Competence involves being good at something. It is a reflection of skill in a defined area. To have competence we need to know what we’re trying to achieve. There must be a clear goal or objective. Sport is an arena that allows participants to develop and demonstrate their competence. It’s one of the things that make sport compelling to both observe and participate. As observers we enjoy watching others showcase their skills and as participants, we enjoy the effort at improving.
It’s no accident that the word competence is built upon the word compete. Competing is at the heart of cultivating competence. Merriam-Webster defines compete “to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective.” We compete to develop competence. We strive with our efforts for something specific. The better we can do this, the more competence we have. Yes, competition can involve others.
Kenyan runner, Eliud Kipchoge, broke the two-hour barrier in the marathon in October 2019. This is an unbelievable accomplishment. It was (and still remains as such for some) the last great barrier beyond breaking the four-minute mile in running. If you have any familiarity with running, you just can’t help but be awed by the pace these athletes are able to sustain for the 42+ kilometre event. Even the fittest of us would struggle to keep up with Kipchoge for one hundred metres let alone a kilometre. In the event in which two hours was broken, Kipchoge benefitted from “help”. He had between 10 and 15 pacesetters in the event.
Teams of runners ran with Kipchoge for sections of the event. Each had a specific role to play. They provided familiarity as well as inspired confidence in the race plan. Their presence was to help Kipchoge maintain a pace as well as to block some wind for him making his path easier. The teams would place themselves in front of and behind Kipchoge serving as a slip stream. The teams ran with Kipchoge for several kilometres before being interchanged with another group. This process was choreographed to the step carefully managing each exit and entrance of pacesetters.
Collectively, they helped Kipchoge stay the course. They planned the race, then raced the plan. One by one, these pacesetters delivered Kipchoge to the pinnacle of performance. Striding side by side with Kipchoge these pacesetters represent what we can cherish about competition. They weren’t there to beat Kipchoge. Kipchoge wasn’t other oriented in the event. He was working within himself. He was competing with his best effort. He was competing with his past and his plan. It wasn’t about a placing in the event, it was about him and the clock.
In fact, in any distance outside 400m, world records have not been accomplished without the help of pacesetters. Some may see this with cynicism, downplaying the result as not being “real”. If one didn’t earn it on their own, then it doesn’t “count”. Instead, we’d offer that a pacesetter is exactly what we all need for ourselves. Our performance is improved by having someone beside us “pulling” us forward.
We shouldn’t chastise or castigate competition but cherish it. Competition, at its best, is not with respect to comparing to others, but with ourselves. We are striving to become better today than we were yesterday. By putting ourselves in an arena against another, we’re forced to find a way to seek improvement. Po Bronson’s excellent book, Top Dog: The Science of Winning and Losing details the first recorded psychology test undertaken by Norman Triplett in 1898.
Triplett was a fan of cycling who observed that times on similar distance races were much faster where groups were racing compared to individual time trials. He devised a study to test the idea of how groups impact performance. He contrived of a machine that looked a bit like a stationary row machine. It became known as the “Competition Machine.” It was something with which participants would not have had experience.
Subjects were first introduced to using the machine. They fiddled with it for a few minutes and got the “idea” or “feel” for how it works. Triplett then had subjects seek to work as hard as they could at the task for a brief period either individually or in groupings. He told them that he would measure their performance and they were now “competing” with other subjects.
He found that with various groupings performance substantially improved compared to those working alone. This was the case for subjects whether they “won” or “lost” the “contest.” That is, those that didn’t win their competition with one or more competitors still, as a group, outperformed those competing alone.
The observation resulting from Triplett’s experiments was that “The real benefit of competition is not winning—it is improved performance. Competition liberates, or generates, hidden reserves of additional effort. Competitors discover an extra gear. And in the right circumstances, this happens even if you ultimately don’t win the contest. Competition facilitates improvement.” A Roman poet, Ovid, made the same observation confirmed in Triplett’s studies over two thousand years ago when he wrote, “A horse never runs so fast as when he has other horses to catch up and outpace.”
Many studies have since replicated Triplett’s initial findings. They consistently show that 50-75% of us benefit from performing better under competitive situations. However, there are factors related to the nature of competition that can impact our performances.
In groups where the skill ranges are wide, both those demonstrating prowess and those lagging lose. Those with demonstrable skills are likely to exert less effort and coast when they see themselves as being much better than their teammates. Whereas laggards, too, exert less effort and withdraw from participation as they seem themselves hopelessly behind. Both lose from mismatched groupings.
The takeaway from studies such as these is that a key driver for creating a group to provide the greatest opportunity for most members to get the most out of the experience is to match based on skill. Matching members as closely as possible on the skill will do wonders in terms of enabling members to fully engage. Seeing that others around you possess similar skills encourages individuals to embrace effort, participate fully, and, consequently, to develop their skills.
In short, groupings matter to maximizing our development. Our peers have a purpose. If your organization’s goal is to give employees opportunities to improve, then coordinating cohorts for training and business development objectives may be a secret sauce.
Ensuring all members of a group feel they have the opportunity to succeed and compete closely with others in the group will be a key factor to driving the individual efforts brought forth. This engagement or effort of participants is a key factor in driving their development forward.
Competing is sometimes frowned upon. We consider it childish, not constructive, or fostering the worst within us. However, competition doesn’t have to be cutthroat. As the above examples reflect, we’re truly better together. We need each other.
Even in an individual sport like ski racing, peers make a difference. The small Scandinavian country of Norway has been a consistent powerhouse producing excellence for both men and women in Alpine Ski racing for several decades. They would seem to have nothing but disadvantages with limited resources and talent pools relative to other major ski racing nations. However, they embrace a team perspective. One of their star athletes, Kjetil Jansrud, said “It’s an individual sport for one minute and 30 seconds and otherwise it’s a team sport.” Yes, they are competing with others on their team and others from around the world. However, the competitions themselves involve short performances. The training time relative to competitions is many, many times greater. The improvements are made during the efforts in training. Who we train with influences how hard we work which translates into talent. The better our peers, the better our prospects. Progress is propelled forward by the quality of our peers.
Our collective competence would be compromised without competition. We need each other. We’re truly better together. Providing opportunities to compete to foster organizational improvement is worthwhile. Competition cultivates competence. Consider curating competitive cohorts to drive the development of competence within your organization.
“As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” Proverbs 27:17.
