INTERNAL COMPETITION IN A HIGH-PERFORMANCE TEAM

INTRODUCTION

Competition between different groups is everywhere: in a global arena between different countries, in political space between various political parties, in sports contests, in the market—between different firms. The team's performance in the tournament depends on members' interactive and cooperative dynamics (Bandura, 1997). When the average performance of some individuals on the team increases, this inspires the rest of the team to put forth more effort (Kandel & Lazear, 1992). Internal competition might be an excellent motivator for individuals and teams to continuously improve performance (Naidoo & Sutherland, 2016). However, competition as the primary motivator might create room for individual silos and disconnections. Collaboration and knowledge sharing among team members, on the other hand, can contribute to the effective resolution of conflicts. In a team of equally skilled and talented individuals, the risk of silos and disconnections is minimal. The truth, however, might be painful: Most of the teams and organizations have unequally endowed individuals (Heap et al., 2021). In the reality of inequality, should leaders encourage team competition to promote performance or support collaboration for faster and more effective conflict resolution?

Since Adam Smith, the competition in the market has been under constant investigation by scholars and practitioners. The literature is abundant on the role of leaders for setting high-performance standards to enforce an organizational culture that promotes execution to full potential (Gilbert, 2007; Kim & Thapa, 2018; Wang & Hackett, 2016) and winning the external competition. In recent decades, some social psychologists called intergroup conflict the “problem of the century” (Böhm et al., 2020; Sheremeta, 2018). However, despite an abundance of theoretical literature on the subject, the number of empirical studies is scarce (Sheremeta, 2018). Few articles focus on within-team competition (Heidemeier & Bittner, 2012).

The way people are treated in the workplace may affect the quality of the work they do (Linetsky, 2012). While people are overly competitive in contests between individuals (Sheremeta, 2018), they exhibit overcollaborative behavior when prompted with social dilemmas (Chaudhuri, 2011). Leaders are responsible for setting the tone of the team dynamic. As part of the team dynamic, individuals might choose between investing in an effort to cooperate for the team's good and abstaining from expending any effort and opting for a free ride on the effort of others (Sheremeta, 2018). Along with cultural norms, leaders crave the group identity of the team. Under group identity, the individuals display altruistic behavior toward teammates and hostility toward out-group individuals (Choi & Bowles, 2007).

Ryckman et al.'s (1994, 1996) theory of personal competitive orientation distinguishes two types of competition: hypercompetition and development competition. While hypercompetition might be distracting and challenging for team performance, the development of competition contributes to personal striving to execute to one's full potential (He et al., 2014). Lee (2014) suggested that interactive relationships and potential pressure among team members might significantly impact the team's performance. Heap et al. (2021) experimented to explore the role of competition in creating public goods in teams that have internally unequal group members. The authors set up pairs of equal and unequal teams to compete with each other, and they found that the percentage of contribution to the public interest by the unequal team increased with competition. They also found that this increase was more significant than the change in the percentage of contribution by the less effective members of the unequal team under competition (Heap et al., 2021).

Sheremeta (2018) discussed within-group competition and suggested that while such competition might be essential for achieving greater results, the leader should establish strict measures to avoid escalating the contest to a counterproductive level. Naidoo and Sutherland (2016) called this challenge the positioning dilemma: internal competition versus internal collaboration. A leader's efforts to reward team members fairly and proportionally to the effort increases the positive side of the in-team competition (Kugler et al., 2010; Sheremeta, 2018).

In a qualitative study of 20 senior managers, Naidoo and Sutherland (2016) found that internal competition within a team can motivate individuals to do their best and contribute significantly to team performance. The competition also supports the goal of continuous improvement. On the other hand, managers who set up their teams for collaboration enjoy a faster conflict resolution process and less internal confrontation. The authors concluded that it was necessary to balance competition and cooperation, carefully pushing team members to achieve both (Figure 1).

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

The role of within-team competition should not be diminished. He et al. (2014) developed a model that associates team collectivism with within-team competition. He et al. tested the model on 141 knowledge-intensive teams. They found a positive relationship between team collectivism and development competition and a negative association with the team over the competition. Lee (2014) offered research on 867 real estate sales agents in Taiwan. From the data collected from 776 answers to his questionaires, Lee concluded that some team members' average performance harms others' performance. The results of these studies preceded the later conclusions of Naidoo and Sutherland (2016) and Sheremeta (2018) on the positive role of well-managed competition in team performance.

