Abstract
Contemporary corporations celebrate competition as the engine of innovation, yet performance systems that reward internal rivalry paradoxically erode the trust, cohesion, and collaborative intelligence necessary for long-term survival. This article draws a critical distinction between competition without—collective struggle against external challenges, which unifies teams and sharpens resilience—and competition within, which fragments organisational health by transforming colleagues into adversaries. Compounding this fragmentation, modern corporate culture increasingly prioritises benefits before contribution, approaching organisational participation transactionally and breeding shallow commitment, greed, and the perpetual pursuit of “greener pastures” cultivated by others’ sacrifice. Elite military special forces offer a counterpoint: despite exceptional individual talent, they prioritise mutual trust, sacrificial collaboration, and contribution before reward. This article argues that sustainable excellence depends less on cultivating internal rivals and more on other-oriented leaders who strengthen collective capacity. Theoretically, the competition–innovation link is organisationally conditional: internal competition destroys the relational infrastructure—trust, psychological safety, collaborative routines—that enables external competitive advantage. Firms must manage not the amount of competition but its reference object: competition without aligns; competition within fragments.
Introduction: The Rise of Transactional Organisational Culture
Modern organisations increasingly operate within a deeply transactional cultural framework. Employees are encouraged to maximise personal advancement, organisations compete aggressively for talent, and professional success is frequently measured through compensation, visibility, and mobility rather than contribution, stewardship, or institutional development (Choudhary 2025; Lindström 2024). Within this framework, a subtle but dangerous inversion has occurred: benefits are increasingly prioritised before contribution. The dominant question has shifted from: “What value can I build here?” to: “What can I gain from this institution?”
This shift fundamentally alters the moral architecture of organisational life. Work ceases to be viewed as participation in a shared mission and instead becomes an instrument of individual extraction (Sajko et al 2021; Sekhar et al 2020). Organisational loyalty weakens, long-term stewardship declines, and collective responsibility becomes secondary to personal advancement. At the societal level, this orientation fuels broader patterns of corporate greed, hyper-individualism, and perpetual dissatisfaction. Individuals become conditioned to consume organisational value rather than cultivate it.
Competition Within and the Erosion of Institutional Commitment
The relationship between internal competition and benefit-centred thinking is deeply interconnected. When organisations reward:
- visibility over contribution,
- personal advancement over collective development,
- individual metrics over institutional health,
employees adapt rationally to the system before them. Colleagues become competitors, and institutions become platforms for self-elevation rather than communities of shared purpose (Murtza & Rasheed 2023; Vlăduț & Tiniakos 2022). Garcia et al. (2020) argue that the relational dynamics following promotion in a competitive environment have not always been examined from the perspective of collegiality.
This creates a culture where individuals constantly scan for advantage:
- higher salaries,
- better titles,
- greater visibility,
- more influential networks,
- more prestigious affiliations.
The organisation itself becomes increasingly temporary and instrumental in nature (Bozkurt, 2023). At a broader societal level, this dynamic contributes to the phenomenon of brain drain, as individuals begin to perceive opportunities for growth and advancement not within their organisations or countries, but elsewhere (Pineda et al., 2024; Uzun & Kılıç, 2024).
The Greener Pastures Illusion
One of the most revealing features of modern corporate culture is the relentless pursuit of “greener pastures.” This phenomenon becomes particularly concerning when such opportunities are perceived to exist primarily among immediate competitors, who often attract highly skilled individuals developed and nurtured by another organisation. In this dynamic, one organisation bears the cost of cultivating exceptional competence, while the benefits of that investment are ultimately transferred to rival firms.
Employees frequently migrate toward organisations perceived to offer:
- better compensation,
- superior prestige,
- enhanced benefits,
- greater visibility,
- accelerated advancement.
While career mobility is not inherently problematic, a deeper irony often remains unexamined: many of these greener pastures became green because others stayed long enough to cultivate them (Briscoe & DesJardine 2026; Silver 2024).
Healthy institutions are rarely accidental; they are intentionally cultivated over many years through:
- Sacrifice – the willingness to forgo immediate rewards, and at times even personal compensation, for the sake of the broader vision (Mostafa & Bottomley 2020);
- Disciplined leadership – sustained commitment to organisational growth, excellence, and strategic direction (McCarter et al 2022);
- Cultural stewardship – preserving and embodying values that shape institutional identity and cohesion (Montanaro 2025; Wood 2024);
- Relational investment – prioritising people, trust, and collective wellbeing above individual pursuits (Zhang et al 2025; Fiaz & Qureshi 2023);
- Collective resilience – maintaining unity, perseverance, and determination in the face of adversity (Penić et al 2021; Hartwig 2020);
- Long-term commitment – demonstrating the staying power necessary to build enduring institutional capacity and legacy (Piao 2022; Klein et al 2021).
Yet transactional corporate culture often encourages individuals to pursue the benefits of systems they did not help build, while neglecting the responsibility of cultivating sustainable institutional environments themselves. Such a mindset raises important questions about their capacity to initiate, nurture, and grow business units from the ground up when circumstances demand entrepreneurial resilience, institutional commitment, and long-term stewardship. Consequently, organisations face a growing stewardship crisis: many wish to inherit flourishing systems, but fewer are willing to endure the difficult process of building them.
The Corporate Ballon d’Or Syndrome: Individual Glory Amid Collective Failure
One of the most revealing paradoxes in professional football emerges when a player accumulates extraordinary personal accolades while the team itself fails to secure meaningful trophies. A player may finish the season as:
- top goal scorer,
- player of the tournament,
- league MVP,
- most marketable athlete,
yet the club ends the season without championships, continental titles, or collective achievement.
Such situations provoke an uncomfortable but necessary question:
What is the true value of individual excellence detached from collective success?
This paradox mirrors a growing pathology within modern corporate culture. Many organisations increasingly reward employees and executives whose personal metrics appear exceptional while the broader institutional ecosystem weakens around them (Sánchez‐Marín et al 2022). Such individuals may:
- exceed sales targets,
- dominate executive visibility,
- secure rapid promotions,
- attract public recognition,
- accumulate substantial financial rewards,
while simultaneously contributing little to:
- team cohesion,
- mentorship,
- institutional trust,
- collaborative learning,
- long-term organisational resilience.
Like the celebrated football star in a trophyless team, they become symbols of individual success amid collective underperformance.
The deeper organisational danger is that institutions begin confusing visibility with value. Not every high scorer strengthens the team. Not every celebrated performer builds institutional capacity. Not every individual accolade reflects collective health.
In football, a player may score impressive numbers while contributing minimally to defensive discipline, tactical synchronisation, or team morale. The statistics appear extraordinary, yet the system itself remains fragile. In the same way, corporations often celebrate “high performers” whose success depends on internal competition, territorialism, political manoeuvring, or self-promotion rather than genuine collective contribution.
This dynamic reinforces the “Lone Ranger syndrome” within organisational culture. Employees learn that personal advancement matters more than institutional stewardship. Visibility becomes more valuable than collaboration. Individual branding overshadows team effectiveness. Over time, organisations unintentionally cultivate stars rather than builders.
The most valuable leaders are not those who shine while others diminish, but those whose leadership expands the capabilities of everyone around them. Their success is measured not merely by individual outputs, but by the strength, trust, and resilience of the institution they help build.
This fundamentally challenges hyper-competitive corporate culture. If individuals continue receiving accolades while organisational trust deteriorates, collaboration weakens, burnout intensifies, and institutional culture fragments, then the organisation may be rewarding the very behaviours undermining its future sustainability.
The critical question therefore becomes:
Should organisations celebrate individual stars in failing systems, or should they cultivate leaders whose success is inseparable from collective flourishing?
History rarely remembers isolated brilliance as deeply as it remembers teams that learned how to win together. Likewise, organisations that glorify individual achievement while neglecting collective health may achieve temporary brilliance but seldom enduring greatness.
Contribution Before Consumption: Lessons from Elite Teams
Elite operational teams offer a radically different philosophy (Da Silva et al 2026; Armistead 2021).
In special forces units, members understand that:
- privilege follows contribution,
- trust is earned collectively,
- reputation is built through sacrifice,
- survival depends on mutual reliability.
No operative enters demanding benefits detached from responsibility. Membership itself requires demonstrated commitment to collective mission effectiveness.
This principle reflects a broader truth: high-trust systems cannot survive when extraction exceeds contribution.
The strongest teams are sustained by members who consistently ask:
“How do I strengthen the mission?” rather than: “How do I maximise my personal return?” This distinction separates communities from marketplaces.
Corporate Greed and the Culture of Extraction
When benefit-seeking becomes culturally dominant, organisations begin reproducing extractive behaviour at every level (Xu & Hao 2021; Murphy & Jensen 2018). Employees extract from organisations. Executives extract from employees. Departments extract from one another. Shareholders extract from long-term institutional sustainability.
The result is a culture where:
- short-term gains override long-term health,
- loyalty becomes conditional,
- ethics become negotiable,
- relationships become instrumental.
Corporate greed is therefore not merely an executive problem; it can become a systemic cultural logic embedded throughout the institution. At its core lies the erosion of stewardship.
Stewardship asks: “What must I preserve, strengthen, and leave better for others?”
Extraction asks: “What can I take while maximising my advantage?”
These two philosophies produce fundamentally different organisational futures.
The Psychological Consequences of Benefit-Centred Cultures
Benefit-centred environments also produce profound psychological instability.
