Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Competition and Collaboration in Crowdsourcing Communities: : What Happens When Peers Evaluate Each Other?

Published: 01 November 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Crowdsourcing has evolved as an organizational approach to distributed problem solving and innovation. As contests are embedded in online communities and evaluation rights are assigned to the crowd, community members face a tension: They find themselves exposed to both competitive motives to win the contest prize and collaborative participation motives in the community. The competitive motive suggests they may evaluate rivals strategically according to their self-interest, the collaborative motive suggests they may evaluate their peers truthfully according to mutual interest. Using field data from Threadless on 38 million peer evaluations of more than 150,000 submissions across 75,000 individuals over 10 years and two natural experiments to rule out alternative explanations, we answer the question of how community members resolve this tension. We show that as their skill level increases, they become increasingly competitive and shift from using self-promotion to sabotaging their closest competitors. However, we also find signs of collaborative behavior when high-skilled members show leniency toward those community members who do not directly threaten their chance of winning. We explain how the individual-level use of strategic evaluations translates into important organizational-level outcomes by affecting the community structure through individuals’ long-term participation. Although low-skill targets of sabotage are less likely to participate in future contests, high-skill targets are more likely. This suggests a feedback loop between competitive evaluation behavior and future participation. These findings have important implications for the literature on crowdsourcing design, and the evolution and sustainability of crowdsourcing communities.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [Grant IIS-1514283] and the U.S. Office of Naval Research [Grant N00014-17-1-2542].
Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15163.

