The Psychology of Rivalry - Literature review Example

Article Review: The Psychology of Rivalry: A Relationally Dependent Analysis Of Competition Table of Contents Introduction 3 Article Importance 4 Article’s Critique 4 Title 5 Abstract 5 Keywords 5 Introduction 5 Literature Review 6 Measures 7 Materials & Methodology 7 Analysis and Results 8 Discussion of Results 9 Conclusion 9 References 10 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article 10 Contribution to the Wider Area of Knowledge in Strategic Marketing 10 Nature of the Article 11 Conclusion 11 Publications Done by the Same Authors on Similar Topics 12 References 12 Appendix 13 Introduction The increase of competition in the global market has led firms in all industries to promote innovation across their units aiming to improve their position towards their rivals. In practice, the successful development of such plans has been proved to be a challenging task – mostly because of the lack of appropriate preparation of the activities involved. One of the key barriers towards the increase of the firms’ competitiveness seems to be their inability to understand the market needs; moreover, the potential influence of the personal perceptions of the managers engaged to the relevant projects is often ignored. The specific gap has been identified by Kilduff, Elfenbein and Staw (2010); their article entitled as ‘The psychology of rivalry: A relationally dependent analysis of competition’ aims to offer adequate explanations on the relationship between rivalry and competition both regarding the individuals and the organizations. Through the above study, the following fact is revealed: competition among individuals has similarities with the competition developed between organizations. In this way, the following assumption can be made: the response of organizations to the pressures of their competitors is depended on the perceptions of their managers on rivalry; the latter is not just an element of human behavior; rather, it can be a cause for promoting competition among organizations – based on the fact that organizational decisions are made by individuals who are expected to use their own perceptions and experiences when having to develop various organizational plans. The article of Kilduff, Elfenbein and Staw (2010) has been critically reviewed in order to identify its strengths and weaknesses but also its contribution in the explanation of organizational behavior. It is concluded that the specific article is extremely valuable in terms not just of its subject but also of its structure and content. Article Importance The article of Kilduff, Elfenbein and Staw (2010) can be characterized as quite important helping to realize the role of rivalry for the development of various decisions. Especially in regard to the area of organizational behavior, the specific article helps to understand how the responses of firms to their competitors can be explained and evaluated. The value of the article for the particular field can be also identified at the following two points: a) existing studies regarding the role of rivalry in organizational competition are quite limited; in fact, up today, the relationship between the personal attitudes – as rivalry can be primarily characterized – and the organizational initiatives has not been explored; through the article under examination the dependency of organizational decisions on personal beliefs – referring to the beliefs of rivals when these persons have to participate in the development of a key organizational decision – is analytically explained; b) competition is a key part of organizational activities; however, the causes and the elements of competition have not been adequately examined in the past; the article under examination offers valuable information on a specific aspect/ cause of competition: the rivalry which can be related to the initiatives of both individuals and organizations. Article’s Critique In order to understand the value of the article under examination within the field of ‘organizational behavior’ it would be necessary to refer to its parts and evaluate their effectiveness, in terms of structure but also of content. In this way, it would be easier to identify the article’s strengths and weaknesses – compared to other articles focusing on this subject – and highlight the points, if any, that would need further analysis or improvement. Title The title of the article can be characterized as quite accurate – in terms of the article scope and content. Indeed, in the title, authors have managed to summarize their article’s main points giving to the readers a first idea on the issues under examination. Abstract The issues on which the article emphasizes are further highlighted in the abstract. It is in the specific part of the paper that the authors analytically present the issues on which their study focuses. Moreover, authors use the abstract for the following purpose: for making clear the hypothesis on which the study is based. Additionally, reference is made to the research method used by the authors in order to examine the various aspects of the issues under discussion. In the abstract also the implications of the study for ‘the management of employees and the organizations’ competitive strategies’ (Kilduff et al. 2010, p.943) are revealed. In accordance with the above, the abstract of the article can be characterized as appropriately structured offering an overview of the issues studied, the research tools employed and the justification of the subject chosen. Keywords