RESEARCH PURPOSE

The purpose of the original doctoral dissertation by the first author was to explore strategies that midlevel managers of multinational corporations in Singapore use to build high-performance organizational culture. The theme of internal competition within a team came up frequently during interviews and observations of the participants. As coauthors, we found this interesting and decided to present this theme in an article dedicated to this subject.

METHODOLOGY

Mini-ethnography is an effective method of studying cultural competence (Hsieh et al., 2016). A case study might present an opportunity to explore and understand complex issues within the context of real life (Runfola et al., 2017). When case study and mini-ethnography are combined, a researcher can utilize the breadth of mini-ethnography and the single case study protocol (Fusch et al., 2017). This study focused on strategies that support creating high-performance organizational culture. We concentrated on an in-depth exploration of one unit of the study to develop our cultural competence.

Selecting informants who can best meet the need for information related to the study is the right way to achieve representativeness and appropriateness of the research (Morse, 1991). We decided on a purposeful sampling method for picking participants for our study. Etikan et al. (2016) defined purposeful sampling as a deliberate process of choosing participants with specific qualities. Discussing the application of purposeful sampling for qualitative ethnographic research, Benoot et al. (2016) claimed that both exhaustive and purposeful sampling methods could provide enough information to ensure the depth and quality of the study. The richness (quality) of the data and the thickness (quantity) of the data are more critical than sample size for data saturation (Fusch & Ness, 2015). Hennink et al. (2017) argued that the qualitative researcher focuses more on the quality and richness of the data. We chose six midlevel managers working in the Asia-Pacific region for a global Fortune 500 information technology company with experience building high-performance teams to participate in this study. Criteria for participating in our research were responsibilities involving at least 3 years of experience of employee management within the company. These criteria for participants helped to create both richness of the information and consistency in terminology.

To facilitate discussion among the participants in this mini-ethnographic case study experience, we introduced the six participating midlevel managers to each other: Darren, Jim, Lee, Luis, Sam, and William (pseudonyms). These managers represented six different functions in the company's regional structure: sales, operations, supply chain, services, human resources, and manufacturing. The data collection process included six semistructured interviews followed by member checking, about 50 hours of direct observations, and review of company documents. During member checking process we verified interview transcripts and true intentions of the participants. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the observations and interviews were conducted on a virtual video platform.

The emergence of global virtual teams created a challenge for the ethnographic researchers, making physical immersion in global organizations almost impossible or costly. This challenge prompted the development of new ways and tools for ethnography in the virtual, remote world. Hine (2000) suggested that people in the virtual world do about the same things they do in real life. That is, people show similar behaviors both online and in person: They communicate, argue, agree, smile, and more. The world has become one global village, and communication channels have shifted toward a virtual environment during the past 30 years. Boellstorff et al. (2012) advised that researchers might find different human behavior and cultural characteristics in this new virtual environment. Sometimes minor effects or impressions of personal presence might lead to the creation of biases among participants. Modern technologies that include a Zoom platform for virtual communication, high-quality web cameras, and sound equipment may provide an experience of presence, preserving a safe and comfortable environment for each participant. In his later work, Hine (2015) stated that the internet has become a legitimate way for researchers to explore everyday life as well as specific phenomena. The proper physical setup of virtual observation can actually create the opportunity for all participants to see each other in detail on one screen simultaneously without distracting their attention to different parts of the room and to extraneous factors such as room settings, temperature, dust, smell, and so on.

We used Zoom as a platform for virtual observation. All participants kept their cameras on and stayed focused during the entire session. For the observations with multiple participants, the observer set up all the faces on one screen and the presentation's content on the other. Using this setup, the researcher could observe the dynamic of facial expressions and gestures of the participants. We attended three types of meetings: staff meetings with all participants, one-on-one discussions between participants or between participants and their employees, and ad hoc meetings with different participants. We also used Zoom to conduct semistructured interviews and member checking meetings. Participants agreed to have all sessions recorded. We focused on emotions, face and body language, and fluctuations in the tone of voice of the participants.

The qualitative researcher focuses on the quality and richness of the data (Hennink et al., 2017). For collecting data, we used the following tools: semistructured interviews, direct observations, and reviews of company documents. We applied methodological triangulation to the data we collected from the different sources. Even though the six participants in our study represented different departments from the same business unit, all of them used the same company terminology. Because they represented different departments, we could observe different points of view on the phenomenon.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Gilbert (2007), in his behavioral engineering model (BEM), assumed that one's performance depends on one's behavior. Winiecki (2015) supported this assertion, stating that it is usually necessary to do things that change one's behavior to improve one's performance. The company's environment sets the tone for one's behavioral repertoire. The framework of the BEM defines two primary layers responsible for behavior and environment (Table 1). According to Gilbert (1978, 2007), managers act on both the environmental domain and employee conduct to enable the team to execute to its full potential. Employees will gain knowledge from the data, the capacity to perform the task from the instruments, and motives from the incentives (Gilbert, 2007; Winiecki, 2015). Data and knowledge belong to a stimulus discriminative (S^D); they help the manager and employee to define the specific task. Instruments and capacity both refer to response (R)—an action that a stimulated individual will logically follow. Incentives and motives refer to reinforcing stimulus (S_r), which will ultimately define the employee's effort on the task.

