4 tips for winning in a game of chicken

The game of chicken is often told through a story about reckless teenagers. In the classic game, two teenagers are driving towards each other on a crash course. The point of the game is to overcome fear and stay on course. The driver that gets scared and swerves away is the loser. The driver that stays on course is the winner and gets the admiration of onlookers. The problem, of course, is that if both stay on course, then both will crash and die.

The game of chicken is so dangerous that it would be nice if we could just avoid it. But an unfortunate reality is the same incentives describe many other situations–schoolyard fights, drinking contests, and negative campaigns to name a few. In a competitive world, one has to learn how to play the game of chicken. Here are a few strategies that can help you be the winner:

1. Make yourself immovable

In the game of chicken, your flexibility is a weakness. One of the best solutions is to prove that you will not change course. There is a great story about the Navy that illustrates the strategy in action:

Believe it or not…this is the transcript of an actual radio conversation between a US naval ship and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. The Radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on Oct. 10, 1995.

US Ship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

CND reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

US Ship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert your course.

CND reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!

US Ship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!

CND reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

(Ok, so this is actually a joke…)

Limiting your options, and metaphorically becoming immovable like a lighthouse, can show the other side that you will not back down.

In the driving story, a teenager could become immovable by publicly showing he is forcibly locking himself into staying on course–either by using a steering wheel lock or even by detaching the wheel and throwing it away.

2. Get a reputation for being tough

If you can’t credibly limit your actions, the next best option is to get a reputation for being tough so people don’t bother messing with you.

Consider a consumer that comes up with a frivolous lawsuit against a big company with damages on the order of $100,000. Should he pursue action? The lawsuit will put both the consumer and the company in a game of chicken. The loser is the side that backs out, but if neither backs out, the consumer may end up wasting time and legal fees and the company may lose out from negative publicity. Of course, the company can decide the whole process is too risky and simply settle out of court.

The result of that course, unfortunately, would be consumers raising more frivolous lawsuits in the hopes of out of court settlement. One of the ways a company can get out of this cycle and win is by creating a reputation for being “tough” and pursuing all lawsuits. The strategy may come at the cost of some losses and some bad publicity, but the long-term effect of fewer lawsuits may be a net gain.

A more cost-effective method would be to gain reputation not through lawsuits but by some other means (for instance, after seeing this video and this video, I would think twice before messing with Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer).

3. Go for broke

Sometimes you cannot lock in your actions but instead have to fight head on. In this case it might be wise to show you are serious by going for broke.

In the movie Nothing to Lose, a robber played by Martin Lawrence is trying to steal the car of Tim Robbin’s character by gunpoint. The situation is a game of chicken: the person that relents will not get the car, but if neither relents the gun may go off and there may be bloodshed–Robbin’s character will die and Lawrence’s character will have to face murder charges.

Robbin’s character wins the game by announcing that he won’t give up. He explains he has just learned very bad news and he therefore has nothing to lose. Then, in a strange twist to prove his point, he kidnaps the robber and takes him to the desert. The fate of the mismatched couple is joined and movie hilarity ensues.

The player that has nothing to lose is more dangerous and such threats will be taken more seriously.

4. Raise the risk to your actions (brinkmanship)

Brinkmanship is a strategic move where you raise the risk of the game–bringing everyone closer to the brink–unless the other side relents. While you may prefer not to use these “scare tactics,” you should understand them because your opponents may employ them.

An interesting example of brinkmanship is currently taking place in New Jersey. The electric supplier PSE&G is proposing a large expansion to a transmission line and seeking a rate increase. Taxpayers are not sure about the project. The situation is similar to a game of chicken: the side that relents will lose out on money, but if both sides continue a protracted regulatory battle then they both lose by delaying other constructive means to improving the system.

PSE&G made their demands vivid in a recent ad displaying brinkmanship. On January 15, 2009, PSE&G ran an ad in the Star-Ledger indicating that if the transmission project does not pass, then residents may face outages like the 2000 blackouts in California or the 2003 blackout in the Northeast. The idea of the ad is to make a threat by raising risk. It would be unpopular (and illegal) for an electric company to create blackouts because it didn’t get its project passed. The ad sends the message that without action, PSE&G will not have enough control, and therefore everyone will get closer to the brink–electric companies and taxpayers alike. We shall see how this game plays out.

(details from NJ voices public blog)

5. Bonus tip: change the game

In some situations, you can avoid the game of chicken by thinking creatively. Change the game and you can create incentives to cooperate rather than intimidate.

I wrote about this strategy before in an article discussing a flawed system for answering phones in the office:

Here’s a story along those lines. My friend works at an entry-level consulting job in small office. About a year ago, his office had a problem because the administrative staff could not handle all incoming phone calls. It looked terrible that calls from clients went to voicemail during normal business hours.

So a new system was put in place: calls from the main line would roll over to all entry-level employees after the first two rings. At the outset, the system seemed great because administrators would pick up most calls as usual, and the safety mechanism meant entry-level employees (an additional five people) were available to answer. And yet just two days after the installation, an important call was missed.

The resulting investigation was embarrassing. It turned out there were two entry-level employees who could have answered the phone. The administrator was furious and scolded them for not picking up the phones. Was it right to yell at them?

I compared the situation to a game of chicken and offered a way to solve the phones constructively.