References

[1]
Aadland E, Cattani G, Ferriani S (2019) Friends, gifts, and cliques: Social proximity and recognition in peer-based tournament rituals. Acad. Management J. 62(3):883–917.
[2]
Abeler J, Nosenzo D, Raymond C (2019) Preferences for truth-telling. Econometrica 87(4):1115–1153.
[3]
Adler PS, Chen CX (2011) Combining creativity and control: Understanding individual motivation in large-scale collaborative creativity. Accounting Organ. Soc. 36(2):63–85.
[4]
Afuah A, Tucci CL (2023) Reflections on the 2022 AMR decade award: Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Acad. Management Rev. 48(4):597–610.
[5]
Angrist JD (2001) Estimation of limited dependent variable models with dummy endogenous regressors. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 19(1):2–28.
[6]
Archak N (2010) Money, glory and cheap talk: Analyzing strategic behavior of contestants in simultaneous crowdsourcing contests on TopCoder.com. Proc. 19th Internat. Conf. World Wide Web (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 21–30.
[7]
Archak N, Sundararajan A (2009) Optimal design of crowdsourcing contests. Proc. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (Association for Information Systems, Atlanta, GA), 200.
[8]
Ashforth BE, Johnson SA (2001) Which hat to wear. Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts (Psychology Press, New York), 31–48.
[9]
Balietti S, Riedl C (2021) Incentives, competition, and inequality in markets for creative production. Res. Policy 50(4):104212.
[10]
Bauer J, Franke N, Tuertscher P (2016) Intellectual property norms in online communities: How user-organized intellectual property regulation supports innovation. Inform. Systems Res. 27(4):724–750.
[11]
Belenzon S, Schankerman M (2015) Motivation and sorting of human capital in open innovation. Strategic Management J. 36(6):795–820.
[12]
Benabou R, Tirole J (2002) Self-confidence and personal motivation. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):871–915.
[13]
Berg JM (2016) Balancing on the creative highwire: Forecasting the success of novel ideas in organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(3):433–468.
[14]
Blanken I, Van De Ven N, Zeelenberg M (2015) A meta-analytic review of moral licensing. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 41(4):540–558.
[15]
Blohm I, Riedl C, Füller J, Leimeister JM (2016) Rate or trade? Identifying winning ideas in open idea sourcing. Inform. Systems Res. 27(1):27–48.
[16]
Bockstedt J, Druehl C, Mishra A (2016) Heterogeneous submission behavior and its implications for success in innovation contests with public submissions. Production Oper. Management 25(7):1157–1176.
[17]
Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G (2009) Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323(5916):892–895.
[18]
Boudreau KJ, Lakhani KR (2015) “Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology. Res. Policy 44(1):4–19.
[19]
Boudreau KJ, Lakhani KR, Menietti M (2016) Performance responses to competition across skill levels in rank-order tournaments: Field evidence and implications for tournament design. RAND J. Econom. 47(1):140–165.
[20]
Brabham DC (2010) Moving the crowd at threadless. Inform. Comm. Soc. 13(8):1122–1145.
[21]
Bullinger AC, Neyer AK, Rass M, Moeslein KM (2010) Community-based innovation contests: Where competition meets cooperation. Creative Innovation Management 19(3):290–303.
[22]
Camerer C, Lovallo D (1999) Overconfidence and excess entry: An experimental approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89(1):306–318.
[23]
Chambers CR, Baker WE (2020) Robust systems of cooperation in the presence of rankings: How displaying prosocial contributions can offset the disruptive effects of performance rankings. Organ. Sci. 31(2):287–307.
[24]
Charness G, Masclet D, Villeval MC (2014) The dark side of competition for status. Management Sci. 60(1):38–55.
[25]
Chen KP (2003) Sabotage in promotion tournaments. J. Law Econom. Organ. 19(1):119–140.
[26]
Chen P, Sun H, Fang Y, Liu X (2020) Conan: A framework for detecting and handling collusion in crowdsourcing. Inform. Sci. 515(April):44–63.
[27]
Chiu CM, Huang HY, Cheng HL, Sun PC (2015) Understanding online community citizenship behaviors through social support and social identity. Internat. J. Inform. Management 35(4):504–519.
[28]
Cropanzano R, Goldman B, Folger R (2005) Self-interest: Defining and understanding a human motive. J. Organ. Behav. 26(8):985–991.
[29]
Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (Harper & Row, New York).
[30]
Dahlander L, O’Mahony S (2011) Progressing to the center: Coordinating project work. Organ. Sci. 22(4):961–979.
[31]
Dahlander L, Jeppesen LB, Piezunka H (2019) How organizations manage crowds: Define, broadcast, attract, and select. Sydow J, Berends H, eds. Managing Inter-Organizational Collaborations: Process Views, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 64 (Emerald, Leeds, UK), 239–270.
[32]
Dahlander L, O’Mahony S, Gann DM (2016) One foot in, one foot out: How does individuals’ external search breadth affect innovation outcomes? Strategic Management J. 37(2):280–302.
[33]
Deodhar SJ, Babar Y, Burtch G (2022) The influence of status on evaluations: Evidence from online coding contests. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 46(4):2085–2110.
[34]
Deutsch M (1949) A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations 2(2):129–152.
[35]
Edelman B, Larkin I (2015) Social comparisons and deception across workplace hierarchies: Field and experimental evidence. Organ. Sci. 26(1):78–98.
[36]
Elster J (1989) Social norms and economic theory. J. Econom. Perspective 3(4):99–117.
[37]
Erat S, Gneezy U (2012) White lies. Management Sci. 58(4):723–733.
