Build a culture where competition motivates and collaboration compounds. Without sacrificing either.

Dr. Iona Naismith, Braintrust Certified Coach and Clinical Psychologist, gives leaders the neuroscience and the practical framework to stop choosing sides and start building conditions where both drives produce results.

34 min

Leaders and Teams

Performance Guaranteed

What the Research Shows

The Leaders Who Win Are Not Choosing Sides. They Are Building the Conditions.

The brain is not wired for either/or. Competition and collaboration activate different neural circuits, and high-performing teams do not pick between them. They create the psychological safety and leadership quality that makes both drives work in their favor at the same time.

The neuroscience here is not theoretical. Our brains are fueled by dopamine and wired for achievement and status-seeking. That drive is real, valid, and worth cultivating. Long-distance runners genuinely run faster when their rival is in the race. But a decade-long study of hedge fund managers found that those lowest in empathy and highest in narcissism earned 15% less over ten years than their more collaborative counterparts. That is not opinion. That is the data.

What determines whether competition helps or hurts comes down to two things: the quality of leadership in the room, and the individual's own collaboration profile. Research by Professor Spurr found that high competitive pressure was motivating under strong, supportive leaders and produced burnout under weak ones. The same environment. Opposite outcomes. Entirely dependent on who was leading.

The Frameworks

The Science Behind Why It Matters

Dr. Naismith grounds every insight in decades of organizational psychology research. Here are the core frameworks she unpacks.

Framework

Psychological Safety

Harvard professor Amy Edmondson developed this concept while studying medical teams. She expected stronger teams to make fewer mistakes. She found the opposite. Higher-performing teams reported more errors, not because they made more, but because they felt safe enough to admit them. That is the insight. Without psychological safety, competition does not motivate. It threatens. And threatened brains do not perform.

Typology

Givers, Takers, and Matchers

Adam Grant's framework from "Give and Take" categorizes how people approach collaboration at work. Givers help without expectation. Takers extract and give back as little as possible. Matchers operate on reciprocity. Most people are matchers, even if they believe they are givers. The critical finding: givers either perform best or worst depending on how strategically they give. Generosity without strategy leads to burnout. Strategic generosity compounds over time.

Research

Leader-Member Exchange

Professor Spurr's research on academics under competitive pressure revealed a clear pattern: high competition under a strong, supportive leader is motivating. High competition under a weak or distant leader produces burnout. Same environment. Opposite outcomes. The variable is not the pressure. It is the leader. This is why leadership quality is not a soft metric. It is the deciding factor in whether competition helps or destroys.

Mindset

Scarcity vs. Abundance Mindset

A scarcity mindset treats opportunity as zero-sum: if someone else wins, you lose. It drives hyper-competitive behavior and makes collaboration feel like a liability. An abundance mindset recognizes that collective success creates more opportunity than individual hoarding. Research shows minority groups are more likely to operate from a scarcity mindset due to systemic barriers, which pushes them toward competition even when collaboration would serve them better. The mindset is the lever.

15%

Less earned over 10 years by hedge fund managers who prioritized self-interest over collaboration

Longitudinal Research Study

10 yrs

Duration researchers tracked hedge fund managers to measure how empathy and collaboration affect earnings

Same Longitudinal Study

Conditions that make high competition motivating rather than harmful: strong leader support and individual fit

Prof. Spurr, University of Switzerland

Questions Worth Asking

The Questions Leaders Are Asking

What is psychological safety and why does it matter for team performance?

Psychological safety is the shared belief that it is safe to ask questions, admit mistakes, and challenge ideas without fear of punishment or humiliation. Amy Edmondson's research on nursing teams revealed something counterintuitive: the highest-performing teams reported the most errors. Not because they made more mistakes. Because they felt safe enough to say so. Without that foundation, people protect themselves instead of the team. Competition accelerates that breakdown. It does not reverse it.

Does being collaborative hurt your career?

No. A decade-long study of hedge fund managers found that those lowest in empathy and highest in narcissism earned 15% less over ten years than their more collaborative counterparts. The lone-wolf strategy feels like it is working until the data shows it is not. Adam Grant's research on givers, takers, and matchers reinforces this: the most successful professionals are not the most generous. They are the most strategic with their generosity. That distinction matters.

How do you know if you are a giver, taker, or matcher at work?

Givers help because it feels right. Takers help when it benefits them, typically upward toward more senior people. Matchers reciprocate but do not go beyond what they have received. Most people believe they are givers. The research says most people are matchers. The honest test: do you help when no one is watching and there is nothing to gain? That answer tells you more than any self-assessment.

What is the single most important thing a leader can do to build a more collaborative culture?

Start with collaboration before you need it. The research is clear: collaborative cultures are harder to rebuild than to build. Once a competitive dynamic takes hold, trust erodes fast and takes a long time to recover. The practical lever is what you measure and reward day to day. Not just team results, but how people show up for each other. And when you hire or promote, look hard at whether someone is a giver, a taker, or a matcher. Takers reshape culture quietly. One of them in the wrong seat undoes what it took months to build.

"The goal is not to get rid of competition. The goal is to stop letting it get in the way of the thing that actually drives performance: trust."

Dr. Iona Naismith

Doctor of Clinical Psychology, Professor of Psychology, Braintrust Certified Coach

Start a Conversation

Bring this thinking into your organization.

If this conversation surfaced something real in your team, let's talk about what that looks like in practice. Our coaches work with sales leaders and HR teams to build the conditions where performance and collaboration aren't in competition.