Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach.

Abstract

This study examined whether the relationship between reward structure and team performance is contingent upon task dimension, team composition, and individual performance level. Seventy-five four-person teams engaged in a simulated interactive task in which reward structure was manipulated. A competitive structure enhanced one task dimension, speed, whereas a cooperative structure enhanced accuracy. Teams with extroverted and agreeable members performed better under the cooperative structure, whereas teams low on these orientations performed better under the competitive structure. Finally, reward structure had more impact on team members with low performance.The degree to which organizations should emphasize cooperation or competition among the members of work teams is an age-old controversy. Competitive systems embody equity norms and emphasize performance differences among team members, typically rewarding individuals with high performance and/or imposing sanctions on those with low performance. Therefore, some believe that competition promotes efficiency and innovation because it stimulates individuals to outperform each other by working faster, or "smarter," or cheaper, and the belief is that this activity will serve the long-term needs of their organization. Others believe that intrateam competition is destructive. In competing, individuals or subgroups place their own goals above those of the larger organization, and the gains achieved by one are often obtained at the expense of another. For this reason, some argue that the needs of the larger organization are better met by employing cooperative reward structures. Cooperative systems embody equality norms and emphasize group accomplishments. They emphasize minimizing distinctions among group members (that is, distinctions based on performance) because these distinctions may impede teamwork, information sharing, and helping.The inherent tension between competitive and cooperative reward structures has become particularly salient in contemporary organizations because many of these organizations are trying to make the transition from individual-based structures to team-based structures (Allred, Snow, & Miles, 1996). Some organizations that have transitioned into team-based structures over the last several years have left their reward structures unchanged. This lack of change resulted in a failure of teambased work to result in the supposed benefits (Hackman, 1998). Indeed, the consensus in the scientific literature regarding competitive and collaborative rewards structures is quite clear in its sup-

Matching Ethical Work Climate to In-role and Extra-role Behaviors in a Collectivist Work Setting

“…Trust is a sense of assurance that others will help when needed. Collaboration minimizes distinctions among group members, and emphasizes equality and group accomplishments (Beersma et al, 2003). This finding is consistent with expectation.…”

Continuous improvement competence, employee creativity, and new service development performance: A frontline employee perspective

“…Similar team-related factors and service-related factors are also considered valid moderating factors in prior contingency-theory based studies (e.g., Beersma et al, 2003;Sousa and Voss, 2008). …”

The effects of team strategic orientation on team process and information search

“…For example, in work on teams' ability to transition from competition to cooperation and vice versa, Johnson and colleagues (2006) argued that change in a social system that flows from functional, centralized, and cooperative systems to divisional, decentralized, and competitive systems is more natural than changes that flow in the opposite direction. They demonstrated that teams moving from competitive to cooperative reward structures exhibited what they termed ''cut-throat cooperation,'' in which members exhibited information-sharing patterns more similar to those found in competitive teams, despite having moved to a more cooperative reward structure (Beersma et al, 2003;Johnson et al, 2006;Moon et al, 2004).…”

“…Our findings also have implications for work on adaptation by teams over time. Previous work has shown that team adaptation is asymmetrical, such that groups more readily adapt from cooperation to competition as opposed to vice versa, and also perform better when shifting from a functional to divisional structure rather than in the opposite direction (Beersma et al, 2003;Johnson et al, 2006;Moon et al, 2004). Likewise, our findings also demonstrated asymmetric effects, such that teams moving from offense to defense in their strategic orientation significantly changed their information use accordingly, whereas teams moving from defense to offense continued to exhibit patterns consistent with a defensive orientation even after the new team strategic orientation was adopted.…”