Does workplace competition kill women's creativity? via @FastCompany
Click here to preview the new Fast Company

Want to try out the new

If you’d like to return to the previous design, click the yellow button on the lower left corner.

Does Workplace Competition Kill Women's Creativity?

New research indicates that competitive workplace environments help men outperform women.

According to new study released this week by Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis, competitive workplaces help men thrive, but diminish women’s chance of success.

While recent research suggests that women play better in small team environments, boosting group creativity and cooperation, this new study introduces a major caveat: When teams are forced to go head-to-head with one another, women’s creative output goes down. In fact, the more intense the competition, the weaker women perform.

"In general, women do much better than men when they are working in a team," Markus Baer, the lead researcher for the study, tells me. "As soon as you introduce competition, forcing teams to compete with one another for resources or a prize, women perform worse. When you crank up the heat, women somehow stop doing the behaviors that help them succeed when they are working in a team."

Baer says that there are some exceptions to this rule. Women tend to compete better when they are working on behalf of another party, such as during a negotiation. Some women are also outliers, self-selecting into highly competitive, male-dominated fields, because they know they have the skills to succeed. "On average, though, competition does not help women, but it certainly helps men—that part is clear. If it helps men outperform women, competition introduces a disadvantage to the workplace," he explains.

If you’re a manager planning a friendly challenge between teams you supervise, you might want to rethink your strategy: a competition could give male employees a leg up over their female counterparts.

Baer suggests that a good compromise could be to carry out more complex competition models that bring in aspects of collaboration. At Google X, for instance, he observed a scenario where the total amount of money the victorious team could win would go down if neither team had found a solution to the problem in a given time. This forced opposing teams to share ideas in the hope that one team could find the answer before the prize money began to evaporate.

[Women Defending: Everett Collection via Shutterstock]

Add New Comment


  • Apart from the lamentable grammar in this piece, other considerations are how far head-to-head competition proves productive for anyone. Whether you're looking at individuals or companies, the track record for competition is dismal. It inhibits sharing, trust and openness, encourages copying and cloning, drives standards down and inhibits innovation. The real surprise is that anyone still believes that it works. There are far better, smarter ways to manage people and business than the gladiatorial management style.

  • And, just like that, the left's first volley to outlaw competition is fired. Because, after all, aren't competitive people really just bullies? (I enter this for the historical record so I may point to it when these arguments are invariably put forth.)

    But there is an issue here, though not what Baer suggests. The issue is women being raised to feel unworthy of winning. The evidence is that they have no quarrel competing for others, but won't do it for themselves.

    Like most social constraints individual women face, it is on their parents. The "outliers" as you call them are those fortunate to have had better parents. Until society is willing to root out misogyny in its popular forms, liberal band aids will do nothing to cure the problem.