In the workplace, we unfortunately can't control everything ourselves. Achieving the desired results often depends on many others—colleagues, supervisors, and external partners. This dependency can be challenging: if a colleague fails to keep their promise, it might cause your project to fall apart. You then have to either stay on top of things or, when time is limited, simply trust that the other person will follow through on their commitments. But what do you do if they still fail to keep their word? Do you react in anger and refuse to collaborate with this colleague again? What is the best course of action?

Prisoners Dilemma

This dependency—and how to handle a broken commitment—can be effectively simulated with the "prisoners dilemma" from Game Theory:

A serious crime has been committed. Two armed men have been caught, and they appear to be the perpetrators, but the evidence is lacking. They are placed in separate cells and cannot communicate with each other. The prosecutor makes the following offer to each suspect:

• If you both remain silent, I can’t do much to you. You will only receive a light sentence for possession of an unlicensed weapon.
• If one of you confesses, the case is closed. The one who confesses will be released for cooperating so well, while the one who doesn't confess can expect at least ten years in prison.
• If you both confess, you'll each receive five years.

The question is: what should a prisoner do (optimal strategy)? The essence of the dilemma is that it is better for both suspects to remain silent together, but each suspect thinks only of their own advantage. Regardless of what the other does, it is better for each suspect to confess. If the other remains silent, confessing provides the greatest benefit, and if the other confesses, confessing again provides the greatest benefit. In the table below, we will take on the perspective of one of the suspects:

Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma

In the world of game theory, it is the repeated prisoners dilemma a central theme. The question is what you should do when you depend on the goodwill of someone else who has the ability to undermine your position.

You have four options:

1. If you are willing (positive, cooperative) toward the other person but they are not toward you, you will suffer damage.
2. Conversely, if the other person is cooperative toward you and you undermine them, they will suffer damage.
3. If you both undermine each other, you both incur damage.
4. Only if you both remain cooperative will you both benefit a little.

Read here more about the details of the prisoner's dilemma. When you find yourself in such a dependent position not just once but repeatedly, we call it a repeated prisoners dilemma.

Cooperating in Teams

This situation closely resembles collaboration in teams. For example, you might have been working with a colleague to develop a plan, but due to both of your busyness, it didn’t happen. You also somewhat forgot about it. The consequence is that the progress of the project is stalled. The project leader schedules a conversation with both of you separately. He is upset because this has happened before. Now, four things can happen:

1. You apologize to the project leader and explain that you forgot due to the busyness. In the other conversation, your colleague states that he has tried multiple times, but you always said you didn't have time. The project leader starts to view you as the problem and may bring this up with your department head. This damages your relationship with your colleague significantly.
2. You claim that your colleague never had time and that it wasn’t your fault. The colleague has honestly admitted he forgot. The project leader begins to see the colleague as the problem and could escalate this to your department head. This also seriously damages your relationship with your colleague. If both of you blame each other, the project leader will get a negative impression of your collaborative skills. He might address this issue further.
3. If both of you blame each other, the project leader will get a negative impression of your collaborative skills. He might address this issue further.
4. If both of you, in your separate conversations, honestly acknowledge that you both forgot a bit and that it wasn't solely your colleague’s fault, the project leader might scratch his head and consider implementing extra checks next time. Your relationship with your colleague remains intact, as you have shown trust in each other.

Effective Strategy

The repeated prisoners dilemma can be effectively simulated with computers. In 1984, a competition was held where computer experts competed for the winning strategy. The mathematician Anatol Rapoport demonstrated that the Tit-for-Tat strategy is the most effective strategy in this game situation. This strategy means that:

1. Always act cooperatively, except when you are taken advantage of
   1. If you are taken advantage of, retaliate immediately
   1. After that, forgive and forget, and immediately return to cooperative behavior

Application videos

If we want to apply this strategy in the workplace, we can establish the following rules for effective cooperation

1. Always Assume the Best in People: Start from a position of trust, believing that your colleagues will do what they say. Make clear agreements based on this trust.
2. Provide Timely Feedback: If someone clearly does not adhere to the agreement or significantly harms your interests, provide feedback as soon as possible. The strength and impact of your feedback should be at least proportional to the "violation." For example, if someone shows up late to a team meeting with a weak excuse, address it directly in the meeting. The response you give should match the severity of the infraction.
3. Avoid Keeping a Mental Blacklist: Do not mentally catalog offenses. Instead, assume that your colleague is trustworthy and that agreements can be made in good faith.

Directly Return to Openness

Here are some strategies to ensure that you don't get stuck in resentment:

Proximity is Key: Stay in contact. Ensure that when a conflict escalates, you do not distance yourself from the other person but rather move closer to them. Continue the conversation and probe into their motives and backgrounds.^. .