Play with Tiger; play worse: Study finds golfers perform poorly in face of …

Got par? If you’re golfing against Tiger Woods, the answer is probably not.

A new study by Jennifer Brown, assistant professor of management and strategy at Kellogg, indicates that Woods’ reputation as the “best on the green” tends to cripple his opponents.

Her research indicated that golfers’ scores were worse when they played against Woods than when they competed in a tournament without him. The data Brown used included PGA scores from 1999-2001—years considered the golf phenom’s best. The article is published in the December issue of the Journal of Political Economy titled “Quitters Never Win: The (Adverse) Incentive Effects of Competing with Superstars.”

 

Her research doesn't reflect the impact of Tiger's marital crisis followed by a two-year losing streak, which was broken this past Sunday when he won the Chenvron World Challenge in Thousand Oaks, Calif.    

In conducting the research, Brown compared Woods’ scores to those of other golfers, in particular, his toughest competition—players who usually placed second or third in a tournament, such as Phil Mickelson. She found that on average, golfers lost ground by scoring a stroke higher in tournaments played against Woods, suggesting that instead of “stepping up to the plate” and performing at a higher caliber in the face of competition, players tend to weaken.

This goes against a common sports psychology theory, said sports psychology student and college hockey player Jake Williams, who is a goalie at Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pa.

“In sports psychology, they teach us that competition can sometimes make you perform better,” said Williams. “I’ve found that to be true myself. In every league I've played in there was always one person I was compared to who was considered the best in the league, while I was always second rung. My instinct was always to either beat them or go toe to toe with them. I literally would will myself to win.”

Brown addressed this theory in the article.

“Common intuition suggests that rivalries may encourage a player to exert more effort,” she wrote. “But, is it the case that harnessing the power of competition always bolsters effort?”

The article goes on to examine an economic model in which Brown suggests that the “presence of a ‘superstar' in a competition can lead to reduced efforts from tournament participants.”

Sports psychologist Patrick Cohn specializes in golf sports psychology and frequently writes about confidence and consistency on his blog as the biggest issues golfers face.

“Confidence flows from mastering the skills that lead to competence,” he said. Strong competition can either “hinder or improve” a golfer’s game. In Woods’ case, his consistently high level of performance hindered his opponents’ ability to compete, according to Cohn.

Brown conducted the research with the hopes of gaining insight in human motivation in a competitive setting where one person always seems to come out the victor.

So, how can this information apply to life off the green?

While renowned Chicago sports psychologist Dan Kirschenbaum, who also consults businesses in team building, said in a 2009 interview that competition among workers can be a good thing, Brown’s research indicates it may be helpful to find alternative motivational strategies in the workplace.  

Law firms,” “sales teams,” and other businesses, said Brown, should “be aware of the impact of introducing a superstar associate on the cohort's overall performance,”

In the end, the star may “negatively affect the rest of the team’s performance.”

Leave a Reply