Wharton professor: peer rivalry damages team collaboration

The documented claim

Henning Piezunka, Associate Professor of Management at Wharton School, examined how peer competition damages collaboration and changes working relationships, according to a September 2, 2026 podcast announcement on Wharton Knowledge. The announcement does not provide research methods, sample size, industries studied, or quantitative findings. It does not specify whether the work has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or whether it is part of a larger research program.

Why this matters for leadership teams

Peer competition is built into many executive teams. Succession planning, performance rankings, and resource allocation create conditions in which colleagues compete while being asked to collaborate. Most leadership development programs treat competition as a motivational tool. If the research Piezunka describes shows that peer rivalry damages collaboration, that assumption needs re-examination.

Coaches working with C-suite teams often encounter tension between individual ambition and collective goals. The question is whether that tension is a personality issue or a design problem. If competition is built into the incentive structure, coaching individuals will not resolve it.

The distinction determines where to intervene. If the problem is interpersonal, coaching can address it. If the problem is structural, the intervention needs to happen at the level of incentives, metrics, or organizational design. Treating a structural problem as a personality issue wastes time and money.

What the source tells us

The Wharton Knowledge podcast announcement, published on September 2, 2026, states that Henning Piezunka, Associate Professor of Management at Wharton School, examines how competition between colleagues can damage collaboration and change working relationships. The announcement is available at knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/podcast/this-week-in-business/when-teammates-become-competitors/.

The announcement does not describe the research design. It does not state whether Piezunka used experimental methods, observational data, case studies, or a combination. It does not name the organizations, industries, or roles studied. It does not provide quantitative findings, such as the magnitude of the effect of competition on collaboration or the conditions under which the effect is strongest or absent.

The announcement does not indicate whether the research has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at a conference, or is part of a working paper. It does not describe interventions or structural changes that might mitigate the damage from peer competition. It does not state whether the findings apply to all forms of competition or only to specific contexts.

The format is a podcast announcement, not a research summary or press release. The level of detail is limited by design. The announcement introduces the topic and the researcher, not the findings. For practitioners who need to make decisions based on the research, the announcement is a signal to look for the full publication when it becomes available.

What the source does not tell us

The available evidence leaves several questions unanswered. What research methods did Piezunka use? Was the study experimental, with controlled conditions and random assignment, or observational, tracking teams over time? Did it rely on surveys, behavioral data, or case interviews? The method determines what kind of causal claims the research can support.

What industries or organizational contexts did the research cover? Were the teams studied in technology companies, financial services, healthcare, or other sectors? Were they executive teams, project teams, or cross-functional groups? The dynamics of competition vary by industry, role, and organizational structure.

What quantitative findings emerged? Did the research measure collaboration through outcomes such as project completion rates, information sharing, or decision quality? Did it quantify the relationship between competition and collaboration, and if so, what was the effect size? Numbers allow practitioners to assess the magnitude of the problem and compare it to other factors.

Did Piezunka identify conditions under which peer competition does not damage collaboration? Are there team structures, incentive designs, or leadership practices that allow competition and collaboration to coexist? The boundary conditions determine whether the finding is universal or context-dependent.

What interventions or structural changes did the research suggest? If competition damages collaboration, what can executives or coaches do about it? Are there specific practices that reduce the harm? The practical recommendations determine whether the research is actionable.

Is this part of a larger research program or a standalone study? Has Piezunka published related work on competition, collaboration, or team dynamics? Has the underlying research been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and if so, where? The publication history provides context for the credibility and scope of the findings.

What this means for coaches and executives

If peer competition damages collaboration, the question for coaches and executives is when to ask about it and how to frame the question. In our 2026 nominations data, coaches working with leadership teams reported that competition-related tension was most visible during succession planning, budget cycles, and reorganizations. Those are the moments when the structure of competition becomes explicit.

The useful question is not whether team members like each other. It is whether the incentive structure rewards individual performance at the expense of collective outcomes. If two executives are competing for the same role, they are unlikely to share information freely, even if a coach asks them to. That is not a failure of coaching. It is a design problem.

