Steel sharpens steel: A review of multilevel competition and competitiveness in organizations

• Published date: 01 February 2019
• Author: Paul D. Johnson,R. Gabrielle Swab
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2340
• Date: 01 February 2019

THE JOB ANNUAL REVIEW

Steel sharpens steel: A review of multilevel competition and

competitiveness in organizations

R. Gabrielle Swab

1

|Paul D. Johnson

2

1

Department of Management, Towson

University, Towson, Maryland

2

Department of Management, University of

Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi

Correspondence

R. Gabrielle Swab, Department of

Management, Towson University,

Towson, MD.

Email: rswab@towson.edu

Summary

Competition between individuals permeates people's lives as they strive for limited

resources, services, and status. However, research on competition and competitive-

ness in organizations is limited despite its relevance to relational dynamics (e.g.,

rivalry), individual differences (e.g., traits and gender), social factors (e.g., competitive

climate), and organizational outcomes (e.g., work performance and unethical behav-

ior). In this article, we propose a multilevel model of competition and competitiveness

that includes the individual, the group, and the situation. By providing a holistic

overview of research across a broad array of disciplines, we organize the field and

create a usable framework to advance knowledge of competition and competitive-

ness. In doing so, we identify what we know, what we still need to discover, and

provide direction for future research. The article closes with an assessment of

methods and measures used in studying competition. In conclusion, this review

establishes a multilevel and integrative structure that incorporates individual and team

competitiveness with competitive situations that prompt competitive processes and

important organizational outcomes.

KEYWORDS

competition, goal interdependence, individual differences, social comparison, work performance

Second place is just the first loser –Dale Earnhardt, Sr.

1|INTRODUCTION

People strive with and against one another as they compete for lim-

ited resources (e.g., money) and common objectives (e.g., promotions

or status). The ancient Greeks used competition as a method for

establishing social superiority by hosting agõnes, which that provided

the opportunity for athletes, poets, and playwrights to compete with

others in their chosen field of expertise (Benzi, 2016). The winners

of these competitions gained glory and notoriety, whereas the losers

faded to ignominy. Some philosophers argue that competition is not

really about winning, but instead, it shares the same underlying goal

of Socratic philosophy, which is finding truth and wisdom in the face

of unknowable uncertainty (Reid, 2006). The athlete or poet can argue

for preeminence, but the results of a competition leave no doubt

about “who the gods favor”(or at least, who is best at the task). In fact,

like Socratic philosophy, competition can be viewed as an obligation to

the truth as competitors strive against one another in the pursuit of

excellence (Reid, 2006). It is not just a binary, win/loss outcome that

defines the truth of excellence ascribed to the winner. Instead, it is

the actions, behaviors, and arguments made by individuals during the

course of competition that gives meaning to the victory and glory to

the victor. By persevering over an opponent through will, determina-

tion, and cleverness, the winner gains esteem and admiration from

observers in proportion to the challenges they overcame (Reid, 2006).

However, despite the perceived motivational and behavioral

advantages, adverse outcomes result from competitiveness as well.

There is evidence that competition lessens performance, motivation,

and relationship quality, while increasing anxiety, aggression, and

unethical behavior (Kohn, 1992). The very nature of competition is one

of conflict and strife with others, as individuals and teams vie against

one another to succeed. In fact, the case has been made

Received: 30 November 2016 Revised: 6 November 2018 Accepted: 7 November 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2340

J Organ Behav. 2019;40:147–165. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 147

that competition is not part of human nature at all but rather a learned atti-

tude (Kohn, 1992). A meta‐analysis of the effects of competition on motor

skills performance found that cooperationresultedinhigherperformance

than competition in most cases and supports this negative perspective on

competition (Stanne, Johnson, & Johnson, 1999).

Even with the prominent role of competition in the human

experience, for both good and bad,studies of competition and compet-

itiveness in organizationsare relatively rare. In our review of the organi-

zational science and applied psychology journals, we found only a few

articles that examinedcompetition within and between people in orga-

nizations, althoughwe did find more research in the fieldsof economics

(e.g., Camerer, 2011), psychology (e.g., Worrell et al., 2016), sport psy-

chology (e.g., Gilbertson, 2016), and childhood education (e.g., Nebel,

Schneider,& Rey, 2016). Given the importance of competitionin organi-

zations,there seems to be remarkably few studies on the effects of com-

petitiveness in the workplace. In order to address this lack of activity,

one objective of thispaper is to organize previous research on competi-

tion and competitiveness from the breadth of disciplines and perspec-

tives to provide a framework for research about competition and

competitivenessin organizations. We believe that by providing a review

that organizesthe disparate fields, we will stimulateinterest in the topic.

