In life, the aspect of competition has always been common among individuals, groups, and corporations. It is through competition that individuals or entities grow, develop, and achieve their short-term and long-term goals and objectives. However, there is a different form of competition, especially in sports. This is rivalry (Baum and Korn, 1996). Unlike the competition, the rivalry is more intense.
This is because rivalry leads to the demise of an individual, group, or corporation for the success of the other. Rivalry arises on many occasions. It occurs when employees compete for promotion or bonuses when an actor wants to outperform another actor, when a team wants to be regardless of the best in the league, and when an organization wants to get the best credit in a specific region or industry.
Such occurrences have led to the rivalry that existed between Coke and Pepsi, Apple and Microsoft, Mike Tyson and Holyfield, and Virgin Atlantic and British Airways. Rivalry can lead to the growth of abnormal competitive behavior among individuals. This study therefore aimed at establishing the impacts of competition in the determination of the psychology of rivalry. To critical address this issue, the study had to answer an indirect research question that stated that:
Does the perception of rivalry among actors depend on their relationship or dyad level?
In the competitive world, actors identify their rivals as a result of the relationships and encounters that they have had with one another. These factors thus determine the perceptions that actors will have towards each other.
Other factors that are likely to affect the relationship between actors is their history, several encounters that they have had, and the distance that is between them. With regards to the argument at hand, it will be fair to conclude that rivalry mainly depends on the relationship that actors have between each other rather than their characteristics. This thus supports the first hypothesis of the study that states that “Perceptions of rivalry are determined more by the relationship between competitors than by their individual characteristics (Kilduff, Elfenbein and Staw, 2010, p. 947).”
However, this study also wanted to identify the cause of rivalry between actors. What factors lead to the formation of rivalry between actors? These are the questions that the authors hoped to answer by the end of the study. In the process, they managed to identify three main factors that may bring about rivalry among actors. These were their similarities, historic competitiveness, and the number of encounters that they have had with one another (Pomeroy, 2005).
In general, the similarity between individuals has been seen as a factor that encourages cooperation, attraction, and increased interaction. Similar actors are therefore believed to a higher chance of blending. This will therefore encourage teamwork and hence the attainment of their individual and collective goals and objectives will be much easier. However, about rivalry, this is not the case. There is a direct relationship between similarity and rivalry.
The more similar actors are, the higher their level of rivalry would be. Proximity increased similarly in performance, and similarity in identity trigger rivalry. This is because each one of the actors would like to earn the best reputation over the others in the same category (Pomeroy, 2005). This argument, therefore, supports the second hypothesis that states that “Rivalry between competitors is positively related to their similarity (Kilduff et al, 2010, p. 948).”
Another factor that has a lot of weight in determining rivalry is the history of competitive interaction that exists between them. From a theoretical point of view, it is not logical for individuals to lay their basis of competition on past encounters. They should however focus on the present and future encounters that may arise. However, from a psychological point of view, the residues from past encounters play a critical role in determining the level of rivalry that may exist between actors.
This is due to the path-dependability nature of competition. That is why every season, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird would look up to the number of games that they have against each other so that they can prove who the best is. This comes about as a result of the past encounters where Larry won some and Magic won others. If actors with such a history are put to work together, there are still high chances that they would want to outcompete each other.
This argument thus supports the third and fourth hypotheses if the study which stated that, “Rivalry between competitors is positively related to the number of competitive interactions in which they have engaged,” and, “Rivalry between competitors is positively related to the historic competitiveness of their match-up,” respectively (Kilduff et al, 2010, p. 948-949).
The research question, theory, and hypothesis that have been presented in this study are all in line with one another. The theories have been used to answer the research questions and support the hypothesis of the study. This has increased the validity and credibility of the results and outcome of the study.
References
Kilduff, G. Elfenbein, H. and Staw, B. (2010). The Psychology of Rivalry: A Relationally Dependent Analysis of Competition. Academic Management Journal, 53 (5), 943- 969.
Pomeroy, K. (2005). The kenpom.com blog: Stats explained. Kenpom. Web.