CHAPTER FOUR
Developing the Group Climate
I. “Win As Much Money As You Can” * exercise
A. Purposes:
1. To demonstrate the disadvantages of competition.
2. To illustrate how a competitive mindset can be transformed into a cooperative
agreement when a system is structured for cooperation, not competition.
B. Time required: 25 minutes to conduct; 15-20 minutes to process it.
C. Instructions:
1. Divide the class into four groups.
2. GOAL: To win as much $$$ as you can. (Use this exact phrase.)
3. There are 7 rounds.
4. Each group votes either HEADS or TAILS.
5. Money is gained or lost based on the collective vote of all groups as
follows (put on board or make transparency):
4 HEADS = each group loses $25
6. Multiply each group’s score for each round by the number of the
round (e.g., in round 3 two groups vote HEADS and two vote TAILS;
7. Negotiations among groups are allowed during rounds 3, 4, 6, and 7.
Each group will be given 2 minutes to decide on a strategy and to
8. All votes are by secret ballot. Groups decide, then write their votes on
a slip of paper and give it to the facilitator who announces the results.
9. Scoring system changes after round 3 as follows: (put on board or make
transparency)
NOTE: Once changes in scoring are made, they remain.
D. Processing the exercise:
1. Competition typically produces a “beat the enemy” mentality even
when it may disadvantage one’s own group. Groups usually vote
HEADS. This reveals a “ME orientation”: my group against the other
2. Cooperation is achieved best and most often by structuring the system for
cooperative advantage. Personal pleas during negotiations to cooperate and
vote tails usually fail when rewards are given for competing. The gradual
changes in the scoring system begin to offer big rewards for cooperating,
making continued competition between groups disadvantageous. By the
seventh round, there is no longer any real advantage but a definite
disadvantage to competing (voting HEADS). Conversely, cooperation (voting
TAILS) by round 7 is now structured into the scoring system. Why would a
group want to do anything else besides vote TAILS (although the competitive
mindset nurtured in the early rounds is sometimes difficult to break)? Groups
don’t even have to like each other to cooperate. Play in the early rounds and
3. Discuss the various ways to structure cooperation into group decision-making
E. VARIATION: Add an additional round or rounds to the exercise.
*This exercise is a substantially reconstructed version of the William Gellermann
II. Arm Wrestling Demonstration
NOTE: See ancillary videotape, Working Together, for a depiction of this
demonstration
A. Purposes:
1. To loosen up class in preparation for discussion of the pros and cons
of competition.
2. To demonstrate the competitive mindset.
3. To show that working against each other is usually less productive
than working with each other in common purpose.
B. Time required: 10 minutes to complete the demonstration and briefly discuss the
results.
C. Instructions:
1. Have the class pair up :male-male; female-female
2. Tell the class that each pair will arm wrestle and that the purpose is to acquire
as many points as you can in 60 seconds. You earn 1 point every time your
partner’s arm touches the table (pairs keep track).
3. Tell the class to begin and call time at the end of 60 seconds.
4. Caution students not to participate in this demonstration if they have a
physical or physiological reason why they should refrain from arm wrestling.
D. Processing the demonstration
1. Ask pairs how many points each person scored. Go around the room and
make note of any high scores, stalemates, and uneven scores.
2. Discuss the demonstration with class, pointing out that if the pairs had
collaborated (simply by offering no resistance and putting partner’s arm on
the table each way, over and over again) rather than competed, worked with
each other instead of worked against each other, very high scores could have
been earned by all participants.
3. Competitive mindset: our society is structured for competition (much as arm
wrestling creates a competitive mindset). Thus, we have to break the
competitive mindset and think cooperation because few people will help us
transform competitive situations into cooperative ones.
III. Lecture/discussion on the advantages/disadvantages of competition versus
cooperation.
A. Write on the board the definitions of competition (MEGA: Mutually Exclusive
Goal Attainment) and cooperation (MIGA: Mutually Inclusive Goal Attainment).
