HOW MUCH COMPETITION IN TEAMS IS TOO MUCH?
Much has been researched and written about the effects of competition within teams and its overall impact on team productivity, resilience and wellbeing, and of course there are opposing views about this. There are those who believe competition promotes collective outcomes by encouraging people to do their best, while others believe it encourages individualism and promotes personal achievement over team collectivism.
According to Ryckman et al’s (1990, 1994, 1996) theory of competitive orientation, while much of the research views competition in teams as counterproductive, people can also learn to fit into a workgroup where they compete with, rather than against each other to achieve collective goals. This kind of ‘group fit’ is usually achieved through the socialisation process which improves relationships and fosters caring and support.
The difference between Team Hypercompetition and Team Development Competition
It may be said the most effective teams require, at a minimum, two things. First, knowledge sharing (Kirkman et al., 2004) – which provides access to the same information, ideas and suggestions for all team members and thus allows the team to move synergistically from a common foundation point towards a shared goal. Second, team flexibility (Li et al., 2010) – the level to which the adaptive nature of the team allows for smooth and (ostensibly) effortless changes in direction in response to shifting organisational goals. He, Baruch et al’s (2014) research exposes a powerful link between these two elements of effective teams and the type of in-team competition they may face. It is therefore important to understand the difference between Team Hypercompetition and Team Development Competition.
Team Hypercompetition
Team hypercompetition tends to focus on an individual team member’s need to outperform other members of the same team with little concern for the collective benefit. The result being direct confrontations, as well as indirect hostility. In team hypercompetition individuals strive to create personal advantages and disregard – whether consciously or unconsciously – the needs of their fellow team members. Competition and hostility can also manifest in team members openly mocking their teammates for their perceived failure to succeed, thus exacerbating an already negative situation or, in extreme circumstances, engaging in deliberate effort to sabotage others’ achievements.
Team Development Competition
The focus of team development competition is fairness without hostility, confrontation, or anger. The common goal of team-level achievements and growth as a whole serves as the central tenet. In development competition team collectivism is heightened and an environment of mutual support, knowledge sharing and group learning tends to flourish.
University of Manchester researchers He, Baruch and Lin (2014) examined the role of within-team competition and its effect on overall team collectivism leading to knowledge sharing and team flexibility. Their findings showed that
Team Development Competition resulted in a positive impact on team collectivism leading to an increase in both knowledge sharing and team flexibility and
Team Hypercompetition had a significant negative impact on collectivism leading to a reduction in knowledge sharing and team flexibility.
So, does this mean all competition should be eliminated from teams? The short answer is no, but leaders must be acutely aware of the type of competition they foster within their teams
Additionally, leaders should be aware of the different behavioural and communicative styles that exist within their teams, and which influence competitive orientation. Kristoff (1996) exposed how individual differences in competitive orientations can have critical effects on performance and achievement. While there are some people who thrive on competition, there are many others who find it – not to put too fine a point on it – soul crushing and maladaptive. When leaders try to introduce competition to their teams, it is almost always done with the best intentions and with the aim of increased productivity in mind. Sadly however, the level of competition introduced often backfires, allowing the one or two people who thrive on competition to emerge as apparent ‘superstars’ and leaving the rest of the team behind.
Bob Chapman, Chairman and CEO of St Louis based equipment and engineering solutions company Barry-Wehmiller, tested the impact of a competition-based incentive program in one of his sales teams. He surmised that large rewards had the potential to result in individualism and one-upmanship and so concluded he needed to devise a reward that was enough to incentivise people to achieve but not so great that individual team members would become demotivated if they didn’t win. Chapman offered a weekly reward of a dinner for two to the individual with the most sales for the week and the result was remarkable. Team performance went up and weekly team sales increased considerably, largely because the individual team members supported each other so that everyone had the opportunity to win. In one case, one team member, whose performance had increased to the point where he was close to being the top performer each week but never quite achieved the top ranking, had started to become disheartened. His fellow team members, far from mocking his just-short-of-the-mark achievements, directed their sales leads to him for one week so that he might also have a good meal paid for by the company – Team development competition at its best.