[38]
Faraj S, Johnson SL (2011) Network exchange patterns in online communities. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1464–1480.
[39]
Faraj S, Jarvenpaa SL, Majchrzak A (2011) Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1224–1239.
[40]
Faullant R, Füller J, Hutter K (2017) Fair play: Perceived fairness in crowdsourcing competitions and the customer relationship-related consequences. Management Decisions 55(9):1924–1941.
[41]
Felin T, Lakhani KR, Tushman ML (2017) Firms, crowds, and innovation. Strategic Organ. 15(2):119–140.
[42]
Fiske AP (1992) The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psych. Rev. 99(4):689–723.
[43]
Fjeldstad ØD, Snow CC, Miles RE, Lettl C (2012) The architecture of collaboration. Strategic Management J. 33(6):734–750.
[44]
Foley M, Smead R, Forber P, Riedl C (2021) Avoiding the bullies: The resilience of cooperation among unequals. PLOS Comput. Biol. 17(4):e1008847.
[45]
Franke N, Shah S (2003) How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Res. Policy 32(1):157–178.
[46]
Franke N, Keinz P, Klausberger K (2013) “Does this sound like a fair deal?”: Antecedents and consequences of fairness expectations in the individual’s decision to participate in firm innovation. Organ. Sci. 24(5):1495–1516.
[47]
Franke N, Schreier M, Kaiser U (2010) The “i designed it myself” effect in mass customization. Management Sci. 56(1):125–140.
[48]
Franken RE, Brown DJ (1995) Why do people like competition? The motivation for winning, putting forth effort, improving one’s performance, performing well, being instrumental, and expressing forceful/aggressive behavior. Personality Individual Differences 19(2):175–184.
[49]
Fulker Z, Forber P, Smead R, Riedl C (2021) Spite is contagious in dynamic networks. Nature Comm. 12(1):1–9.
[50]
Gallus J, Reiff J, Kamenica E, Fiske AP (2022) Relational incentives theory. Psych. Rev. 129(3):586–602.
[51]
Gaure S (2013) lfe: Linear group fixed effects. R J. 5(2):104–116.
[52]
Gebauer J, Füller J, Pezzei R (2013) The dark and the bright side of co-creation: Triggers of member behavior in online innovation communities. J. Bus. Res. 66(9):1516–1527.
[53]
Gneezy U, Kajackaite A, Sobel J (2018) Lying aversion and the size of the lie. Amer. Econom. Rev. 108(2):419–453.
[54]
Gomez-Mejia LR, Balkin DB (1992) Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Acad. Management J. 35(5):921–955.
[55]
Grad T, Riedl C, Kilduff GJ (2023) When rivalry backfires: How individual skill and risk of status loss moderate the effects of rivalry on performance. Working paper, Northeastern University, Boston.
[56]
Greene WWH (2012) Econometric Analysis, 6th ed. (Pearson, New York).
[57]
Harbring C, Irlenbusch B (2011) Sabotage in tournaments: Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Management Sci. 57(4):611–627.
[58]
Harbring C, Irlenbusch B, Kräkel M, Selten R (2007) Sabotage in corporate contests–An experimental analysis. Internat. J. Econom. Bus. 14(3):367–392.
[59]
Harhoff D, Henkel J, Von Hippel E (2003) Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Res. Policy 32(10):1753–1769.
[60]
Hippel Ev, Krogh Gv (2003) Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organ. Sci. 14(2):209–223.
[61]
Hofstetter R, Aryobsei S, Herrmann A (2018a) Should you really produce what consumers like online? Empirical evidence for reciprocal voting in open innovation contests. J. Production Innovation Management 35(2):209–229.
[62]
Hofstetter R, Zhang JZ, Herrmann A (2018b) Successive open innovation contests and incentives: Winner-take-all or multiple prizes? J. Production Innovation Management 35(4):492–517.
[63]
Huang Y, Vir Singh P, Srinivasan K (2014) Crowdsourcing new product ideas under consumer learning. Management Sci. 60(9):2138–2159.
[64]
Hutter K, Hautz J, Füller J, Mueller J, Matzler K (2011) Communitition: The tension between competition and collaboration in community-based design contests. Creative Innovative Management 20(1):3–21.
[65]
Ivaturi K, Chua C (2019) Framing norms in online communities. Inform. Management 56(1):15–27.
[66]
Jeppesen LB, Lakhani KR (2010) Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organ. Sci. 21(5):1016–1033.
[67]
Kilduff GJ, Elfenbein HA, Staw BM (2010) The psychology of rivalry: A relationally dependent analysis of competition. Acad. Management J. 53(5):943–969.
[68]
Kim Y, Jarvenpaa SL, Gu B (2018) External bridging and internal bonding: Unlocking the generative resources of member time and attention spent in online communities. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 42(1):265–283.
[69]
Klapper H, Piezunka H, Dahlander L (2024) Peer evaluations: Evaluating and being evaluated. Organ. Sci. Forthcoming.
[70]
Knudsen T, Levinthal AD, Puranam P (2019) Editorial: A model is a model. Strategy Sci. 4(1):1–3.
[71]
Konrad K (2000) Sabotage in rent-seeking contests. J. Law Econom. Organ. 16(1):155–165.
[72]
Konrad KA (2009) Strategy and Dynamics in Contests (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).
[73]
Labianca G, Brass DJ (2006) Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3):596–614.
[74]
Lado AA, Boyd NG, Hanlon SC (1997) Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: A syncretic model. Acad. Management Rev. 22(1):110–141.
[75]
Lakhani KR, Kanji Z (2008) Threadless: The Business of Community (Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA).
[76]
Lakhani KR, Wolf RG (2003) Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Technical report, Open Source Software Projects.
[77]
Lazear EP (1989) Pay equality and industrial politics. J. Political Econom. 97(3):561.
[78]
Lazear EP, Rosen S (1981) Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. J. Political Econom. 89(5):841–864.
[79]
