Lead:

Game theory occupies a very important position in economics, and the "smart pig game" proposed in this paper is a game model that is applied to all aspects of real life. War, politics, sports competitions...... You can almost see its shadow. In the workplace, it is common to see such a scene: when the task is completed and the merit is rewarded, some employees get nothing for nothing, like the little pig in the story, while others work hard and are difficult to please, like the big pig in the story. Those who can work overtime, and everyone gets overtime pay together, is such a situation.

There is a famous case in economics that tells the story of two pigs fighting wits.

The big pigs and the small pigs live in a pigsty and compete for food. The pigsty has a pedal on one side and a trough on the other. With each pedal press, the feeder dispenses a feed to the trough. In this way, one pig pedals and the other pig gets the food first. If the piglet pedals, the big pig will eat up before the piglet can run; If the big pig pedals, there is a chance to run before the little pig eats up and grab a little scrap. So, what strategy will the two pigs adopt? It may be hard to believe it, but the result can only be one kind - the big strong pig is busy between the pedal and the trough, while the little pig waits next to the trough and sits and enjoys it.

This intriguing story falls under the category of game theory in economics. Game theory occupies a very important position in economics, and the "smart pig game" proposed in this paper is a game model that is applied to all aspects of real life. War, politics, sports competitions...... You can almost see its shadow. In the workplace, it is common to see such a scene: when the task is completed and the merit is rewarded, some employees get nothing for nothing, like the little pig in the story, while others work hard and are difficult to please, like the big pig in the story. Those who can work overtime, and everyone gets overtime pay together, is such a situation.

When the company needs to work overtime, there is often a situation of "more people are stronger", no matter how big the matter, the more employees who work overtime, the better. It could have been done by one or two people, but it took five or more employees to get together. As a result, the "smart pig game" will appear.

If everyone is there and does not go to work, the result will of course be that "the three monks have no water to eat" and will not be able to complete the task. However, because of the loss of face or responsibility, it is often inconvenient for those who can afford to sit and wait, so they take the initiative to complete the task. Since everyone has long been clear about each other's rules of conduct, the rest of the employees are mostly unable to work overtime. Once the work is completed, everyone will receive a prize money. As a result, the capable have become the "big pigs" of hard work, while the others have become comfortable "little pigs".

To solve such problems, the key is to fully understand the employees and distinguish between the competent and the ordinary employees. If the work is difficult, give it to the capable; If everyone is competent, the number of overtime workers should be commensurate with the workload, so as not to cause waste. In a word, "set up posts according to things, employ people according to things", only in this way can we promote employees to give full play to their abilities.

In addition to overtime, it can also occur when you ask your boss for an increase in salary or benefits. When an employee is elected as a spokesperson to negotiate with the boss, he is working for the benefit of all employees in the company. However, others who are also possible beneficiaries are playing the role of "little pigs" at this moment and hiding behind the scenes.

If the negotiations are successful, they can easily get a piece of the pie; If they lose, they can get out of the way, or even make a statement that has nothing to do with me. And the employee who negotiated with the boss played the role of a "big pig", but it may become a big pig who died heroically - in fact, the employee who has the courage to speak for himself is often the one who has no money in the company and always wants to establish a positive image. To solve this problem, the key is to strengthen democratic participation in decision-making, so that every employee has a suitable way to express their own views, so as to avoid the emergence of "smart pig game".

It is not only in daily work that there is a "smart pig game", but sometimes it happens when applying for a job.

A well-known university is openly recruiting two professors for economics and accounting. At the beginning of recruitment, there were many applicants and the competition was fierce. After a long period of selection, two professors (called A and B) won the opportunity to start finalizing their positions. The university decided that the monthly salary of an accounting professor was 6,000 yuan, and that the monthly salary of an economics professor was 4,000 yuan, and both A and B wanted to teach accounting, so the last competition began.

The general situation of the parties is as follows: both have master's degrees in accounting, and both have teaching experience in accounting and economics, and A's teaching experience in accounting is better than B's. According to normal logic, Professor A has taken the lead and is a logical step forward in obtaining a professorship in accounting. Professor A is also quite confident in this. In the process of negotiation with the school, in addition to talking about his own accounting teaching experience, he also talked about his teaching experience in economics in order to prove his ability. However, in contrast, Professor B's competitive strategy is unbelievable: in negotiations with universities, he vehemently denies that he has experience in teaching economics, and even deliberately belittles himself, claiming that if he teaches economics, he will mislead people's children.

It can be seen from the messages conveyed by professors A and B to the university that B deliberately widened the gap between himself and A, and the final job was unexpected: B happily won the position of professor of accounting, while A had to settle for the next best thing and teach economics.

Why is there such a final result? Why did Professor A, who is more capable and experienced, lose in this competition? This requires the application of "smart pig game" to analyze.

The university has spent a lot of time and effort in selecting the best two candidates throughout the recruitment process, and it is almost impossible to re-recruit unless there are extremely special circumstances (such as natural or man-made disasters). And the same is true for the two professors, who are unlikely to casually lose the beauty difference at their fingertips.

Professor B, who is a little less powerful, understands this situation and takes the initiative to play the role of a "little pig" in the "smart pig game", releasing the smokescreen of "I would rather lose my position (of course, not necessarily) than be a professor of economics". In contrast, Professor A's approach is much inferior, inadvertently playing the role of a knowledgeable and well-rounded "pig". Faced with the strategy of the two professors, it was difficult for the university to carry out a new round of recruitment, so it had to make the choice of letting A teach economics and Professor B to teach accounting.

This example is not intended to deny the value of knowledge, but rather to point out that in the face of this seemingly unreasonable and unfair outcome, we should be fully aware that game theory plays a key role here. Looking back, imagine that if Professor A had understood the "smart pig game" and had a thorough understanding of the competitive situation, he would have achieved his goal as long as he adopted the same strategy as Professor B - "must teach accounting" (because he was indeed stronger than B). But unfortunately, he played the role of a more capable but thankless "big pig" in the "smart pig game" and lost the competition.

In the daily management of the enterprise, managers should understand the "smart pig game" and understand the "smart pig game" used by employees in the process of work, so that the capable can be rewarded, distinguish the people who sit and reap the profits, and not let the fishers in troubled waters take advantage.

The big pig is running around, and the little pig is enjoying it, and the "smart pig game" harms the interests of capable people, but this is in line with the law of game theory. As an employee, we must understand game theory, and learn to effectively protect our own interests in an enterprise with complex interpersonal relationships: as a manager, we must understand game theory, learn to deal with interpersonal relationships in a special way, protect employees, and safeguard the interests of employees.