Competition is TOO High in many organizations. And this is somewhat intentional with unanticipated negative impacts on people and performance.

My main belief, honed over 40 years of working with organizations, is that our managers are promoted because they are the most successful workers. They tend to have the best metrics and tend to feel challenged to perform on a daily basis. They volunteer for things and they play active roles in their teams. At least some of that comes from their competitive natures.

(These are the kinds of people who, as college students, would come to me after an examination and fight for a point or two on their scores. Often nice people, they just want to win and be the best and it is often the little things that make the difference. I had no trouble going over their exams and discussing answers.)

Well, we make these accomplished workers into supervisors. And from all the supervisors, we select those who generate the best metrics and who volunteer and who seem to push their people to do their best. Again, this competitiveness shows through.

And this same process continues as these successful, competitive people move up in the organization. By the time they are senior managers, their competitiveness is fine-tuned and they can have a wide variety of skillsets focused on organizational performance results. They tend to want to win at everything they do (think Michael Jordan) and they push themselves pretty constantly. Their mindsets are focused on results.

Their competitiveness is felt through the things they do with their management of people and they believe that others are like them, and that others like competition and being competitors.

BUT, these desired behaviors and frameworks are NOT the norm in organizations. Many people do NOT respond well to these approaches and choose to be among the 70% of workers who are uninvolved and disconnected, what I call The Coasters. 

Alfie Kohn’s book Punished by Rewards critically examined the use of rewards and punishments as motivational tools in various settings, including the workplace. Rewards are generally something that our promoted folks find highly motivating because they commonly earn them, something not true with MOST of the workers in most organizations. 

Kohn argues that both rewards and punishments are forms of manipulation that ultimately undermine intrinsic motivation and long-term performance. These methods are counterproductive because they:

• Destroy intrinsic motivation: Rewards can diminish a person’s natural interest in a task. When people are rewarded for doing something they already enjoy, their intrinsic motivation tends to decrease.
• Promote only temporary compliance: While rewards might lead to short-term behavior changes, they do not foster genuine commitment or long-lasting change. People may comply to get the reward but are unlikely to internalize the desired behavior or values.
• Undermine quality of work: Research cited by Kohn indicates that people often produce lower quality work when they are motivated by rewards. This is particularly true for tasks requiring creativity or complex problem-solving.

My added view is that they try to promote competition as a motivational approach to increase productivity and they fail mightily at that. These approaches generate active regular competition between people, teams and departments. The choices made to compete demonstrably sub-optimize the results of play in our Lost Dutchman’s Gold Mine teambuilding game, for one example.

Kohn outlines several reasons why rewards are ineffective in the workplace:

1. Rewards punish: The conditional nature of rewards (“Do this and you’ll get that”) can feel punitive. If the reward is not given, it is perceived as a form of punishment.
2. Rewards rupture relationships: Incentive systems can create competition rather than cooperation among employees, damaging teamwork and trust.
3. Rewards ignore reasons: Rewards do not address the underlying causes of problems. They offer a superficial solution without understanding or resolving the root issues.
4. Rewards deter risk-taking: When focused on rewards, employees are less likely to take risks or explore new ideas, leading to a reduction in innovation and creativity.
5. Rewards undermine interest: Extrinsic rewards can make tasks feel like chores rather than activities worth doing for their own sake, reducing overall engagement and satisfaction.

Kohn advocates for creating environments that foster intrinsic motivation through:

• Engaging work: Providing tasks that are inherently interesting and meaningful to employees.
• Autonomy: Allowing employees to have a say in how they do their work and involving them in decision-making processes.
• Collaboration: Encouraging teamwork and cooperation rather than competition.
• Respect and support: Offering genuine encouragement and support rather than manipulative praise or rewards.

Kohn’s central thesis is not “rocket surgery” and all of us can identify with the key ideas, that the reliance on rewards and punishments as motivational tools is fundamentally flawed.

Instead, he promotes an approach that emphasizes intrinsic motivation, meaningful work, collaboration and respectful, supportive relationships in the workplace. This, he argues, leads to higher quality work, greater job satisfaction, and more sustainable performance improvements.

Overall, I believe (and observe) that there is too much competition within organizations and between teams that should be collaborating. We need real teamwork and sustainable cooperation. But we first need to make people more aware that their current competitive reality is not an optimal state. Which phrase below might best “clarify the opportunity” for improvement? 😜 Which of these do you prefer, to explain the problem?

Version 1:

“The rampant Competitastrophe*, fueled by Winophrenia, plagues organizations with sub-optimal results and unsustainable performance. As teams prioritize outperforming each other over collaboration, the notion of “interdepartmental teamwork” becomes a mythical unicorn, prancing through halls of missed opportunities and isolated silos, unsupported by a unifying vision.”

or Version 2:

“Organizations suffer from a plague of Competitastrophe, born of rampant Winophrenia, which generates sub-optimal outcomes and unsustainable performance. In this environment, where individuals and teams prioritize victory over cooperation, “interdepartmental collaboration” emerges as a paradoxical unicorn. This elusive creature prances through halls of ineffective synergy and non-alliances, its potential unrealized due to the absence of a unifying mission and vision.”

• – Competitastrophe — Where excessive competition drives a catastrophe of negative impacts

• – Winophrenia — similar to paraphrenia, a mental disorder characterized by an organized system of paranoid delusions with hallucinations but wrapped around the obsession with winning

And how can I best illustrate the overall concept with organizations and their teams?