The keywords of the article under examination could be summarized as follows: rivalry, competition, performance, individuals and organizations. Introduction In the introductory section of the article, the concept of rivalry is presented through a series of examples; reference is made primarily to rivalry as a cause of competition in sports; at the next level, the role of competition in organizational performance is also highlighted by referring to the cases of relevant conflicts, for instance the rivalry between ‘Pepsi and Coke and also that between Virgin Atlantic and British Airways’ (Kilduff et al. 2010, p.943). The authors used these examples in order to justify the choice of the particular topic; as noted in the specific section of the paper, ‘little attention has been paid to the psychology of rivalry’ (Kilduff et al 2010, p.944); moreover, it is made clear that the potential relationship between rivalry and competition would significantly affect not just human behavior but also the organizational behavior – under the terms that organizational decisions are developed by individuals in various organizational departments. In accordance with the above the introductory section of the article explains the reasons that have led authors to choose the particular subject; taking into consideration the structure and the material of this section, it would be stated that the authors have managed to achieve their target regarding the specific part of the paper: to highlight the reasons that led to the choice of the specific topic. The only weakness of this part of the paper is the lack of literature – reference is made just to 2 studies related to the issues under discussion; in this way, the claim of the authors on the uniqueness of their study could be possibly negatively criticized. On the other hand, it would be assumed that the literature presented by the authors in the next section, the literature review section, covers all aspects of the issues under examination. Therefore, the specific problem would be further discussed in the section that follows. Literature Review The Literature Review part of the paper has been divided into sub-sections aiming to provide adequate information on all the issues discussed. Emphasis is given on the following two concepts: a) the concept of competition and b) the concept of rivalry. Competition is explained and analyzed into three different sub-sections (referring to individuals, groups and organizations); as of rivalry, this is also analytically explained referring to relevant literature; rivalry is analyzed as of a subjective phenomenon but also as a phenomenon that can be – simultaneously – analyzed at different levels (reference is made to rivalry among individuals, groups and organizations). In the context of the literature review, a particular section has been developed: the ‘Theoretical model and Hypotheses section’ (Kilduff et al. 2010, p.943); in this section, the authors present the studies they used for developing a Theoretical model – see Appendix, Figure 1; the authors used this model for developing a series of hypotheses, which are tested, at the next level, using an appropriate customized empirical research method – as analyzed below. The literature part of the paper can be characterized as well structured and developed, offering adequate information on the study’s issues; moreover, the use of sub-sections for highlighting each particular issue has made this section easy to be read and understood. Measures The hypotheses on which the study under examination is based, are tested using an appropriately customized empirical research; in the context of this research, the authors had to measure ‘the strength of rivalry between teams’ (p.95); the use of this measure can be characterized as necessary, showing the potential differences regarding the level of rivalry among the participants/ teams. It should be noted that the variables employed in the empirical research are differentiated – among the three phases of the empirical research. The first phase of the empirical research is based on the responses of students/ sportswriters; in the second phase, the variables involved are archival data while in the third phase of the empirical research, statistical data of games have been used for measuring the level of rivalry in the setting chosen. Materials & Methodology The setting of the empirical research on which the study of Kilduff et al. (2010) is based can be characterized as quite appropriate. The NCAA Men’s basketball has been considered as an appropriate setting – taking into consideration the level of rivalry developed in the particular field, an issue also highlighted by the authors. It should be noted that the empirical research conducted for the study has been divided into three parts: in the first phase, the authors have surveyed sportswriters in 73 universities – among those where conferences of NCAA Men’s basketball were held. In total, 421 student sportswriters responded to the survey of Kilduff et al. (2010); the level of the sample is quite satisfactory – both in terms of the Universities addressed and the number of students/ sportswriters who accepted to participate in the survey. Moreover, the choice of the specific population is quite justified, having in mind the level of involvement of the participants in the activities of the teams/ members of NCAA Men’s basketball. In the second phase of the empirical research, archival data referring to 71 teams in NCAA Men’s basketball were examined – aiming also to estimate the