7 Hidden Games Running Your Meetings
Classic dilemmas that explain why collaboration stalls - and how to unlock it
If Medium is your go-to reading spot, you can catch this post there too! Just click here.
Leaders often encounter a familiar puzzle: why do groups of capable people, each working with the same facts, arrive at decisions that are weaker than the sum of their parts?
This is not usually a problem of skill or intelligence. More often, it is a problem of dynamics. Each person’s choice is entangled with the choices of others: outcomes depend on interactions rather than on any single contribution.
In other words, success or failure is less about individual brilliance and more about how strategies combine or collide in a collective setting.
This is where game theory proves useful. Instead of looking at decisions in isolation, game theory models them as interactions between ‘players’, each with their own goals, constraints and incentives. It provides structured ways to think about cooperation, competition, trust and risk. For anyone working in strategy or management, these aren’t abstract concepts: they show up consistently in client projects, leadership meetings and change programmes.
I got interested in this subject because it has a direct connection to questioning, too. The way you frame a question influences how people perceive the ‘game’ they are in. A poorly chosen question can push participants into defensive, zero-sum thinking. A well-crafted one can make cooperation feel safe, and almost inevitable.
In this article, I dive into the classic strategy games that secretly run our meetings, projects and negotiations and explain how one good question can tilt the outcome in your favour.
The (Not So) Hidden Dynamics Holding Back Our Teams
A well-known formula in group psychology states:
Actual productivity = Potential productivity − Process loss + Process gain
In brief, outcomes depend not just on the skills or intentions of group members, but on how those resources combine (or clash) as the group works together.
Let’s look at these elements in a bit more detail:
Potential productivity is the best output a group could theoretically achieve, based on member skills and resources. It is an ideal that rarely ever materialises!
Process losses occur when groups perform worse than expected based on the abilities of their individual members. Common sources include poor coordination (members not syncing efforts), motivational issues (social loafing, free-riding) and limited individual capability in group contexts (members holding back due to group pressure or unclear roles).
Process gains happen when group dynamics inspire greater performance than could be achieved by adding up individual efforts. This can result from heightened motivation (members inspired by group presence or competition), good coordination or leveraging individual expertise in novel ways.
The challenge is to design teams that cut losses and unlock gains, so our collective potential becomes more than just an ideal.
Game theory gives leaders tools to diagnose how process losses and gains emerge by modelling dynamics that shape whether teams compete, cooperate or unlock their full collective potential.
My Favourite Game Theory Scenarios
Game theory is the study of strategic interaction: situations where the outcome for each participant relies on both their own choices and those made by others.
Unlike puzzles with a single correct answer, games highlight the interdependence of decisions. By exploring interactions as games, we can see why people sometimes act against their own long-term interest and why groups can fall into traps.
In what follows, I focus on the classic game theory scenarios that I find most helpful for leaders and consultants. These are the ones that consistently show up in my work - and I’m sure you’ll see that they do in yours, too!
🔒 The Prisoner’s Dilemma
Why it made the cut: It highlights the tension between individual safety and collective trust - an everyday challenge in leadership and consulting.
How it plays out: Two suspects are interrogated separately. Each can either stay silent (cooperate) or betray the other (defect). If both cooperate, they get light sentences. If one defects while the other cooperates, the defector goes free and the cooperator gets a heavy sentence. If both defect, they both get harsh sentences.
Example: In corporate whistleblowing cases, employees face the dilemma of whether to speak up about misconduct. If one speaks out while others stay silent, they risk isolation and retaliation. If everyone remains silent, systemic problems persist and worsen. Only when multiple voices come forward together does the organisation gain enough momentum to act, and individuals gain the protection of numbers.
🦌 The Stag Hunt
Why it made the cut: It shows how mutual risk-taking underpins performance and achievement.
How it plays out: Two hunters can team up to hunt a stag (high reward, requires cooperation) or individually hunt rabbits (low reward, guaranteed). If either hunter defects to chase a rabbit, the stag is lost and both have a less desirable reward.
Example: Innovation adoption in companies often looks like a stag hunt. A new digital system delivers value only if several departments adopt it together. Finance, operations and HR must all commit to switching workflows, training staff, integrating data, etc. If even one department opts out, the promised benefits of integration collapse, and everyone falls back to fragmented, inefficient systems.
🏃 The Battle of the Sexes
Why it made the cut: It captures the pain of misalignment and the value of coordination.
How it plays out: A couple wants to spend time together, but one prefers the opera while the other prefers football. The worst outcome is going to different places. The best is coordinating - even if it’s not each one’s top choice.
Example: Corporate mergers are classic “battle of the sexes” games. Two firms may disagree on IT platforms, compliance processes or reporting systems. Each side clings to its own, and the real danger is not aligning at all. Even if one side compromises, coordination is far better than fragmentation, which leaves both firms with duplicated costs, confusion and frustrated employees.
