To go along with collaboration and collectivism we get cooperation, right?
Right.
Normally good but not the great deal.
We're going to shoot that one down too.
So, all of the things that we normally
think of as good management practices and for the most outcomes,
they are when it comes to creativity,
you want to do something a little bit different.
And so, even though most organizations really strive for cooperation,
we're going to tell you about the advantages of
competition and how encouraging people to one up each
other can actually have benefits in
terms of encouraging people to exchange creative ideas.
Motivates effort towards creativity.
Remember one problem with forming teams is that people tend to get lazy in teams.
The old adage that many hands make light work applies here.
People tend to compare themselves to the least productive person and adjust their output
downward so it becomes this sort of downward spiral of less effort,
fewer ideas, less creativity.
So, how do we counteract that?
Well, one way is to give people incentives to actually compete with each other.
For example, teams vary on what they believe
to be the fairest way to distribute resources.
Some teams endorse the equality rule.
No matter what each individual puts into the task,
everyone walks away with the exact same portion of the reward.
That's called the equality rule.
Conversely, they could endorse an equity rule which is
the portion of the reward you get is directly related to the value of your contribution.
And what that means is that the people who work harder will get more.
A lot of management people will tell you to avoid the equity rule
because they worry it will lead to destructive conflict and opportunism.
But the equity rule can actually get people to exchange more creative ideas.
In one study we randomly assigned some teams to endorse the equity rule,
and another set of teams to endorse the equality rule and then we compared their output.
We found that the groups who endorse the equity rule
actually behave more competitively during the interaction.
They not only felt competitive,
but they also behave that way cutting each other off more
often and trying to outdo each other on the team.
Those competitive behaviors then in turn led to more creative output.
So, people were trying to one up each other by
sharing more ideas and more creative ideas.
And that led to a better and more creative output overall.
So, competition did not necessarily feel pleasant and it certainly didn't look pretty,
but the outcome spoke for itself.
So, we see norms like the equity rule that permit competition. That's great.
Does it work for everyone though,
I mean does some people not really willing to go there?
No. Some people are profoundly uncomfortable with it.
And this goes back to what we talked about in terms of individualism.
So, if you're dealing with these independent people,
these independent minded individualists,
they see the opportunity to compete as a welcomed opportunity to stand out.
Now I have the opportunity to show how unique I am and how distinct I am,
and get more attention to myself,
that's an individualistic kind of motive.
So, the equity rule satisfies that.
But if you look at the more collectivistic types,
the people with the more interdependent sense of self who are really looking
for the opportunity to foster social connections and maintain harmony,
the opportunity to compete is scary.
It's really because as the old Japanese proverb said,
and you've probably heard it that,
the nail that stands up gets pounded down.
So, you're asking me to compete but if I do that,
I'm going to stand out from the group and I don't want to do that.
And so, really I have to think about again,
this gets back to composition.
Do you have a group of individualists,
then you give them the equity rule,
they'll react to that by competing and you'll get this outpouring of ideas,
but if you're dealing with the more interdependent cooperative types,
it's likely to backfire.
So you want to think about not just the kind of norm you're imposing,
but who you're imposing it on.
So, there's a fit.
Absolutely, right.
Jeffrey LoewensteinAssociate Professor of Organizational Behavior
Jack GoncaloProfessor