Coaches can ask executives to describe how performance is measured and rewarded. If individual metrics dominate, collaboration will be secondary. If bonuses, promotions, and visibility depend on outperforming peers, the team will act accordingly. The question is whether that is intentional.

Executives can ask whether the competition they have designed is producing the collaboration they need. If the answer is no, the problem is not the people. It is the system. Changing the system requires changing the metrics, the rewards, or the structure. Coaching can support that work, but it cannot replace it.

The Wharton announcement does not provide enough detail to recommend specific interventions. It does not describe what Piezunka found or what he suggests. Until the research is published in full, the practical question is whether the pattern he describes matches what you see in your own teams. If it does, the next step is not to coach harder. It is to examine the structure.

For coaches, the implication is that peer competition may be a constraint, not a variable. If the incentive structure rewards rivalry, coaching for collaboration will face headwinds. The question to ask in a discovery call is not only what the engagement is meant to achieve, but also what structural factors might work against it. If those factors are not addressed, the engagement may not succeed, regardless of the coach's skill.

For executives, the implication is that competition is not cost-free. If it damages collaboration, the trade-off needs to be explicit. The question is whether the benefits of competition, such as motivation or performance differentiation, outweigh the costs in terms of information sharing, joint problem-solving, and trust. That is a decision, not a default.

When to raise the question

The question of peer competition is most useful at three points. The first is during the design of an engagement. If a coach is asked to improve collaboration on a leadership team, the discovery call should include questions about how individual performance is measured and rewarded. If the incentive structure creates competition, that is a constraint the engagement needs to account for.

The second is during a reorganization or succession planning process. Those are the moments when competition becomes explicit and when the damage to collaboration is most likely to surface. If executives are competing for roles or resources, the question is whether the process is designed to surface the best decision or to create winners and losers.

The third is during a performance review cycle. If individual metrics dominate and collaboration is not measured or rewarded, the message to the team is clear. The question is whether that message is intentional and whether it aligns with the organization's stated goals.

What to watch for

The signs of damaging peer competition are not always obvious. They include information hoarding, where team members withhold data or insights that could benefit colleagues. They include credit-claiming, where individuals take sole ownership of joint work. They include siloing, where teams or functions stop coordinating because coordination benefits a peer more than it benefits the individual.

They also include risk aversion, where team members avoid joint projects because failure would be shared but success would be attributed to one person. They include escalation, where decisions that could be made at the team level are pushed up to a manager because team members do not trust each other to negotiate fairly.

These patterns are not always the result of competition. They can also result from poor communication, unclear roles, or lack of trust. The question is whether the incentive structure is contributing to the problem. If it is, coaching alone will not resolve it.

What remains unclear

The Wharton announcement does not provide enough detail to assess the strength of the evidence or the scope of the findings. It does not describe the research design, the sample, the measures, or the results. It does not indicate whether the research has been peer-reviewed or published. It does not describe the conditions under which competition damages collaboration or the interventions that might reduce the harm.

The announcement is a signal, not a conclusion. It suggests that peer competition is worth examining, but it does not provide the evidence needed to make specific recommendations. For practitioners, the useful step is to treat the announcement as a prompt to examine their own teams and incentive structures, not as a definitive finding.

How to use this information

If you are a coach working with a leadership team, ask about the incentive structure in the discovery call. Ask how individual performance is measured and rewarded. Ask whether collaboration is measured and, if so, how. Ask whether team members are competing for roles, resources, or visibility. If the answers suggest that competition is built into the system, discuss whether the engagement can address that constraint or whether the client needs to address it first.

If you are an executive designing a leadership team, ask whether the competition you have created is producing the collaboration you need. Ask whether individual metrics dominate and whether collaboration is rewarded. Ask whether succession planning, budget cycles, and reorganizations are creating competition that damages collaboration. If the answer is yes, the question is whether that trade-off is intentional and whether it aligns with your goals.

If you are an HR leader or organizational development professional, ask whether the incentive structure is aligned with the organization's stated values. If the organization says it values collaboration but rewards individual performance, the message to employees is clear. The question is whether that message is intentional and whether it is producing the outcomes you want.

Source

• When Teammates Become Competitors, Wharton Knowledge podcast announcement, September 2, 2026