When we think of teamwork, we perhaps think of all pulling in the same direction toward a common good. Research from Bocconi University reminds us that it isn’t always like this, and there are some collaborations that are good for the careers of employees even as they’re harmful to the overall performance of the firm.
The research highlights how sometimes, we attempt to collaborate with someone who is also in demand from other colleagues. This can create what the researchers refer to as “peer competition”, which reduces access to the resources controlled by that person and generally harms the performance of the team.
While overall this is a bad situation, it can be beneficial for individual employees as it can help them to develop the kind of social capital that is so important to advance their careers.
Negative outcomes
Such peer competition can be especially problematic if you yourself lack the clout of your rivals for those resources, as your partner will inevitably focus their limited attention where it can have the biggest impact.
There is also a risk of information leakage, as the partner can be granted access to proprietary information as part of the collaboration. While the precise kind of information that is shared can obviously be controlled, there is no such control over what the partner does with that information.
While these risks appear universally negative, when the researchers spoke to employees themselves, they often spoke of such peer competition in positive terms. This was often because sharing a partner with peer firms can benefit employees at the same time as it harms the firm.
“The collaboration with a shared partner gave employees the chance to overcome time, distance and social obstacles to connect with a potential employer,” the researchers explain. “Such interactions also provide employees with cover for forming otherwise frowned-upon relationships. For example, employees may claim—perhaps truly—to be on LinkedIn for their work, but they also make themselves known to headhunters and alternative employers.”
These benefits typically manifest themselves in terms of either enhanced skills development or via a greater range of potential job and career opportunities.
“When an employer and potential employee already know each other, there is a greater likelihood of a match, and the match is likely to be of higher quality. In the meantime, the social connections formed with employees at other firms can help focal employees develop their skills,” the authors conclude. “This flexibility in employee career development may not be a bad thing for managers if we think about the flow of talent between firms. A better match between firm and employee is beneficial to firm performance in the long run.”