TABLE 1 Behavioral Engineering Model

View Fullscreen

Choosing the conceptual framework for our research, we considered, among others, Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory, Hackman and Oldham's (1975) job characteristics model, and Deci and Ryan's (1985) self-determination theory. Vroom (1964) described human motivation as a product of expectancy, instrumentality, and tendency to perform the task, which he called valence. Expectancy theory provides cognitive variables that demonstrate individual differences in work motivation (Lunenberg, 2011). The job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) emphasizes proper job design and job description. Gilbert (1978, 2007) drew a strong connection between job design and performance. Deci and Ryan's (1985) self-determination theory relies on the premise that human beings inherently desire to develop and grow toward their fullest potential (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

The focus on worthy accomplishment rather than performance distinguishes Gilbert's (2007) model from the rest, making the BEM an appropriate choice for the conceptual framework of this study. A hallmark of the BEM is the intimate connection between fundamental elements of organizational culture and sustainable performance. Also, the BEM connects performance with economic outcomes (Crossman, 2010).

Gilbert (2007) introduced his second leisurely theorem stating that potential for performance improvement can be measured by the ratio of exemplary performance to typical performance worthiness. Gilbert also noted that level of competitiveness is the reverse of potential performance improvement; in other words, the lesser the potential for improving, the greater the personal level of competitiveness. Bandura (1997) and Myers et al. (2004) suggested that a group's collective efficacy relies on the group's shared belief in individuals and group as a full capability. Heidemeier and Bittner (2012) conducted research on 55 supervisors and 502 individual contributors from two German firms in the automotive industry. They concluded that in learning-oriented organizations, in-team competition positively contributes to team performance. Gilbert's (2007) BEM holds managers responsible for establishing the proper environment and goals for the organization.

THE FINDINGS

The overarching research question of this study was, What strategies do Singapore midlevel managers use to create high-performance organizational culture? Data analyses included methodological triangulation of the data from semistructured interviews followed by member checking, direct observations, and document reviews. Our analysis revealed four key themes: (a) creating an environment of trust and safety, (b) understanding that the way of doing things matters, (c) embracing leadership style, and (d) enforcing a culture of work-related, immediate, specific, and educative feedback. The subtheme of within-team competition had a strong effect on the theme of embracing leadership style.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

Heap et al. (2021) concluded that interpersonal competition might boost overall team performance. They also warned that an overcompetitive setup might lead to the silo effect of isolation and put team success at risk. The first author's doctoral research supported the first part of Heap et al.'s conclusion. It also clarified the second part—in teams with solid alignment on shared purpose, clear understanding of the high-level objectives, and the value of respect. The competition contributes to the individual development of competitors and raises overall performance.

Managers have overall responsibility and accountability for the performance of the organization (Gilbert, 2007). As one of the strategies to execute these duties, managers might create and support an environment of healthy competition. This environment will contribute to increasing both personal and team performance. Internal competition, when properly facilitated, can contribute to continued striving for excellence and avoiding complacency. This recommendation echoes Naidoo and Sutherland's (2016) research conclusions.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This research was based on the first author's doctoral dissertation, which focused on Asia's midlevel managers of multinational corporations. Testing the findings in different types of organizations or other regions might be essential. The following research might be conducted with senior executives or first-line managers. A deeper discussion and a more detailed definition of the collaborative and competitive environment might be explored. Managers might get clear guidance on the characteristics of the leadership qualities that contribute to this environment.

CONCLUSION

In a world where change is a new standard, every organization strives to sharpen its competitive advantage. Managers might use internal competition as an instrument for continuous improvement. The manager's role is to create an organizational culture that encourages and nurtures everyone to perform to their full potential. Such behavior by each individual can enable organizations to achieve more prolonged and sustainable success. In a world with an abundance of information and increasing availability of new technologies, analyzing the best way of doing things might be the only path for the next improvement or differentiation. Findings from this study might shift leaders' and managers' negative paradigm on competition and help them create an environment that allows them to enjoy both high competitiveness and high collaboration.