With the notable exception of one of the most storied rivalries of all time (Army vs. Navy), several college football rivals faced each other this past weekend in the final regular game of the season. There was the Old Oaken Bucket game (Purdue vs. Indiana), the Iron Bowl (Alabama vs. Auburn), the Egg Bowl (Ole Miss vs. Mississippi State), and the Jeweled Shillelagh game (Notre Dame vs. USC). There was the Apple Cup (Washington vs. Washington State), the Duel in the Desert (Arizona vs. Arizona State), and the Holy War (Utah vs. BYU). There was also the Sunshine Showdown (Florida vs. Florida State), Wisconsin vs. Minnesota (fighting for Paul Bunyan's Axe), Ohio State vs. Michigan, and LSU vs. Texas A&M. Most of these games were fiercely competitive, even if one of the teams was much better than the other. As an example, the LSU vs. Texas A&M game ended in a tie after time expired, and Texas A&M won after the seventh overtime 74-72 in the highest scoring game in FBS history!
No matter the context, competition against a rival usually brings out our best effort. Dr. Gavin Kilduff has studied rivalries and competition in a number of contexts, both in sports and business. He defines rivalry as a "unique, ongoing relationship that heightens the psychological stakes of competition and promotes a desire to win beyond the motivation induced by tangible stakes." A rivalry is therefore distinguished from traditional competition and usually emerges as a consequence of similarity, evenly-matched contests, and repeated competition. Dr. Kilduff and a number of other researchers in this area have found that individuals, teams, and organizations exert greater effort when competing against rivals versus non-rivals. Several studies have also shown that competition with rivals can lead to risky and, at times, unethical behaviors. The stakes are higher when we compete against our rivals. We try harder and may take more risks in order to beat our rivals and "play to win." Conversely, a few studies have shown that competition with rivals decreases the appetite for risk, leading to a conservative "playing not to lose" strategy (consistent with something known as the threat rigidity effect).
So, which is more likely when we compete against rivals? Are we more likely to take risks ("play to win") or more likely to play it conservative ("play not to lose")? Dr. Kilduff and his colleagues recently published a rather interesting study to try to answer this very question. In the first set of experiments, the investigators analyzed nine NFL football seasons (2002-2010) worth of data - every single play was analyzed (the results from a total of 485,684 unique plays from 2048 games were analyzed and coded). They focused on two fairly rare events - going for it on fourth down (teams did this 12.14% of the time) and going for two points after a touchdown (teams did this 4.95% of the time). Notably, teams were successful on 51% of their fourth down attempts and 45% of their two point conversion attempts. They analyzed a number of situational factors, including when the attempt occurred (early versus late in the game), where on the field (for the fourth down attempt) the play occurred, how the team was doing at the time (in terms of win-loss records), and when in the season the game was played. Most importantly, they determined whether playing against a rival affected whether or not a team went for it on fourth down or on a two-point conversion.
The results are fairly compelling. Teams that were playing against a rival were significantly more likely to go for it on fourth down (12.96% of chanced when playing against a rival versus 12.10% of chances when playing against a non-rival). Similarly, teams that were playing against a rival were also more likely to go for two-points after a touchdown (6.67% of chances when playing against a rival versus 4.86% of chances when playing against a non-rival). When averaged out over multiple football games played over the course of nine seasons and after controlling for all the other factors that could impact the decision to "go for it", these results are striking! Dr. Kilduff's team next confirmed these results in the laboratory setting, showing again that competing against a rival increases risk-taking behavior in a "play to win" strategy, as opposed to a more conservative, "playing not to lose" strategy.
What's the lesson for leaders? First of all, risk-taking behavior is not inherently good or bad - it depends on the context. For example, leaders can certainly use competition with a rival (either on the individual level, between members of the team or on the organizational level, between different companies) as a lever ("Hey, we need to finish this project before our competition does!") in situations where risk-taking may be beneficial, particularly in the areas of innovation and experimentation. Conversely, in situations where leaders want their teams and organizations to be more conservative (particularly in situations where consistent, reliable performance is required), competition with a rival should not be de-emphasized.
The evidence shows that we are more likely to take risks when we face off against our rivals. However, there is an important caveat. Leaders also need to be aware that competition with a rival can lead to unethical behavior ("cheating") if emphasized too much. Like all things, competition is a tool that can be used to motivate individuals and teams, when appropriate and in moderation.
Next weekend, several college football teams will play against each other in the conference championships. Some are rivals, while others are not. As it turns out, playing for a championship also increases the motivation to succeed and can lead to risk-taking behavior. But that is a topic for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment