Zero Sum Bias

We tend to believe that resources are limited and that any advantage for one party must come at the expense of another. In reality, many situations are non-zero-sum, where mutual benefit is possible.

But first, let's hear from this week's sponsor...

Now, back to the Zero Sum Bias ⏬

What if your brain has been keeping score at work this whole time? And the game it thinks you’re playing doesn’t actually exist?

🥹 If a stakeholder wins, designers lose.
😢 If the Product Manager wins, users lose.
😭 If we add more features, the product suffers.

But is this true?

→ If a stakeholder wins, does it really mean designers lose?
→ If the PM wins, does that really mean unhappy users?
→ If we add features, does that really mean the product suffers?

Of course it doesn’t.

Too often, we get trapped in this mindset that if someone else on the team gets their way, then it automatically means we’ve lost.

But what if this isn't always the case?

We can all get what we want without compromising the user’s experience. By working together and understanding each other’s perspectives, we can find solutions that benefit everyone.

​

Would you rather listen? Follow the Cognition Catalog on Spotify!

Zero Sum Bias: Escaping the... Dec 4 · Beyond UX Design 9:11   ​

---

The concept of zero-sum thinking originated in early economic theories and game theory. The term "zero-sum" comes from math, where in a zero-sum game, the total of gains and losses among the players always adds up to zero. John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern first formally described this concept in their 1944 book "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior."

Throughout history, our ancestors often faced genuine scarcity, where one person's gain did mean another's loss. This was particularly true in hunter-gatherer societies with limited food and resources. As societies developed and became more complex, this way of thinking persisted, even when it was no longer applicable.

In psychology, research on the zero-sum bias gained traction in the late 20th century. Studies began to explore how this cognitive shortcut affects decision-making, negotiations, and interpersonal relationships. Researchers found that the bias can be particularly strong in competitive environments or when people feel threatened or insecure.

For teams, the Zero-Sum bias can lead to a fixed mindset, where team members believe that there is only one winner and that others will lose. This creates a competitive atmosphere, where team members are pitted against each other rather than working together towards a common goal. For example, if one team member is given more resources or attention, others may assume they are losing out, leading to resentment and conflict.

Team meetings aren’t poker tables, and no one is taking chips from you. It just feels that way because our brains misinterpret normal collaboration as a threat when we turn everyone else into “others.” That’s because scarcity shaped our evolutionary past, and remnants of that evolutionary wiring are still active in our tiny little animal brains today.

So our modern workplace, full of shared goals, interdependence, and cross-functional teams, gets filtered through instincts built for survival, not teamwork.

In reality, multiple people—and multiple priorities—can win at the same time.

⇢ You can advocate for users and support business goals.
⇢ Engineering can reduce tech debt and keep shipping.
⇢ Stakeholders can contribute ideas without designers losing influence.

We just have to stop treating collaboration like a contest.

Non-zero-sum thinking can lead to a culture of mutual support and collaboration. When team members see each other's success as a positive force rather than a threat, they're more likely to work together towards a common goal. If one team member has an idea, others on the team may be inspired to build on it, creating a snowball effect of new ideas and innovative solutions.

Nothing is stopping us from creating win-win outcomes—except the belief that they aren’t possible in the first place.

So, the next time you find yourself thinking, “If they win, I lose,” take a step back and challenge that assumption. Ask yourself, “Is it really a zero-sum game?” and “What are the benefits of working together?”

I bet you’ll find that everyone can get what they need.

---

🎯 Here are some key takeaways

1️⃣ Think in terms of mutual benefit: Recognize that one person’s success can create opportunities for others. Doing this can create a positive and supportive environment where everyone can thrive.

2️⃣ Foster a culture of social support: Encourage team members to support each other rather than compete. Implement team-building activities, regular check-ins, and open communication channels.

3️⃣ Align incentives with collaborative behavior: Make sure your reward and recognition systems value teamwork and collective achievements, not only individual performance. This can help shift the focus from personal gain to shared success.

4️⃣ Celebrate collective success: Recognize and celebrate the success of the team rather than only individual achievements. This will create a sense of shared ownership and accountability, which can lead to increased motivation and collaboration.

5️⃣ Lead by example: By modeling the behavior we expect from our team, we set the tone for a culture that prioritizes collaboration, support, and collective success. It encourages others to do the same.

Learn more about the Zero Sum Bias!

---

---

---

---

---