Game Theory Rubric: Executive Evaluation Rubric
| Evaluation Criteria | 1 – Analyst Level (Needs Work) |
2 – Manager Level (Competent) |
3 – Director Level (Proficient) |
4 – Board Level (Exceptional) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The Variable Audit (PEST & Internal Silos) |
Randomly selects variables without justification. Misses glaring weaknesses in their own arsenal or fails to understand the opponent’s leverage. | Identifies relevant variables from the worksheet menu but struggles to clearly explain why they are the most critical factors in this specific dispute. | Accurately selects and strongly justifies the most critical PEST and internal variables. Demonstrates a clear understanding of both companies’ strengths and vulnerabilities. | Masterfully identifies the variables, drawing insightful connections to broader market realities. Anticipates the opponent’s strongest variable before it is even presented. |
| 2. Mathematical Modeling (Utility Scores) |
Utility scores appear guessed or arbitrary. Fails to correctly apply the +2/-2 worksheet rules based on their selected variables. | Follows the math rules mechanically, but fails to recognize when the resulting numbers logically contradict their team’s strategic goals. | Flawlessly executes the worksheet math. The resulting 0–10 utility scores accurately reflect the chosen variables and map perfectly to the selected game theory model. | Uses the math dynamically. Not only calculates perfectly but can explain the exact “tipping point” (e.g., “If our legal advantage drops to a 3, this model proves we must settle immediately”). |
| 3. Cross-Cultural & Global Strategy Synthesis | Ignores cultural friction. Treats the negotiation as a generic, domestic transaction devoid of global context or risk. | Acknowledges cross-cultural differences but treats them as minor details rather than core drivers of the negotiation’s failure or success. | Effectively links their mathematical scores to the realities of Asian companies navigating global markets (e.g., addressing governance clashes, patient vs. impatient capital). | Brilliantly weaves global market entry dynamics and cultural nuances directly into the mathematical justification. Proves how cultural friction literally shrinks the ZOPA. |
| 4. Boardroom Defense (The Q&A) |
Crumbles under pressure. Cannot explain how their worksheet metrics connect to their final recommendation when challenged by the assessor. | Defends the recommendation but relies heavily on repeating the worksheet script rather than adapting to the assessor’s counter-arguments. | Confidently defends the strategic recommendation, continuously pointing back to their PEST and internal audits as the foundation of their logic. | Controls the room. Treats the Q&A as an executive briefing, gracefully dismantling counter-arguments using their own game theory metrics as an impenetrable shield. |
Scoring & Certification Tiers
- 14–16 Points (High Distinction): Executive ready. The team demonstrated an exceptional ability to quantify qualitative risks, balance cross-cultural priorities, and build an airtight, mathematically backed strategy.
- 11–13 Points (Pass): Operationally competent. The team successfully utilized the game theory models and followed metrics guidelines, but lacked strategic synthesis or ownership during the executive Q&A.
- 10 Points or Below (Revise & Resubmit): The team failed to connect raw data to a defensible business strategy, displayed significant gaps in core models, or broke under boardroom pressure. Re-evaluation of baseline metrics is required.
