But Canadian academic warns of long-term risks — along with providing best practices for effective implementation of social comparison
Looking to boost employee productivity and engagement? The answer lies in leveraging social comparison, where employees compare their performance to peers, according to new research.
This approach can increase output in the same way as a 10-per-cent pay raise.
The large-scale experiment found that letting workers choose whom to compare themselves to increase productivity as much as targeted peer assignments, but with much less stress.
The study, which involved over 6,500 participants, revealed that both self-chosen and targeted peer comparisons outperformed random assignment in driving performance. However, targeted assignments led to a “large increase in stress,” the study authors wrote, while self-selection allowed employees to benefit from motivation without the psychological cost.
When implemented with choice, peer comparison can act as a positive motivator and a useful benchmark, says John Trougakos, professor of organizational behaviour and HR management at the University of Toronto. Employees can self-motivate by choosing a colleague who they know will motivate them, who they can use as a “pace car”.
However, he warns that if employees are assigned peers who are far beyond their own performance level, the effect can be demotivating; “If they feel like they've been assigned somebody that just performs way above them, somehow they could become very demotivated.”
The research found that mismatches between an employee’s preferred comparison peer and the assigned peer led to motivation and increased stress; however, the report showed that this “mismatch effect” was absent when employees could choose their own comparison.
“They can use it as kind of a marking motivator,” Trougakos says.
“Like, ‘Well, this is someone who is similar to me in various ways, I can maintain this level of performance that they maintain.’ They can use that as kind of a check that helps them stay on track.”
However, organizations need to be cautious about the long-term impact of stress when using peer comparison as a motivational tool – especially when they are mandatory.
“If this is something that is stressful for people, ramping up their stress in a time where stress is already quite high for employees is just going to translate to burnout long term,” Trougakos says.
“This kind of a methodology, to use it to increase motivation, could have a short-term gain, but there could come a major long-term drawback, especially in terms of employee well-being and burnout, which subsequently will then demotivate employees and harm their performance.”
The research supports this caution. The study found that being asked to compare themselves to a high-performing peer increased productivity by 14.2 per cent but also increased reported stress by 55 per cent.
In contrast, allowing employees to choose their comparison peer achieved similar productivity gains but with a much smaller increase in stress.
One of the risks of peer comparison strategies, Trougakos points out, especially those that involve external rewards or public recognition; when not done well, they can shift employee motivation from intrinsic to extrinsic.
“When you create an external reward, when someone does the task to win an external reward, they're doing it for the sake of the external reward, it reduces the intrinsic motivation and increases the extrinsic motivation behind the task and the effort that they put in,” he says.
“There's decades of research that shows us that extrinsic motivation is the somewhat less favoured type of motivation from an organizational perspective, because people are a little less committed, they're a little less engaged. They typically engage in the behaviour because of the external factor that drives them, as opposed to the internal desire, to wish to do the task for the sake of doing the task or the work itself.”
To maximize the benefits and counter the effects of this potential demotivation, Trougakos recommends focusing on choice and positive comparison.
“I think people having choice in it is very important, because that does boost the intrinsic motivation element of anything that someone's going to do when they do have a choice, and they do it as their choice,” he says.
“I think focusing more on the positive comparison element than the negative comparison element is another thing to keep in mind. You don't want people using it as a mirror to highlight failure in that sense, but more to highlight positive effort and results.”
Not all employees respond to peer comparison in the same way. Some enjoy the challenge of competition and thrive from it, while others may find it unhelpful or even stressful.
“I would say it's a case-by-case situation,” he says.
“I wouldn't count on this as a long-term solution for many organizations. It's something that you can use selectively to change things up, to make things a little more interesting, or to help employees get through maybe more mundane types of work tasks in a more entertaining and motivating type of way, potentially.”
For this reason, Trougakos warns against mandatory programs, suggesting instead a selective, project-based approach.
“[Some employees] enjoy the gamification idea, it would be very helpful for them. For other people, it might be not useful,” he says.
“I think if companies are to make it mandatory, they should use it selectively for certain projects where they see a maximum benefit, where people can expect to be able to see an increase in their performance.”
For HR leaders, the message is clear: autonomy matters. Trougakos emphasizes that giving employees flexibility and choice in how they engage with peer comparison strategies is inherently less stressful and more motivating.
“Any time we give people flexibility, choice or autonomy, we increase their sense of self-determination, and this is inherently less stressful for people than if we force people to be compared to someone,” he says.
In practical terms, this means HR should avoid mandatory, one-size-fits-all peer comparison programs and instead offer employees the option to participate and choose their own benchmarks, he says.
The research echoes this, noting that self-selection “significantly boosts productivity without increasing stress as much as assigning them to the predicted most motivating reference worker.”
Based on the research and expert advice, HR professionals looking to implement social comparison as a motivation strategy should:
Offer peer comparison as an optional, not mandatory, program.
Allow employees to choose their own comparison peers whenever possible.
Use peer comparison selectively, for specific projects or tasks where it can provide the most benefit.
Focus on positive comparisons and recognition, rather than highlighting failure or underperformance.
Monitor employee stress and well-being closely.
Avoid relying on peer comparison as the sole motivation strategy; instead, use it as one of several tools to support employee engagement and performance.
