Week 10

Reputation, Relative
Comparison, and Competitive
Performance Motivation

MG214 : Human Resources

Dr Jeff Thomas
 Agenda
Relative Comparison & Reputation
Cooperation
Competition & Rivalry
People cooperate with ingroup
members
(IB Psychology; Tajfel & Turner 1979)
Context
 Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1976)

Ingroup and outgroup attitudes are

determined by a continuing process of self-
definition
• Social mobility – when circumstances allow leaving an inferior group
to join a superior group
• Social change – passing from one group to another is difficult or
impossible: individuals will act as members of a group by changing
the image position or circumstances of the group as a whole
 Social Comparison Theory
(Suls, Martin, & Wheeler 2002)

• Social comparison determined by targets’:

– Expertise
– Similarity
– Previous relationship

2 dimensions:
– upward vs downward
– Assimilation vs contrast
 Ability Evaluation by Proxy
(Suls, Martin, & Wheeler, 2002)
• Social comparison also influences self-evaluation
– Evaluated estimates of own physical strength and intellectual
problem solving after watching a peer perform
– Moderators:
• perceived effort
• Upward vs downward comparisons
Social Comparison Theory
(Gerber, Wheeler, & Suls, 2018)
 Social Comparison Theory
(Gerber, Wheeler, & Suls, 2018)

• when no threat: Preference for upward

comparison
• when threat presenent: Preference for
downward comparison
• Motives determine comparison
• Contrast more common than assimilation
– Similarity priming increased assimilation
 Agenda
Relative Comparison & Reputation
Cooperation
Competition & Rivalry
 Cooperation

• The act of cooperating can change the

motives and interests of the parties
involved
 Cooperation

Individuals cooperate when: (Deutsch, 1949)

• they are striving to achieve the same goal
or complementary goals
• they are required by rules of the situation
to achieve the goal in equal amounts
• they perform better when the goal can be
achieved in equal amounts
• they have relatively many psychological
affiliative contacts with one another
 Cooperation (Heide & Miner, 1992)
Shadow of the future
Study of 136 industrial buyers and suppliers
Cooperation facilitated by:
• Inter-dependency
• Anticipated future interaction
• (Higher) frequency of contact
 Cooperation & Exchange Theory

• Collaboration based on attempts to

maximize gains
• Focuses on rational choice as a driver of
behavior
• Individuals calculate the costs and
rewards associated with alternative
options
Outcome = Rewards – Costs
 Attraction Theories

• Based on status similarities,

complementary needs, aspects fo
personality, goal congruence, information
needs
• Allows for modeling of noneconomic costs
and benefits and costs of cooperative
relationships
• Predicts cooperation based on liking and
and trust
 Power & Conflict Theories

• Based on differences in resources, values,

and goals predict conflict
• Perceptions of inequity and injustice
predict conflict; while perceptions of equity
and just predict cooperation
• As power differences between groups
increase, formal (mandated) cooperation
may be more common than informal
(voluntary) cooperation
 Modeling Theory

• Based on social learning, modeling, and

imitation of others’ behaviors (e.g.,
Bandura, 1961)
• Exemplar or referent individuals may set
examples and standards for cooperation
that are adopted by observers
• Conformity and creation of norms predict
cooperation
 Social Structure

• Based on social structure and conditions

within systems
• Social structures incentivize behaviors
based on group membership
• Opportunities for upward mobility,
occupational opportunity, and aligned
goals
 Cooperation Survival

• Persistence of cooperation depends on

– Effectiveness
• (accomplishment of the social purpose)
– Efficiency
• Satisfaction of individual motives
 Agenda

Relative Comparison & Reputation

Cooperation
Competition & Rivalry
 Competition

Individuals compete when: (Deutsch, 1949)

• they strive to achieve the same goal
• they are prevented by the rules of the
situation from achieve this goal in equal
amounts
• they perform better when the goal can be
achieved in unequal amounts
• they have relatively few psychologically
affiliative contracts with one another
 Competition

• Competitive decisions should be based on

maximizing gains
• Stakes should determine effort
• Relative positioning within organizations or
industries should dictate selection of
competitors
 Rivalry

• A subjective competitive relationship that

an actor has that entails increased
psychological involvement and perceived
stakes of competition – independent of the
objective characteristics of the situation
(Kilduff et al., 2010)
 Rivalry (Kilduff, Elfenbein, & Staw, 2010)
• The history of the relationship between actors
determines emergence of rivalry
• Rivalry more likely under conditions of:
 Rivalry (Kilduff, Elfenbein, & Staw, 2010)
• Rival sentiment tends to be symmetrical
between groups
How Rivalry Influences Performance
(Kilduff, Elfenbein, & Staw, 2010)
 Rivalry

• Rivalry increases competitiveness

• Runners ran faster when rivals were in the
race (Kilduff, 2014)
• Rivals also more likely to cheat against
rivals (Kilduff & Galinsky, 2017)
“The digital age was not born peacefully, it emerged from a
bitter rivalry between two of the most influential minds the
world has ever known.”