🐔 Chicken
Why it made the cut: It reflects high-stakes brinkmanship where neither side wants to lose face.
How it plays out: Two drivers speed toward each other. Whoever swerves “loses.” If neither swerves, both crash. Reputation and bluffing matter.
Example: Salary negotiations can resemble Chicken. A candidate may hold out for a higher package while the employer insists on budget limits. If neither side budges, the offer is withdrawn and both lose. The challenge is to structure concessions - perhaps by adjusting bonuses, benefits or role scope - so that both sides can maintain face, allowing compromise without triggering a ‘crash.’
🌍 Tragedy of the Commons
Why it made the cut: It illustrates sustainability and resource dilemmas where individual gain threatens the collective good.
How it plays out: Villagers share a pasture. Each benefits individually by adding more animals, but collectively this destroys the grass. Everyone loses.
Example: Sustainability challenges often resemble a tragedy of the commons. Consider carbon emissions: every organisation gains from producing more in the short term, but collectively this leads to climate damage that harms everyone. Unless actors restrain themselves and commit to shared agreements, the global commons -the atmosphere - degrades, and the long-term costs far outweigh the short-term gains. Climate accords, carbon pricing and industry standards are all attempts to rewrite the game toward cooperation.
🥘 Public Goods Game
Why it made the cut: It captures the hidden challenge of teamwork - everyone benefits from shared resources, but only if enough people contribute.
How it plays out: Each player can contribute to a shared pot. The total is distributed equally, regardless of contribution. Free-riders benefit from the contributions of others, but by withholding their own they undermine cooperation - and, if too many follow suit, the shared resource collapses.
Example: In corporate teams, knowledge bases or shared repositories often resemble public goods games. Contributing ideas and documentation takes time, and the immediate benefit may be invisible to the individual. If too many free-ride, the resource withers as the few contributors lose motivation. But if enough people contribute consistently, the shared knowledge base becomes a rich pool that saves time and raises quality for everyone.
💰 Ultimatum Game
Why it made the cut: It reveals the power of fairness norms, which shape negotiations and equity decisions.
How it plays out: One player offers a split of money. The other can accept (both get something) or reject (both get nothing). Many reject “unfair” offers even if it costs them.
Example: Startups dividing equity often run into ultimatum-game dynamics. A founder might propose an 80/20 split of shares, assuming that something is better than nothing. But co-founders often reject such offers outright, even at personal cost, because fairness and recognition matter as much as financial gain. The willingness to walk away demonstrates how strongly perceptions of fairness shape business decisions.
Deep Dive: The Prisoner’s Dilemma vs The Art Of Asking Questions
Let’s zoom in on the Prisoner’s Dilemma, because it’s the purest illustration of how questions change the game.
In research, the parallel is clear:
Cooperate = answer honestly.
Defect = hide, posture or give safe answers.
Why defect? Because if I answer honestly and others don’t, I’m left exposed. But if everyone defects, we all get worse outcomes: poor insights, bad strategy, wasted time.
The person asking or setting the questions isn’t neutral here. The way you ask can rewrite the payoff structure:
A blame-framed question raises the cost of honesty, pushing people to defect.
A learning-framed question lowers the cost of honesty, making cooperation (truth-telling) rational.
Here’s an example:
Wrong framing: “Why did your last transformation project fail?” → high risk, defensive answers.
Better framing: “If you were to run the transformation project again, what would you do differently?” → future-oriented, lowers the personal cost of sharing, increases the value of insight.
One Simple Reason We Should All Know About Game Theory
Game theory gives leaders a vocabulary for the hidden dynamics that often derail projects and decisions. The Prisoner’s Dilemma explains why candour is rare, the Stag Hunt shows why innovation stalls without shared commitment and the Ultimatum Game reminds us that fairness matters as much as outcomes. These models expose the traps, but they don’t fix them.
That’s where the art of asking questions comes in. Questions are levers: they reframe risks and signal whether cooperation is safe. A careless question can trigger defensiveness and push people into zero‑sum behaviour. A thoughtful one can make honesty rational, collaboration attractive and fairness explicit.
For anyone working in strategy, management or consulting, this is the practical takeaway: don’t just analyse the game - design it! You will see the difference in your very next meeting.
I'm Andrea, a management consultant with over a decade of experience across industry and academia. I work with commercial, non-profit, academic and government organisations worldwide, helping them capture meaningful insights through mixed methods research.
I write about practical frameworks to help you discover what others miss. My main goal is to translate complex concepts into techniques that readers can use immediately.
Andrea, great post. I had been teaching game theory to my teams for over 20 years now, ever since I read Prisoner's Dilemma, by William Poundstone, back in 2003. The tit-for-tat strategy was a game-changer for me, helping me navigate the silos within the corporation. Have you read that book?
Brilliant - thank you!