level of rivalry in the specific setting; the above results were analyzed using regression analysis – as appropriate. Finally, in the third phase of the empirical research, statistics from 563 conference games, which took place between 2005 and 2006, were gathered and analyzed – again, in order to identify potential differences in the level of rivalry. Analysis and Results The results of the survey conducted for the study under examination, were analyzed using ‘a social relations model’ (Kilduff et al. 2010, p.252); the above tool of data analysis has been chosen because it can reveal ‘the variance in ratings resulting from perceiver effects, target effects, relationship effects and measurement error’ (Kilduff et al. 2010, p.252); in other words, the above model of data analysis ensures the limitation of failures in the assumptions produced. From this point of view, the data analysis method used by Kilduff et al. (2010) can be characterized as quite effecting reducing the chances for inaccuracies in the interpretation of findings – having in mind that the authors had to test and analyze the answers of 421 students from 71 universities. In accordance with the authors, the analysis of results has been developed using relevant software, the SOREMO program, ensuring further the credibility of the analysis. Also, the results of the survey are analyzed extensively – having been categorized – so that the research hypotheses to be effectively addressed. Apart from the above tools of data analysis, the regression analysis has been also involved in the study – for analyzing the results of the second and the third phases of the empirical research (p.955, 959) The only weakness of the specific section of the paper seems to be the flow of the text; despite the analysis of the empirical results, their categorization is not quite clear; in this way, the specific part of the text is made difficult to be read and understood; rather, the reader needs to proceed to the discussion of results section of the study – in order to be informed on the findings of the research. Discussion of Results As noted above, the empirical research of the study is divided into three phases; the results of each phase are discussed separately; this fact makes the study difficult to be read; the reader cannot follow the arguments developed by the authors in each of these sections – which is a negative aspect of the study under examination. Conclusion The conclusion of the study is actually entitled as ‘General Discussion’ – including the limitations of the study, the main findings of the empirical research and the study’s contribution in the particular field. The only problem in this section seems to be the fact that the last sub-section of this part of the paper is entitled as ‘Conclusion’ where in fact it includes the personal view of the authors on their work. Possibly, another title would be chosen for the last section of the paper because in this way, the impression that this is the conclusion of the paper, just one paragraph, is given. References The study of Kildfuff et al. (2010) is based on a wide range of academic sources/ journals; in fact, the references of the specific study are of high quality and quantity supporting adequately all the issues under discussion. Moreover, the academic journals employed in the paper are up to date and are all related to the study’s subject. In this context, it can be stated that the referencing of the study under examination is quite successful ensuring the credibility of the assumptions made. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article In accordance with the issues discussed above, the strength of the study would be described as follows: a) use of extensive literature in the literature review section, b) use of adequate and of high quality resources for supporting the various arguments, c) The weaknesses of the article have been highlighted in the previous sections – referring to each section. These weaknesses could be further summarized as follows: a) lack of literature in the introduction section; b) not effective presentation of the results of the empirical research; the specific section of the study is not easy to be read, c) the simultaneous use of three different empirical research methods negatively affects the coherence and the flow of the text – presenting separately the results of each study and then referring to the findings of all phases of the empirical research. Contribution to the Wider Area of Knowledge in organizational behavior The article under examination has emphasized on a critical issue: rivalry, as developed between individuals, can exist in organizational environment. In such environment, as in daily life, rivalry leads to the increase of competition. From the particular point of view, rivalry is likely to be taken into consideration when key organizational plans are developed. Academic researchers, especially those who study the various aspects of organizational behavior – should further examine the above phenomenon, as highlighted in the study of Kildfuff et al. (2010). Nature of the Article The study under examination can be characterized as a well-structured empirical study; its advantage compared to most empirical studies is the fact that the research developed for this study has been divided into three phases – as explained above. On the other hand, the literature used in the particular study is quite extensive and of high quality. Therefore, the specific study would be characterized as an academic piece of work in which the