-
National Geographic

30
“The digital age was not born peacefully, it emerged from a
bitter rivalry between two of the most influential minds the
world has ever known.”

-
National Geographic

31
Steve Jobs Bill Gates
[Microsoft has]
absolutely no taste!
And I don't mean that in
a small way, I mean that
in a big way
–Steve Jobs

32
Steve Jobs Bill Gates
"Bill is basically unimaginative
…which is why I think he's more
comfortable now in philanthropy
than technology.“

Steve Jobs

33
Steve Jobs Bill Gates
 “[Steve Jobs] is
fundamentally odd,
and weirdly flawed,
as a human being.”

–Bill Gates

34
Steve Jobs Bill Gates
 “[Steve] is always either
in the mode of saying
you were sh*t or trying
to seduce you.”

-Bill Gates

35
Steve Jobs Bill Gates
Public Perception

36
 Thomas & Kilduff (2020)
Rivalry & Cooperation

• Within-Subjects
• 3 Condition Design
• N = 70, recruited from Mturk
• 56% female, average age 34, s.d. = 11.90
• Within same domain – think of:
– Rival
– non-rival 37
– non-competitor
 Study – Conditions

Rivalry Condition:
• “Please think of someone who you compete against who inspires heightened competition
in you. In other words, someone who motivates you to try your hardest to win when
competing with them, due to the history and/or relationship that you have with that person,
even in the absence of tangible stakes for winning.

Non-Rivalry Condition
• “Please think of someone from the domain you mentioned above that you compete against
but who does NOT inspire heightened competition in you. In other words, someone who
does not motivate you to try any harder to win than you otherwise would.

Non-Competitor (Control Condition)

• “Please think of someone from the domain you mentioned above that you do NOT compete
against. This should be someone who you know at least fairly well.
38
 Shared Identity Measures

Overall composite, 5 scales Cronbach’s Alpha reliability .89

Example items
– My relationship with this person is an important reflection of who I am.
Cross, Bacon, & Morris (2000); 5 items
– When I talk about [this person], I usually say we rather than they
Mael & Ashforth, (1992); 5 items
– I feel happy to be affiliated with this person/organization
Johnson, Morgeson, & Hekman (2012); 4 items
– Success for this person/organization implies success for me/my organization
Janssen & Veenstra (1999); 4 items
– Overlapping Circles
Aron, Aron, & Smollan (1992); 1 item
39
Results – Shared Identity

40
Results – Shared Identity

41
Results – Shared Identity

42
 Cooperation

8-item scale, Cronbach’s alpha reliability .93

• “With this counterpart, how much would you be
willing to:”
– Trade information regarding third parties
– Root for this person against other competitors
– Give advice/take advice
– Share information about competitive experiences 43
Results - Cooperation

44
Rival cooperation
 Other types of interactions

• Rival cooperation
• Coopetition (Tsai, 2002)
– Oscillation between competition and
cooperation based on external rewards
• Mutual Forbearance (Feinberg, 1985)
– Truce between competitiors connected across
multiple domains or industries
• Reputations Commons (Barnett, 2006)
– Competitors working together to maintain
industry-wide reputation
Cooperation Grey Area Competition

Collaboration Coopetition Impasse

Mentorship Out-Helping Competition

Licensing Deal Imitation Counterfeiting
Strategic Alliance Mutual Forbearance Rivalry

Merger Reputations Acquisition

Commons
 Key Takeaways
• Pursuit of a satisfactory social identity drives decisions on
group memberships and interactions (both inter-group and
intra-group)
• Both tangible and psychological factors influence decisions to
cooperate and compete
 Readings
1. Kilduff, Elfenbein, & Staw (2010). Evaluating the antecedents, effects,
and characteristics of rival competition.
2. Smith, Carroll, & Ashford (1995). Cooperation theory and cooperation
outcomes in organziations.
3. Heide, J. B., & Miner, A. S. (1992). The shadow of the future:
Anticipation and cooperation
4. contact on buyer-seller cooperation. Academy of management
journal, 35(2), 265-291.Tajfel (1974). The role of identity in
competitive and cooperative behaviors.
 In the seminar, be prepared to answer
this practice exam question
• “As the leader of a sales organisation, you want to
understand how to increase or decrease the
competitiveness that sales representatives have with
one another. Based on your knowledge of cooperation
and competition, explain the contextual psychological
factors that may increase or decrease sales employees’
competitiveness with one another.”