Rivals without a cause? Relative performance feedback creates destructive competition despite aligned incentives

Abstract

Whether people compete or cooperate with each other has consequences for their own performance and that of organizations. To explain why people compete or cooperate, previous research has focused on two main factors: situational outcome structures and personality types. Here, we propose that—above and beyond these two factors—situational cues, such as the format in which people receive feedback, strongly affect whether they act competitively, cooperatively, or individualistically. Results of a laboratory experiment support our theorizing: After receiving ranking feedback, both students and experienced managers treated group situations with cooperative outcome structures as competitive and were in consequence willing to forgo guaranteed financial gains to pursue a—financially irrelevant—better rank. Conversely, in dilemma situations, feedback based on the joint group outcome led to more cooperation than ranking feedback. Our study contributes to research on competition, cooperation, interdependence theory, forced ranking, and the design of information environments.

Keeping them honest: Promises reduce cheating in adolescents

“…Furthermore, although past research has identified a positive relation between competition and academic cheating (Whitley, 1998) and found that competition can increase unethical behaviors (e.g., Moran & Schweitzer, 2008; Vriend et al, 2016), we found no effect of incentives to compete on cheating rates. Although participants knew that there was an incentive to perform better than everyone else, they did not receive direct feedback on their own performance or their ranking within the school (Garcia, Tor, & Gonzalez, 2006; Woike & Hafenbrädl, 2020). Future studies could investigate the effects of rank feedback on cheating in adolescents.…”

“…Social comparisons of one's own achievement with that of others can lead to increased competition (Garcia, Tor, & Schiff, 2013). Past research has shown that envy for other's achievements can lead to deception in negotiations (Moran & Schweitzer, 2008) and that situational factors like ranking systems can increase unethical behaviors (Vriend et al, 2016), lead to destructive competition (Hafenbrädl & Woike, 2018), sabotage of others' work (Charness et al, 2014), and lower rates of cooperation (Woike & Hafenbrädl, 2020). In academic contexts, a meta-analysis identified a positive relationship between perceived competition for grades and cheating in college students (Whitley, 1998).…”

In it to win it? Comparative evaluation increases zero-sum beliefs.

“…In fact, the effect of comparative evaluation on zero-sum beliefs emerged even when controlling for rankings included in a performance report (Chambers & Baker, 2020; Woike & Hafenbrädl, 2020). This finding highlights the impact of managerial communications that occur between employees and their supervisors.…”

“…In Study 2, we examined whether the effect of comparative evaluation emerged over and above another factor that has been discussed in the literature to increase zero-sum beliefs: rankings (Chambers & Baker, 2020; Woike & Hafenbrädl, 2020). We manipulated rankings independent of comparative evaluation (thus yielding a 2 × 2), and the rankings served as our feedback valence manipulation.…”

Recent Trends in the Business History of Russia: The Blurry Borders of the Discipline

“…Although for a long time the received wisdom was that competition does not exist in planned economies, new case studies can contribute much to the discussion about the impact of competition and cooperation within a business organization on the performance of the planned economy in which it operates. 88 It is now clear that in the Soviet system, it was not only enterprises that competed for resources; so too did ministries and departments representing political groups of influence. The clash of interests between these groups caused ambitious projects to fail.…”