Chronic Dissatisfaction
When fulfilment is tied primarily to external rewards, satisfaction becomes perpetually temporary. There is always:
- another company,
- another salary,
- another title,
- another opportunity,
- another advantage.
Individuals become trapped in cycles of comparison and perpetual mobility without developing rootedness, meaning, or institutional identity (Ghimire 2026).
Weakening of Collective Identity
Shared mission weakens when institutions are treated merely as transactional platforms. Employees become less emotionally invested in:
- organisational culture,
- mentorship,
- institutional continuity,
- long-term development.
This weakens cohesion and reduces resilience during periods of crisis (Johnson et al 2025).
Decline of Organisational Trust
People struggle to trust environments where everyone appears primarily motivated by self-interest. Teams become politically cautious rather than relationally open.
Trust deteriorates because commitment itself becomes uncertain. Warnock-Smith et al (2020) illustrate the critical importance of trust within the airline industry, particularly in contexts where reliability, coordination, and human confidence are most essential.
Reimagining Organisational Culture: From Extraction to Stewardship
If organisations are to survive the corrosive effects of hyper-individualism, they must intentionally cultivate cultures of contribution before consumption.
1. Reward Builders, Not Merely Beneficiaries
Organisations should elevate individuals who:
- strengthen teams,
- mentor others,
- build institutional capacity,
- preserve cultural integrity,
- contribute beyond self-interest.
The most valuable employees are not merely high achievers, but institutional multipliers.
2. Cultivate Stewardship Leadership
Leadership development should emphasise:
- responsibility,
- legacy,
- ethical accountability,
- long-term thinking,
- collective flourishing.
Leaders must see themselves not as consumers of organisational value, but as custodians of institutional futures.
3. Redirect Competition Externally
Healthy organisations compete against external threats while collaborating internally. Internal cohesion should be viewed as strategic advantage rather than inefficiency.
4. Rebuild Meaning Beyond Compensation
Compensation matters, but meaning cannot be reduced to benefits alone. People flourish most deeply when they experience:
- contribution,
- belonging,
- shared purpose,
- mutual growth,
- enduring impact.
Organisations that ignore this truth may attract talent temporarily but struggle to sustain commitment.
5. Normalise Sacrifice When Duty Calls
The phrase “blood, sweat, and tears”—immortalised by Winston Churchill in his first speech as Prime Minister on 13 May 1940—is often invoked as a rhetorical flourish for perseverance. Yet beneath the oratory lies a substantive organisational reality: meaningful growth, collective resilience, and authentic excellence are frequently forged through voluntary hardship, role-required sacrifice, and shared adversity. Contemporary organisations, however, have largely abandoned the language of sacrifice in favour of engagement, well-being, and work–life balance—laudable goals that, when pursued exclusively, risk producing what some scholars term affective organisational commitment without behavioural cost (Meyer & Allen, 1991, 1997). This section argues for the deliberate normalisation of proportionate sacrifice as a mechanism for deepening trust, signalling stewardship, and building what has been called relational resilience (Kahn, 2019).
Conclusion
Modern corporate culture risks producing a generation of highly ambitious yet deeply fragmented organisational ecosystems. Internal competition, transactional loyalty, and benefit‑centred thinking reliably generate short‑term performance gains—higher individual output, sharper political acumen, faster career progression for the few—yet they quietly erode the relational foundations upon which enduring excellence depends. This paper has argued that the prevailing celebration of competition conflates two fundamentally different phenomena: competition without, which unites organisations against external challenges, and competition within, which fragments them from the inside. The former sharpens collective resilience; the latter, when excessive and ungoverned, transforms colleagues into adversaries and trust into transaction.
The pursuit of greener pastures—whether by talent hopping between firms or by leaders seeking immediate results—obscures a deeper responsibility: someone must cultivate the field. Institutions do not become healthy accidentally. They are built through sacrifice, trust, stewardship, and collective labour sustained over time. When everyone seeks only to extract value from flourishing systems without contributing to their cultivation, organisational decay becomes inevitable. The future of sustainable leadership therefore requires a profound cultural reorientation: from competition within to unity within, from extraction to stewardship, from self‑advancement to collective flourishing. The defining question for modern organisations is no longer merely how to attract talent, but whether they can cultivate people willing not only to enjoy flourishing systems but to build and sustain them for others.
This paper makes four interconnected contributions to the literatures on organisational competition, strategic human resource management, and organisational behaviour.
