A management dilemma: Positioning employees for internal competition versus internal collaboration. Is coopetition possible?

Abstract

Managers are faced with the dilemma of either positioning their employees to compete against or to collaborate with each other within the organisation. Internal competition can motivate individuals and teams to strive to be the best and in so doing result in continuous incremental performance improvements. In contrast, internal collaboration can result in effective problem solving through knowledge sharing and innovation. This study investigated the key factors that drive the adoption of internal competition and internal collaboration, the consequences of implementing each approach, how levels of internal competition and internal collaboration vary at different management levels and whether a viable hybrid combination of both management approaches is possible. A qualitative exploratory study by in-depth interview was conducted with twenty senior executives. A hybrid model was developed from these research findings, which confirms that while the two management approaches have different outcomes there is an optimal way of combining them to allow managers to optimise the performance of their staff and the organisation.

Leader strategies for motivating innovation in individuals: a systematic review

“…Kirsten and Du Preez ( 2010 ) 6. Naidoo and Sutherland ( 2016 ) 7. Poskela and Martinsuo ( 2009 ) 8.…”

“…Muninger, Hammedi, and Mahr ( 2019 ) 29. Naidoo and Sutherland ( 2016 ) 30. Ng & Feldman ( 2013 ) 31.…”

“…While a majority of studies found that the effect of champions was significant, Chen, Li, and Leung ( 2016 ) pointed out that two recent meta-analyses revealed that champions only had a small effect on the quantity of innovation by individuals. Naidoo and Sutherland ( 2016 ) gave nuance to this finding by determining in their sampling that the reported quality of innovations was increased rather than quantity when groups were led by champions. In summary, leaders who promoted confidence to innovate tended to provide the resources and spaces for innovation to occur and tended to lead efforts personally and model innovative behavior rather than delegating.…”

“…Effective collaboration was found to increase expectancies for innovation though necessitating the communication and subsequent discussion of ideas (Bastian et al, 2018 ; Curado et al, 2018 ; Fernandez & Pitts, 2011 ; Hartmann, 2006 ; Jiang & Thagard, 2014 ; Monge et al, 1992 ; Pihlajamaa, 2017 ). Collaboration was also found to involve diverse stakeholders (Aarikka-Stenroos et al, 2017 ; Costa et al, 2015 ; Kuznetsov & Kuznetsova, 2011 ; Sergeeva & Zanello, 2018 ; Wu et al, 2008 ), facilitate empowerment (Bolderdijk et al, 2018 ; Fernandez & Pitts, 2011 ), promote knowledge exchange (Aalbers et al, 2013 ; Antikainen & Vaataja, 2010 ; Bastian et al, 2018 ; Curado et al, 2018 ; Muninger et al, 2019 ; Naidoo & Sutherland, 2016 ), facilitate co-designing (Hartmann, 2006 ; Sorice & Donlan, 2015 ), inspire friendly competition between teams (Lam et al, 2010 ; Naidoo & Sutherland, 2016 ; Öberg & Shih, 2014 ), as well as help team and coalition building which ensure that a person does not have to go it alone (Costa et al, 2015 ; Dee et al, 2002 ; Kirsten & Du Preez, 2010 ; Mc Fadden & Gorman, 2016 ; Öberg & Shih, 2014 ). These outcomes of collaboration, such as networking (Mc Fadden & Gorman, 2016 ), all induced increases in confidence to innovate, especially in female entrepreneurial networks (Apergis & Pekka-Economou, 2010 ).…”

The Destructive Effect of Ingroup Competition on Ingroup Favoritism

“…It is common for individuals to compete with their ingroup members for promotions, raises, and praise from supervisors ( Rees and Segal, 1984 ; Birkinshaw, 2002 ). Yet, intragroup competition can also result in negative outcomes, including high levels of employee anxiety, resource wastage, and narrowed range of attention ( Birkinshaw, 2002 ; Naidoo, 2013 ), and can interfere with solidarity, cohesion, and commitment ( Leventhal, 1976 ). At present, it is unclear whether individuals perceiving competitive intragroup outcome interdependence would favor ingroup members; this deserves exploration.…”