Lewis MW (2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad. Management Rev. 25(4):760–776.
[80]
Li H, Bingham JB, Umphress EE (2007) Fairness from the top: Perceived procedural justice and collaborative problem solving in new product development. Organ. Sci. 18(2):200–216.
[81]
Liu TX, Yang J, Adamic LA, Chen Y (2014) Crowdsourcing with all-pay auctions: A field experiment on taskcn. Management Sci. 60(8):2020–2037.
[82]
Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):351–398.
[83]
Majchrzak A, Malhotra A (2013) Toward an information systems perspective and research agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 22(4):257–268.
[84]
Majchrzak A, Malhotra A (2016) Effect of knowledge-sharing trajectories on innovative outcomes in temporary online crowds. Inform. Systems Res. 27(4):685–703.
[85]
Merritt AC, Effron DA, Monin B (2010) Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Soc. Personality Psych. Compass 4(5):344–357.
[86]
Moffitt R (2001) Policy interventions, low-level equilibria, and social interactions. Durlauf S, Young P, eds. Social Dynamics (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
[87]
Münster J (2007) Selection tournaments, sabotage, and participation. J. Econom. Management Strategy 16(4):943–970.
[88]
Nambisan S, Baron RA (2010) Different roles, different strokes: Organizing virtual customer environments to promote two types of customer contributions. Organ. Sci. 21(2):554–572.
[89]
Nickell J (2010) Threadless: Ten Years of T-Shirts from the World’s Most Inspiring Online Design Community (Abrams Image, New York).
[90]
Perry-Smith JE (2006) Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Acad. Management J. 49(1):85–101.
[91]
Piezunka H, Dahlander L (2019) Idea rejected, tie formed: Organizations’ feedback on crowdsourced ideas. Acad. Management J. 62(2):503–530.
[92]
Ransbotham S, Kane GC (2011) Membership turnover and collaboration success in online communities: Explaining rises and falls from grace in Wikipedia. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 35(3):613–627.
[93]
Ren Y, Harper FM, Drenner S, Terveen L, Kiesler S, Riedl J, Kraut RE (2012) Building member attachment in online communities: Applying theories of group identity and interpersonal bonds. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 36(3):841–864.
[94]
Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2015) Taste for competition and the gender gap among young business professionals. Technical report 21695, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
[95]
Riedl C, Seidel VP (2018) Learning from mixed signals in online innovation communities. Organ. Sci. 29(6):1010–1032.
[96]
Riedl C, Hutter K, Füller J, Tellis G (2024) Cash or non-cash? Unveiling ideators’ incentive preferences in crowdsourcing contest. J. Management Inform. Systems Forthcoming.
[97]
Roberts JA, Hann IH, Slaughter SA (2006) Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Management Sci. 52(7):984–999.
[98]
Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Amer. Psych. 55(1):68.
[99]
Safadi H, Johnson SL, Faraj S (2021) Who contributes knowledge? Core-periphery tension in online innovation communities. Organ. Sci. 32(3):752–775.
[100]
Smirnova I, Reitzig M, Sorenson O (2022) Building status in an online community. Organ. Sci. 33(6):2519–2540.
[101]
Smith A (2010) The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Penguin, London).
[102]
Soda G, Mannucci PV, Burt RS (2021) Networks, creativity, and time: Staying creative through brokerage and network rejuvenation. Acad. Management J. 64(4):1164–1190.
[103]
Therneau TM, Grambsch PM (2000) Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model (Springer, New York).
[104]
To C, Kilduff GJ, Rosikiewicz BL (2020) When interpersonal competition helps and when it harms: An integration via challenge and threat. Acad. Management Ann. 14(2):908–934.
[105]
Tsai W (2002) Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organ. Sci. 13(2):179–190.
[106]
Tullock G (1980) Efficient rent seeking. Buchanan J, Tollison R, Tullock G, eds. Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society (Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX).
[107]
Waldman DA, Putnam LL, Miron-Spektor E, Siegel D (2019) The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 155(November):1–6.
[108]
Wasko MM, Faraj S (2000) “It is what one does”: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 9(2–3):155–173.
[109]
Wasko MM, Faraj S (2005) Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 29(1):35–57.
[110]
Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, New York).
[111]
Zaggl MA, Malhotra A, Alexy O, Majchrzak A (2023) Governing crowdsourcing for unconstrained innovation problems. Strategic Management J. 44(11):2783–2817.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Organization Science
Organization Science  Volume 35, Issue 6
November-December 2024
378 pages
DOI:10.1287/orsc.2024.35.issue-6
Issue’s Table of Contents
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You are free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this work, but you must attribute this work as “Organization Science. Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15163, used under a Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.”

Publisher

INFORMS

Linthicum, MD, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2024
Accepted: 14 March 2024
Received: 22 April 2021

Author Tags

  1. crowdsourcing
  2. online communities
  3. collaboration and competition
  4. self-promotion
  5. sabotage

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 0
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 24 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media