Die Auswirkungen von Neid auf individuelle Leistungen: Ergebnisse einer Panelanalyse

Relative Einkommensunterschiede lösen innerhalb einer Referenzgruppe oftmals Neid aus und beeinflussen damit die individuelle Leistungsbereitschaft. In der ökonomischen Forschung ist bislang dieser Zusammenhang wenig untersucht worden. Unser Beitrag analysiert den Einfluss von relativen Einkommensunterschieden auf die Leistung von Fußballprofis der deutschen Bundesliga. Insgesamt werden 1040 Spieler über einen Zeitraum von 8 Spielzeiten zwischen 1995 und 2004 untersucht. Relative Einkommensunterschiede zwischen Mannschaftskollegen erweisen sich als entscheidender Einfluss auf die individuelle Leistung der Spieler. Eine Verschlechterung in der relativen Einkommensposition vermindert ceteris paribus die individuelle Leistungsbereitschaft. Eine höhere Einkommensungleichheit verstärkt solche positionsbedingten Externalitäten. Relative income differences are likely to lead to envy within a reference group. Envy in turn influences social behavior and individual performance. While positional concerns are apparent in daily life, empirical evidence is rare in the economic literature. This paper investigates the impact of the relative income position on individuals’ performance or productivity. As „performance“ is difficult to measure we turn to soccer players whose performance has been well documented. The broad sample covers eight seasons of the German premier soccer league (Bundesliga) between 1995 and 2004, and includes 1040 players, a salary proxy and several performance variables. The results show that player performance is strongly affected by relative income position. A disadvantage in the relative income position reduces productivity. The larger the income differences within a team, the stronger are the effects of positional concern. Team composition also significantly affects behaviour.

The David and Goliath principle: Cultural, ideological, and attitudinal underpinnings of the normative protection of low-status groups from criticism

Two studies documented the “David and Goliath” rule—the tendency for people to perceive criticism of “David” groups (groups with low power and status) as less normatively permissible than criticism of “Goliath” groups (groups with high power and status). The authors confirmed the existence of the David and Goliath rule across Western and Chinese cultures (Study 1). However, the rule was endorsed more strongly in Western than in Chinese cultures, an effect mediated by cultural differences in power distance. Study 2 identified the psychological underpinnings of this rule in an Australian sample. Lower social dominance orientation (SDO) was associated with greater endorsement of the rule, an effect mediated through the differential attribution of stereotypes. Specifically, those low in SDO were more likely to attribute traits of warmth and incompetence to David versus Goliath groups, a pattern of stereotypes that was related to the protection of David groups from criticism.

David Clutterbuck, mentoring and coaching - A commentary

Simon Jenkins, in his stimulus piece on David Clutterbuck amply demonstrates just how prolific Clutterbuck has been over a working lifetime. Generally accepted as the person who introduced supported mentoring into Europe, Clutterbuck has written widely on matters that relate to relationships, processes, evidence (and its capacity or otherwise to influence practice), procedures, complexity, management, supervision, guidance (of one kind or another); the list goes on. It is an impressive vita indeed and yet, Clutterbuck’s influence on the world of sports and more specifically, sports coaching; remains relatively modest. Of course this is the purpose of Jenkins’ piece, to stimulate our thought processes such that our attention can be drawn to the possible impact Clutterbuck might have in sport, sports coaching, and athlete and coach mentoring. If nothing else, this is an admirable challenge that Jenkins has set himself.