When Contestants Cheat

We recently developed a custom game show experience for a pharmaceutical company's annual sales event. By all accounts, the event and the game were incredibly successful--keeping participants engaged, motivated to absorb presentation content, and keeping the event energy high.

However, we were amazed to find out that whenever the teams could, they were trying to cheat to get ahead or win. (Our sense of game show fairness was appalled!)

The kicker? The content was all about rules and regulations within the industry: how they couldn't bribe, cheat, make false or leading claims, or imply incentives in trying to sell their drug into the medical industry. The content? About not cheating in the industry. The game show participants? Cheating. And shamelessly, too.

When we were writing our game show book, we sent an advance copy to fellow training game guru Thiagi. We had included tips on how to prevent cheating (though we never imagined it on this grand a scale), and Thiagi commented: "Advise trainers to think: What does cheating say about the culture of their organization?"

And what *does* cheating in a mere game show say about the mentality of the audience? It's not all bad:

• They're invested in the game 
• They want to win
• They're highly competitive
• They may break rules to get to success

In this case, the highly competitive sales force in a very lucrative field just didn't want to lose. In their industry there are multi-million-dollar penalties for subverting the rules. Because the cheating was happening on such a grand scale in the event, there was no way to fairly enact penalties--the teams that "weren't" cheating just weren't getting caught, and at some point one must be careful that the host doesn't devolve into scolding and penalizing above conveying information.

The cheating was allowed to continue, but only because the following elements were in place:

• Low-value prizes. The higher the value of the prize, the more people will be at each other's throats about cheating and the enforcement of the rules. 
• The contestants were getting the information--and in some cases were reinforcing the information more through their cheating ways than would have normally occurred. We didn't mind that they were looking up answers in their materials in some cases since it was still reviewing the information.
• The host was willing to go-with-the-flow and game play was not interrupted significantly by the teams' antics.
• Judges were used to keep the host out of the fray.

If the prizes had been great, the content had been taking a back seat to winning, or the event was being disrupted then penalties or a pause in the game would have had to be enforced.

There are a few ways that one can help minimize or prevent cheating--though we find that if a team is determined to cheat it is very hard to fight against that drive successfully and come out looking like a positive host.

• Keep prizes small. In most cases, we find that winning is a prize in and of itself and contestants don't even inquire about what they're going to "win" when they get into the game.
• Have judges. Judges can spot infractions and enforce penalties without the host having to sully their hands.
• Clearly explain the rules beforehand--this way when one is broken, everyone acknowledges the reference/rule.
• Enact small penalties for rule infractions. You don't want to turn into "bad-cop" trainer, but knowing BEFORE they cheat that there will be a penalty for that behavior can prevent cheating. 

At the end of the game, the point isn't to win--so some rules of civilized game play can be discarded or treated with a light touch. As long as contestants are engaged and involved with the content (accomplishing the game's purpose of aiding and abetting learning) and are in good spirits about the game play, a little cheating doesn't always significantly harm the game.