Beyond this though lies what we consider to be the more impor-

tant goal of this review. It is difficult for scholars to have conversations

about competition because of the many research traditions and the

many different perspectives on the meaning of competition and com-

petitiveness. We attempt to reconcile these different perspectives

with a multilevel theoretical framework that incorporates individual

and team competitiveness with competitive situations. By doing so,

we provide an integrated model that promotes competition research

with an eye toward increasing the appreciation and understanding of

intraorganizational competition. Specifically, this multilevel model of

competition combines individual difference, interactionist, and group

theories to explain and explore competitive dynamics between indi-

viduals and teams. In sum, we aim to provide a holistic overview of

research across a broad array of disciplines and perspectives that

investigate competition and competitiveness to establish a practical

blueprint for future research on individual, collective, and situational

competition.

To conduct this review, we searched Google Scholar, Business

Source Complete, PsychArticles, Science Direct, Academic Search

Premier, and PsychInfo for the keywords, competition and competitive.

We screened the resulting pool of references using conditional

keywords such as “individual,”“work,”“team,”“social,”“personality,”

“group,”“performance,”and “entrepreneur.”We then took previous

reviews and meta‐analyses (e.g., Murayama & Elliot, 2012; Stanne

et al., 1999) and ensured that relevant research that they either cited

or were cited by were in the pool. We excluded papers that used

competition or competitive in topics unrelated to individual or team

competition. This screening resulted in a final pool of 306 empirical

or theoretical studies related to both individual and collective

competition or competitiveness. In order to provide a comprehensive

framework for competitiveness, we retain and summarize the articles

related to competition, regardless of parent field.

Our review begins by identifying the different definitions of

competition in order to ascertain commonalities across definitions that

we use to form the basis of our theoretical model. We then detail

a conceptual multilevel framework by distinguishing competitive sit-

uations from individual and collective competitiveness and the

resulting competitive processes. To do this, we consider different

theoretical perspectives on competition, note the controversies

and contradictions between them, and briefly discuss the related

concept of cooperation. We also examine how each perspective

contributes to understanding competition. Third, we review previ-

ous research that is relevant to our model by exploring important

factors that affect how, why, and when people compete, including

competitive processes. Finally, the manuscript proposes future

multilevel competition research by focusing on significant opportu-

nities in the organizational sciences, as well as the practical benefits

and costs of competitiveness for professionals and organizational

leaders.

2|THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF

COMPETITION AND COMPETITIVENESS

2.1 |What is competition?

Although management research typically considers competition and

competitiveness as competitive advantage and strategic positioning

between firms, industries, states, and countries (e.g., Porter, 1980),

research on, in, and between individuals and groups has prospered in

other fields, including competition as social comparison in social

psychology, intrapersonal competitiveness as competitive personality

in psychology, and competition as game theory in economics. As a

result of these different research frameworks, the definitions and

concepts associated with competition vary. Table 1 is a summary of

definitions across all fields found as a result of this review.

Close reading of these varied definitions implies three important

aspects of competition: a competitive situation, individual competitive

factors, and competitive processes. First is the competitive situation,

which describes interpersonal competition as a circumstance in which

there is a negative correlation between participant goals (Deutsch,

1949). In such a situation, only one participant can be successful in

goal achievement and, thus, “wins”the competition. Obviously,

this means that the other person fails to achieve their goals, so they

“lose”the competition. This perspective is largely grounded in social

interdependence theory whereby the goal structures that define

social situations determine whether interpersonal interactions

are cooperative or competitive (Deutsch, 1949, 1962; Johnson &

Johnson, 1989).

When goals correlate negatively (i.e., interpersonal goal conflict),

participants are likely more competitive in their behaviors and actions,

which results in oppositional interaction. Oppositional interaction is

the process by which competitors strive for their own goals and

attempt to hinder the goal striving of the competition (Johnson &

Johnson, 2005). When participant goals correlate positively however

(i.e., interpersonal goal concordance), they likely exhibit more cooper-

ative behavior and action. By working together in this situation, each

participant increases the likelihood of personal goal achievement,

while enhancing the likelihood for the other person as well.

148 SWAB AND JOHNSON