When companies hire salespeople, they almost always look for competitiveness. Job listings call for candidates with a “hunger to win.” Interview guides screen for people who want to beat their peers. Business magazines routinely list competitiveness as a defining trait of top sales performers. The assumption is simple: sales is a competitive arena, so competitive people should thrive in it.
But what if the most effective kind of competitiveness in sales is not about beating other people at all? A multi-study research effort published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science investigated a personality trait the researchers call “self-oriented competitiveness,” or SOC. This is the drive to surpass your own previous accomplishments, independent of how anyone else is doing. The findings suggest that salespeople who are wired to compete against themselves may exhibit more productive work behaviors, respond differently to management styles, and benefit from different incentive structures than their peers who are focused on outperforming colleagues.
Redefining what it means to be competitive
The research was led by Wyatt A. Schrock of Michigan State University, along with colleagues Douglas E. Hughes of the University of South Florida, Yanhui Zhao of the University of Nebraska at Omaha, Clay Voorhees of the University of Alabama, and John R. Hollenbeck of Michigan State University. The team began with an observation: virtually all prior sales research treated competitiveness as a single concept, one centered on the desire to outperform other people. This traditional view is known in the literature as “other-oriented competitiveness,” or OOC.
Yet across fields like psychology, economics, sports, and philosophy, scholars have long recognized a different type of competitive drive. It is a person’s desire to beat their own past results, to set and exceed personal records. Researchers in economics have described it as “competition against one’s own previous performance.” Sports philosophers have called it an internal contest “to better what one has done on a previous occasion.” The team wanted to know whether this self-directed competitive drive was a real, measurable personality trait, and whether it mattered for how salespeople behave and perform on the job.
Building and testing the measurement tool
The researchers began with a foundational step: creating a reliable way to measure SOC. Following established procedures for developing survey scales, they started with 24 potential survey items drawn from an extensive review of existing literature. Two groups of insurance salespeople reviewed and refined these items. The researchers then administered the items to 128 undergraduate students in sales-related courses. Statistical analysis narrowed the list to five items that consistently captured the concept. Sample items include “Achieving a new personal record (personal best) is something that is important to me” and “I always strive to surpass my prior accomplishments.”
The team then ran a series of follow-up studies with hundreds of salespeople recruited through market research panels and a mobile phone provider. These studies tested whether SOC was genuinely distinct from related concepts, including OOC, need for achievement (a general desire to do things well), goal orientations, and intrinsic motivation (the enjoyment a person gets from doing a task for its own sake). Across all samples, the SOC scale proved reliable and statistically separate from each of these other constructs. SOC and intrinsic motivation, for example, were related but not the same. A person could be highly motivated to beat their previous sales numbers on a task they did not find inherently enjoyable.
One particularly informative sub-study tracked 20 salespeople at a mobile phone company over 10 weeks. Intrinsic motivation, which reflects how interesting or enjoyable a person finds selling, was the only significant predictor of weekly job satisfaction. But SOC, not intrinsic motivation, was the significant predictor of actual sales and gross profits.
A field experiment with sales contests
The second major study moved from measurement to real-world application. The researchers partnered with a large U.S. financial services firm that employed hundreds of inside salespeople, all working in the same building but spread across two floors. The firm agreed to run two different week-long sales contests simultaneously, with each floor randomly assigned to one of two contest designs.
On one floor, the contest was traditional: a monetary prize went to the salesperson who closed the most deals, rewarding the person who outperformed everyone else. On the other floor, the same monetary prize went to the salesperson who achieved the largest improvement over their own performance from a baseline period two weeks earlier. To prevent salespeople from intentionally sandbagging, or holding back deals to inflate later gains, the contests were announced as a surprise on Monday morning of the contest week.
Before the experiment, all 285 salespeople had completed surveys measuring both SOC and OOC. Based on their scores, each salesperson was classified as either predominantly self-oriented or other-oriented in their competitiveness. The analysis included 174 salespeople who had both complete survey data and performance records for the relevant time frame.
The results showed a clear interaction. Neither the contest design alone nor the competitive orientation alone had a significant main effect on performance. But the combination mattered. Salespeople who were predominantly other-oriented competitive achieved greater performance gains in the “compete-with-others” contest. Those who were predominantly self-oriented competitive achieved greater gains in the “compete-with-self” contest. Notably, when the contest design did not match their competitive orientation, high-OOC salespeople in the self-competition contest actually saw a slight performance decrease relative to their baseline.
