-But other sorts of rivalry can be ended with surprisingly little effort.

By allowing for cooperation to

replace needless competition, an office full of unhappy, anxious, unproductive people who are
required to struggle against each other can be transformed into a productive, happy place to work.
-Some managers have understood the need for teamwork but persist in hanging on to competition
by forcing the teams to compete against each other. The research suggests that competition among
groups, like competition among individuals, is both unnecessary and undesirable. Working against a
common enemy isnt necessary for success or for camaraderie. It just creates warlike hostilities and
closes off the possibility of sharing ideas and talents with others in the company. Real cooperation
doesnt require triumphing over another group.
- it will take place in the context of competition, where people are trying to score points and beat
each other, or cooperation, where everyone has the same goal of reaching the best possible solution.
Cooperative conflict involves what the Johnsons call friendly excursions into disequilibrium.
-found that subordinates who worked for a competitive leader were largely dissatisfied with their jobs;
the happy, motivated employees were those whose bosses were cooperatively inclined. That finding
nicely complements Tjosvolds other research, which has shown repeatedly that cooperation in the
workplace translates into much better decision-making and higher productivity. It's not only more
humane to work together but more efficient as well.
-Freed from the pressure of having to beat each other, students developed higher self-esteem. Their
enjoyment of the subject matter increased, and they came to accept each other more readily -- even
those with different backgrounds and abilities. These findings, of course, have profound implications
for the workplace.
-But the desire to push oneself to succeed rarely comes from having to defeat someone else. It
comes, ideally, from intrinsic interest -- being in love with the challenge itself. Failing that, it can
come from comparing ones performance with some absolute standard or with how one did last year.
It also can be inspired by the fulfillment of cooperative work. In any case, competition is at best
unnecessary and at worst a serious impediment to quality work.
-Competitors cant exchange ideas or share skills. Let me in your office for a few days and I can
destroy your employees ability to communicate effectively. I can replace their trust in each other
with hostility. I can make sure their work is redundant, with each one tackling problems that
someone else has already solved. How can I do all this? By making them compete against each
other.
-Competition creates anxiety. Even when the tangible stakes (salary and promotions) arent high, the
prospect of winding up a loser is extremely distressing. The unique pressure produced by having to
defeat others -- and risk being defeated -- tends to inhibit performance.
-They will act as though they are not part of the same organization, working for common
goals, serving the customers together. Instead, they may try to subvert each others' efforts.
-Rewards undermine interest. Loving what you do is a more powerful motivator than
money or any other goody. No surprise there. What is surprising is that goodies actually
undermine personal motivation. The more an executive gets employees to think about
what they will earn for doing their jobs well, the less interested they will be in what they
are doing.