qualitative and the quantitative research have been effectively combined for addressing the issues under discussion. Conclusion The study under examination can be characterized as quite valuable – taking into consideration its strengths – as analyzed above; however, its negative aspects cannot be ignored; emphasis should be given on the lack of coherence in parts of the paper – referring especially to the empirical research part of the specific study. Moreover, its limitations are also important, as analyzed also by the authors in the last part of their study; emphasis should be given – regarding the study’s limitations – to the potential differentiation of variables used in the empirical research, a fact that would lead to different results if the same empirical research methods were used in the future. However, in general, it would be stated that the authors managed to offer a well-supported academic piece of work being aware of the challenges and the risks involved – a fact which is proved to the analytical presentation by the authors of their study’s limitations. Publications Done by the Same Authors on Similar Topics The authors of the article under examination have a significant background – in terms of professional experience and works published – in the particular field. More specifically, Gavin Kildfuff – who is Assistant Professor of Management and Organizations in NYU Stern, has published a series of articles on similar topics (see also Figure 2, Appendix). His studies tend to focus on the effects of personal perceptions on human behavior – not only in personal but also in the professional life – as this behavior also influences the decisions of individuals within organizations. Hillary Anger Elfenbein, who works as Associate Professor in Olin School of Business (Washington University in St. Louis) has a significant background in terms of publications on similar topics (see also Figure 2, Appendix); as it is made clear from the topics of her publications, the specific author has studied human behavior – especially in the context of workplace. As for Barry Staw, who holds the ‘Lorraine Tyson Mitchell Chair in Leadership and Communication’ (Haas School of Business, University of California, 2011), his publications on similar topics are many – see Figure 2 – Appendix. References Kilduff, G., Elfenbein, H., Staw, B. (2010) The psychology of rivalry: A relationally dependent analysis of competition. Academy of Management Journal, vol 53, no 5, pp. 943-969 Appendix Figure 1 – Theoretical Model on which the study of Kilduff et al. (2010) is based (source: Kildfuff et al 2010, p.947) Figure 2 – Publications of authors on similar topics (indicative publications as retrieved from the Universities’ web sites) Author’s name Publications Kilduff, Gavin* * the publications of the above author have been retrieved from a relevant file available in the NYU Stern (in http://web-docs.stern.nyu.edu/pa/gkilduffcv.pdf) 1. Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. 2009. The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 295-298. 2. Anderson, C, & Kilduff, G. J. 2009. Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491-503. 3. Kilduff, G.J., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. 2010. Whatever it takes: The consequences of rivalry for unethical behavior. Paper presented at the 70th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Canada 4. Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. 2008. Why do dominant people attain status in groups? Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA. Hillary Anger Elfenbein* * the publications of the above author have been retrieved from a relevant file available in the website of Washington University in St Louis 1. Elfenbein, H. A., Eisenkraft, N., & Ding, W. W. (2009). Do we know who values us? Dyadic meta-accuracy in the perception of professional relationships. Psychological Science, 20, 1081-1083. 2. Groysberg, B., Polzer, J. T., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2010). Too many cooks spoil the broth: How high status individuals decrease group effectiveness. Organization Science. Conditionally accepted. 3. Elfenbein, H. A., Curhan, J. R., Eisenkraft, N., Shirako, A., & Baccaro, L. (2008). Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differences in bargaining outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1463–1475. 4. Elfenbein, H. A., Foo, M. D., White, J. B., Tan, H. H, & Aik, V. C. (2007). Reading your counterpart: The benefit of emotion recognition accuracy for effectiveness in negotiation Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 205-223. Barry Staw* * the publications of the above author have been retrieved from a relevant file available in the University of California, Berkeley (in http://www2.haas.berkeley.edu/Faculty/staw_barry.aspx 1. The Trouble with JDM: Some Limitations to the Influence of JDM on Organizational Research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2010, 3, 411-416 2. "The Dispositional Approach To Job Satisfaction: More Than A Mirage, But Not Yet An Oasis," with Yochi Cohen-Charash. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 3. Why no one really wants creativity. In C.M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.). Creative Action in Organizations: Ivory Tower Visions and Real World Voices. Sage Publications, 1996 4. "Organizational Escalation and Exit: The Case of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant," with J. Ross. Academy of Management Journal 36 (1993): 701-732. Read More