X hits on this document

411 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

44 / 185

as a macro phenomenon on the firm and industry level, conversely, has been studied

extensively in the strategic management literature (Gnyawali & Madhavan, 2001;

Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996; Haveman & Nonnemaker, 2000). Therefore, it is

somewhat surprising that competitiveness, as a micr-o level phenomenon has not been

addressed as much.

The extant literature on competition has been mainly focused on individual

decision-making, negotiation, and group performance in experimental settings. This

literature builds upon the theory of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949;

Deutsch, 1973) and identifies three social motives: individualistic, competitive, and

prosocial (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995; De Dreu et al., 2000). According to De Dreu et

al.’s (2000) comprehensive meta-analysis, social motives can be rooted in stable

individual differences or in the situation. From an individual difference perspective,

people possessing an individualistic social value have the propensity to maximize their

own outcomes (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995; McClintock & Liebrand, 1988).

Competitive orientation is characterized by willingness to maximize one’s own outcomes

at the expense of others (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995; McClintock & Liebrand, 1988).

Finally, those who have prosocial values are similar to altruists inasmuch as they want to

maximize the joint gain in negotiations (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995). Certain aspects of

the situation such as the task structure (McClintock & Liebrand, 1988) have been found

to affect the relationship between social value orientation and negotiation behavior as

well.

The early experiments on cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1949) suggest

that incentives may influence the incidence of cooperative, individualistic, and

34

Document info
Document views411
Page views411
Page last viewedFri Dec 02 21:06:15 UTC 2016
Pages185
Paragraphs6580
Words41049

Comments