Stakes and motivation in tournaments : playing when there is nothing to play for but pride

Tournaments are an effective means of incentivising participants to ensure an optimal level of effort. However, situations can occur in tournaments where the final outcome of a given competitor does not depend on his/her future performance. Specifically, we study these specific situations in a data set of the group stages of European football club competitions from 1992 to 2009. We identify situations where teams are already sure to finish either first or last at the penultimate stage in the group. We show that such situations affect team performance in the last match, typically decreasing the performance of a team sure to finish first and increasing the performance of a team sure to finish last. The first finding is in line with the economic predictions yet provides interesting implications, namely that the schedule of the match order plays a significant role in the overall performance of the team. The second, counter-intuitive, finding is not well accommodated into the existing economics framework and thus we discuss two alternative explanations, one based on social pressure and the other on pride.

“Success breeds success” or “Pride goes before a fall”? ☆: Teams and individuals in multi-contest tournaments

We study the impact of progress feedback on players' performance in multi-contest team tournaments, in which team members' efforts are not directly substitutable. In particular, we employ a real-effort laboratory experiment to understand, in a best-of-three tournament, how players' strategic mindsets change when they compete on a team compared to when they compete individually. Our data corroborate the theoretical predictions for teams: Neither a lead nor a lag in the first component contest affects a team's performance in the subsequent contests. In individual tournaments, however, contrary to the theoretical prediction, we observe that leaders perform worse—but laggards perform better—after learning the outcome of the first contest. Our findings offer the first empirical evidence from a controlled laboratory of the impact of progress feedback between team and individual tournaments, and contribute new insights on team incentives.

Multi-modal summarization of key events and top players in sports tournament videos

To detect and annotate the key events of live sports videos, we need to tackle the semantic gaps of audio-visual information. Previous work has successfully extracted semantic from the time-stamped web match reports, which are synchronized with the video contents. However, web and social media articles with no time-stamps have not been fully leveraged, despite they are increasingly used to complement the coverage of major sporting tournaments. This paper aims to address this limitation using a novel multimodal summarization framework that is based on sentiment analysis and players' popularity. It uses audiovisual contents, web articles, blogs, and commentators' speech to automatically annotate and visualize the key events and key players in a sports tournament coverage. The experimental results demonstrate that the automatically generated video summaries are aligned with the events identified from the official website match reports.

Tournament outcomes and prosocial behaviour

Does participation in a tournament influence prosocial behaviour in subsequent interactions? We designed an experiment to collect data on charitable donations made by participants out of their earnings from a real-effort tournament. We varied the earnings associated with ranks across our treatments thereby allowing us to observe donations by participants who end up at different ranks but have the same earnings. Prior to finding out how well they performed, participants were also asked to report their expected rank. Controlling for differences in effort and earnings, participants who were ranked first donated significantly more than others, supporting the view that positive affect from winning may increase generosity. However, we find that this effect diminishes when the difference between realised and expected ranks are controlled for, lending support to the idea that positive surprise from winning also increases generosity.

Do employees care about their relative income position? Behavioral evidence focusing on performance in professional team sport

Objective Do employees care about their relative (economic) position in comparison to their co-workers in an organization? And if so, does it raise or lower their performance? While the topic is widely discussed in the literature, behavioral evidence on these important questions is relatively rare. Methods This article explores the pay-performance relationship using a sports data set. The strength of analyzing such data is that sports tournaments take place in a very controlled environment that helps to isolate a relative income effect. Results Using two large unique data sets that cover 26 seasons in basketball and eight seasons in soccer (Bundesliga), we find considerable support for the idea that a relative income disadvantage is correlated with a decrease in individual performance. In addition, there does not seem to be any tolerance for income disparity based on the hope that such differences may signal that better times are ahead. Conclusions This suggests the need to consider the impact of the relative income position when designing pay-for-performance mechanisms within firms and teams.

Stimulating organizational ingenuity with design methods

Organizations invest in ways to stimulate new ideas for new products and services for the benefit of the organization, engaging in tournaments and competitions to generate new ideas or to combine existing ideas in new ways for new products and services (Terweisch and Uhlrich, 2009). Specifically, some large companies have developed platforms for posting intractable problems to tap into the ideas and problem solving abilities of a broader range of people (Huston and Sakkab, 2006; Morgan and Wang, 2010), and to develop new and elegant solutions often in an open innovation approach (Chesbrough, 2003). The notion of ingenuity is often applied to individuals who create innovative solutions in situations of constraint, where ingenuity in the form of elegant solutions can be understood as one form of resourcefulness (Young, 2011). However, the notion of organizational ingenuity locates ingenuity more centrally to an organization's strategic decision making and implementation, embedding ingenuity into the company's culture. Studies of organizations displaying ingenuity indicate a range of possibilities from extreme ingenuity (Baker and Nelson, 2005) to less dramatic but substantial changes (Thomke, 2003), sometimes in an experimental phase or as part of a move towards a new and distinct identity for ongoing innovation.