Competition

Competition where individuals and groups try to outperform each other is an everyday occurrence in most people's lives. Excellence is often defined in terms of a person's performance relative to others. The language of business, politics, and even education is filled with “win–lose” terms. A person “wins” a promotion, “beats” the other sales clerks, “outsmarts” a teacher, becomes a “superstar,” “defeats” enemies, and is the “best” student. Organizations must develop their “competitive” advantages if they are going to prosper in the “competitive” marketplace.

Competition and its value have very much influenced Western thinking. Darwin proposed that survival of the fittest was the key dynamic in the natural world. Freud argued that psychology could be understood as contests between an individual's impulses, rationality, and morality. Marx theorized that class warfare over irreconcilable interests drove the development of societies.

The value of competition, especially compared to cooperation, has stimulated many debates (Kohn 1992). Theorists have proposed that leaders must themselves be highly competitive if their organizations are going to succeed in the competitive marketplace. The demanding marketplace requires leaders to be competitive and tough. Others though have argued that leaders must model the way as they build the cooperative relationships between people and units that promote success. Indeed, teamwork within and between organizations has been considered a very valuable competitive advantage that allows organizations to earn better than average returns.

Diffused, diverse understandings of the nature of competition and cooperation have fueled these debates. Theorists have considered competition as the motivation to succeed, the desire to outperform others, the clash of diverse ideas, and the underlying dynamic of the free market system. On the other hand, cooperation has referred to conflict avoidance, a desire to get along with others, interacting with others, having the same goal, and a socialist economy. Discussions on competition have relied on ideology. Debaters have used “first principles,” “human nature,” and “common sense” in making their arguments.

Fortunately, we can draw upon considerable research conducted by a wide range of social scientists. They have conducted hundreds of studies in psychology laboratories, educational classrooms, work organizations, and community settings. They have used the quantitative methods of laboratory and field experiments and large-scale surveys as well as qualitative methods of interviews and observations. Late twentieth-century meta-analyses have shown that the findings, while not uniform, are consistent and can directly inform discussions about competition and practice (Johnson and Johnson 1989; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, and Skon 1981).

This entry addresses four related areas where competition can be applied to leadership. The first has to do with the personal motive and drive of leaders themselves. To what extent should leaders be competitive and in what situations? The second level involves the extent to which they should relate to their own employees competitively. Should they try to develop a competitive relationship with their followers? The third level is the extent to which leaders should foster competition among their followers so that they are productive. Should they work to have employees compete against each other? The fourth level involves how leaders should structure their groups vis-à-vis other groups. When and to what extent should leaders have their groups and organizations compete with other units?

...