The effects of competition on psychological safety
The link between competition and psychological safety in teams cannot be understated and, given the introduction of new psycho-social safety laws in Australia in 2023, it is essential to get it right. Edmondson (2018) identified the importance of the benefits of an organisation where ‘people are not hindered by interpersonal fear. They feel willing and able to take the inherent interpersonal risks of candour’ (pXV). Edmondson’s research connected specific team behaviours and an encouraging environment. Teams with high levels of psychological safety tended to display more positive attributes such as proactivity, sharing opinions without fear of judgement or rejection, viewing failures and mistakes as learning opportunities and constructive conflict encapsulating respect and collaboration. It isn’t an understatement to suggest these are highly desired attributes in any team.
If psychological safety is to be preserved in concert with in-team competition, then leaders must not make the mistake of introducing hypercompetition into the mix – an error to which many teams have fallen victim in the past. The only way forward for competition in teams is to practice team development competition, so pay attention to the rules.
The rules of engagement for in-team competition
If you do wish to incorporate some level of competition into your team’s activities, it’s important this is done in the right way. After all, the purpose of any in-team competition is to lift people up and help them grow and flourish.
1. Create the right incentive
Make sure the incentive you create is suitable for the purpose you’re trying to achieve. Remember Bob Chapman’s experience at Barry Wehmiller. The reward must be sufficient to incentivise people but not so great as to introduce hypercompetition and discouragement.
I realise some people may find this unusual, but look at the ninth series of Ru Paul’s Drag Race All Stars as an example of development competition. In other series contestants competed for a significant prize pool which resulted in changing alliances, back-stabbing and a hyper-intense focus on not being the individual relegated to the elimination walk of shame at the end of each week. In series nine however, weekly eliminations were removed, and individual contestants played for a nominated charity. The resultant observable behaviour was profound. The contestants competed in a much more supportive environment where help and encouragement became the norm.
2. Ensure you have a level playing field
If you are going to introduce competition to your team, the critical factor is that all team members must genuinely believe they have an equal chance of winning. So you have an obligation to ensure a level playing field and that means;
Ensuring all team members have the right skills to thrive and achieve and
Ensuring all team members have the same time, tools and resources at their disposal – and naturally, those tools and resources must be relevant to the tasks you want them to perform – this isn’t the great British Bake Off, don’t make the competition harder than it needs to be.
3. Align the competition with the team
Do your team members all perform the same tasks or do they perform different tasks that support each other?
If they all perform the same tasks, then simple competition can be healthy. If they perform different tasks, however, this can make in-team competition difficult. Some tasks may be harder or take longer to complete than others and so measuring who has achieved greater success in a given time period becomes tricky, if not impossible. In fact, if individual team members do all perform separate tasks then in-team competition is likely not the best form of incentive.
4. If it doesn’t work, start again
Life being as it is, not everything you try is going to work perfectly on its maiden attempt, and since most of us lack a profusion of experience where development competition is concerned, the chances are a little hypercompetition is going to creep its way into any new initiatives. In fact, a good indicator of team hypercompetition is the emergence of ‘superstars’. If you see this, check your competition's design, you may have inadvertently tilted your competition in favour of those individuals to the exclusion of everyone else. But if you do that, that’s ok, the important thing is to acknowledge it when this does happen and refine your competition to eliminate its negative aspects. In other words, design, test, refine and test again until you have it right. The benefits of doing this will far outweigh the perceived work involved.
In the end, in-team competition can work as long as it's implemented correctly, but do it with caution. Always remember to keep your eye on the outcome.
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. John Wiley & Sons.
He, H., Baruch, Y., & Lin, C.-P. (2014). Modeling team knowledge sharing and team flexibility: the role of within-team competition. Human Relations, 67(8), 947-978. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713508797
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, R., Tesluk, P. E., and Gibson, C. B. (2004). ’The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction’. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175-92.
Kristof A. L. (1996). Person–organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. 49 1–49. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
Li, Y., Chang, K. C., Chen, H. G., and Jiang, J. J. (2010). ‘Software development team flexibility antecedents’. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(10), 1726-34.
Ryckman R. M., Libby C. R., van den Borne B., Gold J. A., Lindner M. A. (1997). Values of hypercompetitive and personal development competitive individuals. 69 271–283. 10.1207/s15327752jpa6201_8
Ryckman R. M., Thornton B., Gold J. A. (2009). Assessing competition avoidance as a basic personality dimension. 143 175–192. 10.3200/JRLP.143.2.175-192
Comments