Many leaders in the Philippines grapple with a perennial dilemma: Should work be competitive or collaborative? The instinct to drive performance through competition is understandable—in business, the best, fastest, and most productive usually win. However, when competition becomes the dominant mode of interaction, it can undermine the very cooperation organizations need to succeed. This is especially true in cultural contexts like ours, where pakikisama—getting along with others—remains a deeply rooted value.

Global research on organizational behavior is emphatic: cooperation is the bedrock of effective team performance in most modern workplaces. Meta-analyses of organizational studies find that when tasks are interdependent—as they are in knowledge work, service delivery, and high-risk environments—cooperative reward structures produce better performance, higher satisfaction, and greater learning than purely competitive ones.

Yet competition, when introduced thoughtfully, can add energy, focus, and urgency. The trick is not to eliminate competition, but to balance it with cooperation and a strong, shared purpose.

Many Western companies have learned this the hard way. Forced performance ranking—the "stack ranking" system that pits employees against one another—has been shown to reduce knowledge sharing, erode collaboration, and stifle creativity. We practiced this in my former organization, and the stress levels were palpable. When employees view colleagues as rivals for scarce rewards, they are less likely to share insights, assist others, or take the relational risks necessary for innovation.

In contrast, cooperative environments—where shared goals, mutual support, and psychological safety are prioritized—empower people to contribute boldly, learn from mistakes, and grow collectively.

Locally, the need for balance takes on a unique cultural dimension. Filipino values are strongly collectivistic; individuals tend to see themselves as part of a group and prioritize harmony and relationships over individual achievement. Research comparing national cultural dimensions shows that the Philippines scores significantly higher on collectivism than individualistic cultures like the United States, which tends to valorize confrontation and competition. Filipinos also navigate "power distance"—an acceptance of hierarchical differences—and other traits associated with interdependence rather than assertive self-promotion.

The well-studied concept of pakikisama reflects a strong preference for group harmony and consensus over conflict. Filipinos are often more likely to yield to group norms and smooth over differences to maintain relationships.

In practice, this means that overly confrontational or highly competitive practices—such as public scoreboards or relentless individual comparisons—can feel alien and counterproductive in many Filipino workplaces. Managers who transplant Western competition models without adaptation risk breeding resentment or passive resistance rather than performance gains.

This cultural inclination toward harmony should not be mistaken for timidity or inefficiency. On the contrary, collectivistic cultures like ours often excel when work is structured around teams. Research on cultural influences finds that teams high in collectivism are more cooperative, productive, and empowered because members are motivated by group success as much as individual outcomes.

Another Philippine study on team effectiveness found that the quality of social relations is a powerful predictor of success. In a culture where relationships matter deeply, trust and respect can be more influential than structural incentives in determining whether teams perform at their best.

This is not to say competition has no place in Filipino organizations. Healthy competition can be an engine for innovation—provided it is strategic, temporary, and embedded within a cooperative framework.

Here are four principles for effective balance:

1. Compete as teams, not individuals. When teams compete against external benchmarks or other departments, internal cooperation is preserved and even strengthened. Members rally around a shared target rather than seeing each other as rivals.

2. Use short, focused challenges. Innovation sprints or targeted performance campaigns inject urgency without creating a permanent, zero-sum atmosphere.

3. Reward multiple paths to excellence. Celebrate service quality, process improvement, mentorship, and risk management—not just raw output metrics.

4. Anchor competition in a shared mission. When people compete for the organization’s success rather than just personal rewards, competition becomes catalytic rather than destructive.

Leaders in the Philippines must be architects of balance. They must cultivate an environment where competition is a tool for growth, not a force that tears teams apart. This requires leaning into Filipino strengths—relational depth, group focus, and mutual support—while introducing thoughtful competitive elements that sharpen performance without undermining unity.

In a world that prizes both innovation and execution, the "sweet spot" is not either/or. It is both/and. When employees are encouraged to outdo competitors outside the organization while being supported to help one another within it, workplaces become not just more productive, but more human.