HR's Real Competition Question: Does Rivalry Help or Hurt the Company?

Competition between employees delivers value only when it serves the organization rather than personal ambition — and the difference often shows up in whether a top performer pushes a colleague out or trains that colleague up. That is the core argument of a new essay on organizational competition culture, which frames rivalry as an inherent human drive that employers must actively manage rather than suppress.

The author, a publishing-industry professional, draws a sharp line between two forms of workplace competition. In the healthy version, employees compete for the common good: advertising agencies sometimes pit two employees against each other to produce the best client pitch, and salespeople race to see who can sell the most for the same employer. Both examples, the author writes, illustrate competition that benefits the organization.

The unhealthy version is different. It is, in the author's words, "focused on personal ambition and insecurity much more than it is about helping the company do better." In some cases, this negative form of competition can undercut the organization's interests, leading one employee to push out another employee who is equally or even more valuable.

Why should HR structure competition rather than ban it?

The drive to compete cannot be eliminated, the essay argues. A sense of competition is part of being human, and even non-human animals gravitate toward it — the author offers the example of a two-cat household, where the alpha cat pushes the beta cat to the periphery, especially at mealtimes.

An organization with a healthy culture therefore acknowledges that employees will try to dominate each other and creates structured competition instead. Sales makes this easy to measure. Other functions, such as publishing, do not. Readership metrics exist, the author notes, but so many factors influence those numbers that the field is often uneven: one publication may serve a rapidly growing audience while another serves a rapidly shrinking one.

For non-sales employees, the essay proposes alternative contest designs:

• Reward the employee who develops the greatest number of new and reliable sources of information over the course of a year.
• Recognize the person who generates the most new ideas — at the author's first full-time job, that kind of contribution earned the company's "Entrepreneur's Award."
• Keep the competition open and explicitly labeled as such.
• Ensure a fair fight, comparing apples to apples — no pitting two employees against each other when they face uneven support from junior staff or market niches of different viability.

What should happen when the contest ends?

Winners should not simply collect recognition and their monetary reward, the author argues. Managers should also tap them to train less successful colleagues, and should announce this rule at the start of the competition. Winners who mentor well, the essay advises, should see that service count toward greater opportunities for upward growth.

The mechanics matter. A star salesperson could give a presentation on their sales approach to the group, then have colleagues shadow them individually for a few hours — sitting in on sales calls, watching how they assemble presentations, and observing how they answer difficult questions from prospective customers.

What are the warning signs of toxic rivalry?

While encouraging healthy competition, managers must watch for the unhealthy kind simultaneously. The essay identifies one common manifestation: the go-getter employee who criticizes how a colleague works but offers no help, instead making bids to take over that colleague's role.

The author scripts the conversation a savvy manager should have. The boss might tell the employee: "Brenda, you've done a great job with your sales presentations, and I love how you are organized. Rather than seeking to take over Susan's territory and become her manager, I'd like to see you mentor her." When the employee replies that supervising Susan would ensure the work is done well, the manager should redirect: focus on lending a hand to help the colleague do better, rather than having your 'help' tied to dominating her.

The essay closes on the question HR practitioners will have to answer for themselves: how do you foster the kind of competition that enhances the whole organization, and not just one person's self-interest? As employers keep refining performance-management and incentive systems, that design choice — open, fair contests with teaching obligations attached — will separate cultures where rivalry compounds talent from those where it burns through it.