Explain the difference between the two. Also, explain that “competing with
oneself” is really setting higher standards for personal improvement; it’s not
B. Begin the discussion by soliciting from the class all of the asserted advantages of
competition (e.g., increases motivation, improves performance, builds character,
etc.) and writing them on the board. Make sure students understand that they do
not have to subscribe to such advantages in order to take part in this exercise. (If
C. Once a list has been generated, take each claimed advantage of competition and
discuss any experiences students have had with competition. Does the experience
of students confirm the claimed advantages of competition? Also introduce the
B. Time required: usually at least 50 minutes. This topic always generates lively
discussion and disagreement. Be very familiar with the research in the text. Add
your own personal experience.
IV. Lecture/discussion on defensive versus supportive communication patterns. Add
your own personal experiences to illustrate Gibb’s categories.
V. Excerpt from movie, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf
A. Show the segment starting with the arrival of the guests (Sandy Dennis and
George Segal) at George and Martha’s (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor).
Finish the segment with George shooting the umbrella out of the rifle. (About 20
minutes long.)
B. This Oscar winning movie is a superb example of defensive communication
patterns. All six categories of defensiveness are depicted. Most students have
never seen this movie yet they are familiar with the actors. It’s a very dramatic
illustration of defensiveness, exaggerated yet very powerful.
1. Evaluation: George and Martha criticize each other brutally
throughout the segment.
2. Control: George and Martha fight for conversational control.
They control their guests (e.g., not-so-subtle reminder that
Martha’s father is the president of the college). There are several
George Segal’s character: conversational control.
3. Strategy: George and Martha play brutal games with their guests
(e.g., “Get the Guests”). George plays verbal and intellectual games
with the George Segal character. George and Martha play ugly games
with each other.
4. Neutrality (indifference): George shows little interest in
remembering his guest’s name and academic discipline. George
listens poorly. Everyone mostly ignores Sandy Dennis’ character.
5. Superiority: George spends much time showing his perceived
superiority over George Segal’s character (battle of wits).
VI. Excerpt from movie, Jerry McGuire
A. Show a 3-minute clip from the movie Jerry McGuire. The scene begins about
two-thirds of the way into the movie. Begin the clip when Dorothy (Renee
Zellweger) tells Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) that Jerry (Tom Cruise) is
working for him for free; that he’s “broke, broke, broke.” End the clip when Jerry
is looking at his watch.
B. Nice example of supportive communication from Tidwell’s wife, Marcy. She is
an empathic listening, and she communicates that empathy.
VII. Symposium preparation: the last class period for preparing the first symposium
presentation.
VIII. Symposium presentations: groups present their symposiums.
COOPERATION vs. HYPERCOMPETITION
COOPERATION
IMPROVEMENT OF
ACHIEVEMENT/PERFORMANCE
EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES
GOAL OF EXCELLENCE
PROMOTION OF HARMONY
HYPERCOMPETITION
DIMINISHMENT OF
ACHIEVEMENT/PERFORMANCE
HOARDING OF RESOURCES
DEFENSIVE vs. SUPPORTIVE
COMMUNICATION
DEFENSIVE SUPPORTIVE
EVALUATION DESCRIPTION
CONTROL PROBLEM
ORIENTATION
STRUCTURING COOPERATION
INTERDEPENDENCE
ESTABLISH COOPERATIVE GOAL STRUCTURE
DEVELOP INTERDEPENDENT DIVISION OF LABOR AND RESOURCES
EQUALITY
AVOID WINNER-TAKE-ALL REWARD DISTRIBUTION
AVOID EQUITY REWARD DISTRIBUTION
SHARE REWARDS EQUALLY AMONG GROUP MEMBERS
PARTICIPATION
ESTABLISH PARTICIPATIVE DECISION-MAKING ON IMPORTANT ISSUES
GIVE TEAMS DECISION-MAKING AUTONOMY
VALUE, ENCOURAGE, AND RESPECT GROUP MEMBERS’ PARTICIPATION
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY
KEEP GROUPS SMALL—DISCOURAGES LOAFING
COOPERATIVE COMMUNICATION PATTERNS
NONCOMPETITIVE LISTENING