identifies situations where the tool may prove counterproductive for simple decisions requiring minimal strategic depth.
This year the Seattle Seahawks delivered a decisive victory over the Denver Broncos in the Super Bowl, and they achieved it through solid teamwork. There was no single player who stood out as the sole reason for their success. Instead, their performance resulted from a combination of factors: a tough defensive line, fast linebackers, physical defensive backs, a strong offensive line, talented running back and fullback, a smart and mature quarterback, and equally physical receivers. What truly set them apart, however, was the fact that all these elements worked together as one cohesive team, unified toward a single goal: winning the Super Bowl.
Many teams possess all the talent in the world yet fail because the players do not work well together. The same dynamic occurs within corporations. They may have abundant talent, but if employees cannot work effectively as a team, the organization fails. When building teams, leaders must carefully consider team dynamics, compatibility among members, and task complexity. When working in groups or teams successfully, there can be an array of great ideas about solving problems, creating new approaches, and planning a company's direction. The more complex the task, the more sophisticated the decision-making must be, and corporations need to ensure they have teams capable of working together to make these complex decisions.
If corporations want to succeed, they need to make sound decisions that address complexity. One tool used to facilitate this is coevolutionary gaming. This paper discusses what coevolutionary gaming is and how it can facilitate group decision-making, as well as its possible limitations. The paper will explain how this strategic planning tool can improve decision-making, how it affects the communication process using the Johari Window, and how it impacts group decision biases such as risky or cautious shift and groupthink. Teams work best when all members are willing to work together, and corporations with the best team dynamics tend to succeed in their most complex strategies. But what exactly is coevolutionary gaming?
According to the March 2007 Harvard Business Review article "Take Your Third Move First" by Jeff Cares and Jim Miskel, coevolutionary gaming is "designed for navigating complex strategy landscapes" (Cares and Miskel, 2007, p. 20). The method examines multiple points of view when developing a strategy. Groups consider not only the known but also the unknown—the possible avenues their adversary might take and why. Coevolutionary gaming encourages teams to look deeply into scenarios from multiple perspectives rather than defaulting to the status quo.
As the Cares and Miskel article explains, this gaming strategy allows management to explore the company's stance while having a team act as their adversary to respond to actions taken without risking actual resources, brands, or equity (2007, p. 21). When executed effectively, coevolutionary gaming can greatly improve decision-making by forcing teams to examine decisions from multiple angles. The concept involves working through a scenario with an action, counteraction, and subsequent reactions—a process that allows the group to examine strategies from both sides and identify flaws in their own approach for improvement. A group working together in this manner can greatly enhance decision-making, but success depends entirely on how well the group communicates.
Communication is one of the most important aspects of a team. If the team does not communicate effectively, it will likely fail in its decision-making efforts. So how does coevolutionary gaming affect the communication process when using the Johari Window? The Johari Window identifies four quadrants of information and self-awareness: Quadrant 1 (the Open Area) contains information known to both oneself and others; Quadrant 2 (the Blind Area) contains information known to others but not to oneself; Quadrant 3 (the Hidden Area) contains information known to oneself but not to others; and Quadrant 4 (the Unknown Area) contains information unknown to both parties.
If members of a group or team do not have a good-sized Quadrant 1 (Open Area), biases may develop where members are unwilling to listen to opposing points of view with an open mind, which will hinder decision-making. Members must trust one another, and trust is built through actions such as being open with others and sharing enough of yourself so that other members can understand who you are. You need not share everything about yourself, but you must share enough for others to better understand you.
Since coevolutionary gaming requires a deeper look into problems to develop solid strategy, if a member does not expand Quadrant 1 of the Johari Window, other members may not trust what they have to say, even if their input is valid. This can hinder communication because others may perceive things in a team member that the member does not see about themselves (Quadrant 2, the Blind Area). A group may want to take a risky approach, but if members do not trust one another, no action may be taken, or a conservative approach may be adopted that works against coevolutionary gaming principles.
When examining the Johari Window, it is important to also consider Bruce W. Tuckman's model of group development: forming, storming, norming, and performing. When groups are first assembled for coevolutionary gaming, the forming stage—when everyone is getting to know each other—is an ideal time to expand Quadrant 1 of the Johari Window. Expanding this open area quickly builds trust sooner, which may shorten the storming stage, where boundaries are tested. If group members get to know each other earlier, boundaries may be tested less rigorously, allowing the group to enter the norming phase sooner.
In the norming phase, members develop new group standards and share opinions more freely. The sooner a group reaches the performing stage, the sooner members can establish clearly defined roles for everyone involved in coevolutionary gaming and develop more complete and complex strategies. During this performing stage, the team can examine scenarios from both the management perspective and the adversary perspective. When groups and teams are more open with each other and value one another, the more effective their decision-making becomes using coevolutionary gaming.
Can coevolutionary gaming ever impede decision-making? The answer is yes, particularly in instances of simple decision-making. Simple decision-making refers to situations where there is no need for deep strategic analysis—such as when scheduling training sessions, organizing a company picnic, or handling any short-term task, especially when no unknowns are present. Coevolutionary gaming digs deeply to identify and clarify what is unknown. If there are genuinely no unknowns, as in simple tasks, the method could create false unknowns. Group members might dig deeper and search for something that is not there, which could unnecessarily delay decision-making and hinder efficiency.
Coevolutionary gaming is a powerful decision-making tool because it forces groups and teams to think deeply about strategy. It helps bring hidden complexities to light and convert the unknown into the known. With the use of the Johari Window—expanding Quadrant 1 (the Open Area) to move groups and teams quickly through the forming and storming stages toward norming and finally performing—coevolutionary gaming can work effectively and enhance decision-making. However, it is crucial to remember that this tool is not appropriate for all situations, particularly those involving simple decisions with no significant unknowns. Applying it judiciously greatly enhances its effectiveness.
Having great teamwork among team members, like the Seattle Seahawks demonstrated this year, can be the decisive tool that propels a corporation to the top. Just ask the Super Bowl champions.
You’re 97% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.