How different types of competitiveness shape daily behavior
The third and largest study examined how SOC and OOC relate to everyday workplace behaviors and how a manager’s leadership style interacts with a salesperson’s competitive orientation. This study used the same financial services firm but involved 155 matched pairs of salespeople and their direct sales managers, along with objective performance data from company records.
The researchers measured three salesperson behaviors. “Working hard” was captured using objective data from the company: total talk time, reflecting how much time a salesperson actually spent selling. “Working smart” was a composite of planning, flexibility, and adaptive selling, based on self-reports. “Helping behavior,” which refers to things like sharing tips with teammates and helping orient new hires, was rated by each salesperson’s manager.
The findings revealed notable differences between the two types of competitiveness. OOC showed no significant relationship with working hard or working smart. It was, however, negatively linked to helping behavior. Salespeople who were driven to beat others were less likely to assist their teammates. SOC, on the other hand, was positively linked to all three behaviors. Self-oriented competitors worked harder (objectively), worked smarter, and were rated as more helpful by their managers.
The double-edged sword of achievement-oriented leadership
The study also measured a leadership style called achievement-oriented leader behavior, or AOLB. This involves managers setting high standards for their team members, expressing confidence in their abilities, and encouraging self-evaluation and continual improvement. Salespeople rated their managers on these behaviors, and the researchers then tested whether AOLB changed the relationship between a salesperson’s competitive orientation and their work behaviors.
The results pointed to an important tension. For salespeople high in OOC, working under an achievement-oriented manager was linked to increased “working smart” behaviors. In other words, a manager pushing for excellence seemed to help other-oriented competitors channel their energy into productive strategies like planning and adapting.
For salespeople high in SOC, the pattern reversed. When these self-competing salespeople worked under an achievement-oriented manager, the positive link between their SOC and working hard weakened significantly. The same happened with helping behavior. The researchers interpreted this through the lens of “person-supervisor fit.” Because self-oriented competitors are already internally driven to evaluate themselves and pursue continual improvement, a manager who emphasizes the same things may feel redundant or even frustrating. The extra push, rather than adding value, may crowd out the person’s own internal motivation.
What drove actual sales performance
When the researchers looked at what predicted objective sales performance (deals closed, as tracked by the company), working hard and helping behavior were both significantly and positively associated with results. Working smart alone did not have a significant direct effect on performance, though there was a significant positive interaction between working hard and working smart. This suggests that planning and adapting may amplify the value of effort, rather than driving results on their own.
What this means for sales organizations
The practical takeaways span three areas of sales management: hiring, incentive design, and leadership.
On hiring, the findings suggest that a one-dimensional focus on competitive drive, meaning the desire to beat other people, may be incomplete. OOC did not show a significant relationship with effort or strategic selling behavior when SOC was accounted for, and it was negatively associated with teamwork. Sales organizations may benefit from screening for candidates who are driven to top their own personal bests, not just their colleagues.
On incentive design, the field experiment showed that not all salespeople respond equally to the same contest structure. Offering a mix of contest types, or even allowing salespeople to opt into the structure that best fits their competitive orientation, could produce stronger overall results.
On leadership, the research indicates there may not be a universally optimal management style. Achievement-oriented leadership appeared to benefit other-oriented competitors but worked against self-oriented competitors. Managers may need to assess the motivational makeup of their team members and adjust their approach accordingly, rather than applying a single leadership template across the board.
Important limitations to keep in mind
The studies were conducted with a single company for the field experiment and the third study. While this offered consistency and control, it also means the findings may not generalize to all sales environments or industries. The sample for the longitudinal sub-study on weekly performance was small, involving only 20 salespeople. And because Study 3 was not an experiment (except for the contest portion in Study 2), the relationships observed between competitiveness, behavior, and performance are associations, not confirmed cause-and-effect chains. The researchers also focused on only one type of leadership behavior; other styles may interact differently with SOC.
Still, the research opens up new questions. If self-oriented competitiveness is as distinct and relevant as these studies suggest, it may warrant attention not just in sales, but in any performance-driven role where the instinct to improve is at least as important as the instinct to win.
![[Adobe Stock]](https://www.psychologyofselling.pro/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/happy-businessman-shaking-hands-350x250.jpg)
