Rivalry over Internal Competition
Focus status competition on a bounded opponent, not everyone at work
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 95%
Storr distinguishes internal competition from rivalry by the shape of the status contest. Competition is all against all: colleagues must protect rank from everyone, as in Enron's reported rank-and-yank system. He argues that this can create fear, toxicity, and conditions in which corruption becomes more likely. Rivalry narrows the contest to one person, team, or organisation against another and is sustained by near misses and repeated skirmishes. The narrower target can provide a powerful motivational focus, illustrated by Apple against Microsoft and Bartlett's fitness contest. The framework is not a claim that rivalry is wholly good. Storr repeatedly frames it as a trade-off: losing can create misery, and excessive effort can damage sleep, health, or other goals. Leaders must therefore bound the contest, protect cooperation, and monitor its costs.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO
Core principles
- 01All-against-all competition makes status scarce and colleagues threatening
- 02Bounded rivalry focuses effort on one identifiable opponent
- 03Near misses and repeated skirmishes can sustain motivation
- 04A small amount of competition can motivate, but Storr says it can quickly become toxic
- 05Rivalry still carries costs when winning becomes excessive
How to run it
- 1
Audit the current contest
Identify who is competing with whom and how rank affects reward or security. Flag systems that make every colleague a threat.
Pro tip Look beyond formal reviews to informal scarcity around attention and promotion.
- 2
Remove all-against-all stakes
Reduce forced rankings, routine humiliation, and automatic punishment of the bottom group. Preserve cooperation and psychological safety inside the team.
Pro tip Reward contribution without requiring a colleague to lose their job.
Watch out Relabelling forced ranking as rivalry does not change its structure.
- 3
Choose a bounded rival
Select one relevant opponent, comparison team, or performance benchmark. Keep the rivalry specific enough to focus effort.
Pro tip Prefer an external rival or a friendly team contest over permanent individual ranking.
Watch out Do not invent allegations or hostility to manufacture motivation.
- 4
Create fair skirmishes
Use repeated contests with clear, ethical measures and recoverable losses. Let near misses inform improvement rather than threaten identity or livelihood.
Pro tip Choose a cadence that permits learning between rounds.
- 5
Monitor the trade-off
Track whether rivalry improves useful performance and whether it damages sleep, relationships, cooperation, or judgement. Adjust or stop it when the costs exceed the gain.
Pro tip Define a maximum effort or risk boundary before the contest begins.
Watch out A strong motivational effect does not prove that the total outcome is healthy.
In the wild
Storr describes Enron's rank-and-yank system as competition: employees were repeatedly ranked, a top group advanced, a bottom group was fired, and those in the middle were frightened. He connects that structure with a toxic and potentially corrupt culture.
→ The example shows how making status scarce inside the whole workforce can damage the organisation.
Storr recounts Scott Forstall's story that boasting from a Microsoft executive angered Steve Jobs and helped provoke work on a touch-driven device. Storr uses the episode to show rivalry concentrating effort against an identifiable opponent.
→ The rivalry supplied an intense innovation target, although the anecdote does not establish that rivalry alone created the iPhone.
Common mistakes
Calling forced ranking rivalry
If everyone must defeat everyone else to remain secure, the system retains the all-against-all structure Storr criticises.
Ignoring collateral costs
Bartlett's own fitness rivalry motivated long workouts but harmed sleep and productivity, illustrating the need for limits.
Treating losing as identity failure
A bounded contest becomes dangerous when a loss threatens the person's whole sense of value.
Is it for you?
Best for
Leaders designing performance systems and individuals who respond strongly to a clear opponent or benchmark.
Not ideal for
Safety-critical, cooperative, or health-sensitive settings where rivalry would distort judgement or encourage harmful overwork.
From the transcript
“competition is bad and rivalry is good”
“Rather than being all against all, rivalry is one against one.”
“Most things are trade-offs.”
From the episode
The More Successful You Are The Longer You’ll Live: Will Storr