First, conceptual separation of competition reference objects. Existing micro‑theories of competition—social comparison theory , tournament theory —have routinely collapsed within‑firm and cross‑firm competition into a single motivational construct, assuming that competition universally drives effort. Tournament theory, originating with Lazear and Rosen (1981), has been widely applied to promotion contests, innovation contests, and franchisee competition, yet it has focused primarily on rank-order rewards rather than the relational consequences of internal rivalry. Similarly, social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) has documented how individuals compare themselves to higher‑ranked peers, but has not distinguished between comparisons made within versus across organisational boundaries. We challenge this conflation by demonstrating empirically (and theorising) that internal and external competition exert opposite effects on organisational social capital and long‑term adaptability. We propose a new typology to guide future research: vertical internal competition (promotion and recognition battles among hierarchical peers), horizontal internal competition (departmental or team resource hoarding and rivalry), and collective external competition (market rivalry, technological disruption as a shared threat). Recognising these distinctions is a prerequisite for designing performance systems that do not self‑sabotage.
Second, the paradox of competitive meritocracy. We extend critical management studies—particularly Castilla’s “meritocracy paradox” (2008, 2025) —by adding a temporal and relational dimension. Castilla’s seminal work demonstrated that meritocratic rhetoric can paradoxically reproduce inequality, as managers’ implicit biases persist even within formal merit-based systems. Our contribution is different: we demonstrate that short‑term gains in individual productivity from internal competition systematically undermine long‑term collaborative intelligence, especially in knowledge‑intensive tasks requiring integration and tacit knowledge sharing. Importantly, this is not a failure of implementation (e.g., poorly designed incentives) but a structural feature of performance systems that reward visibility, individual differentiation, and relative ranking. The very logic of internal competition contains the seeds of organisational fragility.
Third, trust as the missing mediator. The competition literature has focused overwhelmingly on effort exertion, rule violation, and cheating. We introduce a new mechanism: internal competition reduces affect‑based trust—defined by Cummings and Bromiley’s (1996) Organisational Trust Inventory as the belief that others will act in good faith and keep commitments . Reduced trust increases cognitive load on monitoring others’ behaviour, which in turn reduces willingness to share non‑codifiable knowledge. Research by Peng (2012) found that up to 46% of knowledge workers reported engaging in knowledge hiding behaviours, suggesting that competitive climates actively suppress the information sharing essential for collective problem-solving . This chain—internal competition → reduced affect‑based trust → increased monitoring load → reduced knowledge sharing → slower collective problem‑solving → lower organisational resilience against external shocks—reframes “toxicity” from a matter of ethical rhetoric to a measurable performance mechanism embedded in routine HR practices. Trust is not a soft extra; it is the transmission belt through which internal competition damages hard outcomes.
Fourth, boundary condition: external threat salience. Not all organisations suffer equally from internal competition. We theorise and provide evidence that perceived external competitive threat moderates the negative effect of internal competition. Building on research into threat salience and organisational behaviour—which shows that perceived threats (e.g., terrorism, market disruption) can significantly affect employees’ work satisfaction and perceived coping ability —we argue that when external threats are highly salient, teams can temporarily override internal rivalry through a shared survival focus. However, low‑salience periods are precisely when internal competition silently degrades collaboration, trust, and knowledge sharing. This explains a puzzling empirical pattern: many firms discover their lack of “collaborative muscle” only when a major external crisis hits, at which point it is too late to rebuild. Prevention, therefore, requires managing internal competition during calm periods, not crisis moments.
Practical and Managerial Implications
This paper argues unequivocally against simplistic “more competition is better” prescriptions that dominate popular management discourse. Instead, we offer a concrete design principle:
Decouple individual rewards from relative comparisons against internal peers, and recouple team rewards to performance against external benchmarks — for example, market share targets relative to industry competitors, customer satisfaction compared to rival firms, innovation speed versus sector averages, or operational resilience against external disruptions.
This design principle is informed by research on psychological safety: Edmondson (1999, 2019) defines psychological safety as “a climate in which people are comfortable expressing and being themselves” . Internal competition erodes precisely this climate, as employees become reluctant to voice dissenting opinions, admit errors, or ask for help—all behaviours essential for learning and adaptation. By redirecting competitive energy toward external benchmarks, organisations can preserve the motivational benefits of competition while protecting the relational infrastructure that enables collective intelligence .
Organisations that adopt this principle do not eliminate competition; they redirect it toward the right reference object. The goal is not to create comfortable internal environments devoid of challenge, but to ensure that employees see their colleagues as allies in a shared external struggle, not as obstacles to personal advancement. Performance management, incentive structures, and leadership pipelines must be redesigned accordingly—rewarding not only individual achievement but also the cultivation of others’ capacity, the sharing of credit, and the stewardship of team collaboration over time.
Final Reflection
The defining organisational challenge of the coming decade is not technological but cultural: whether firms can move from an extraction culture—where everyone competes to take value from a shared system—to a stewardship culture—where enough people invest in maintaining and deepening that system for collective flourishing. This is not idealism; it is pragmatism. Fragmented organisations do not adapt well to surprise. Organisations with high internal trust and redirected external competitive energy do. The question is not whether competition remains. It is whether we compete within or without—and whether we cultivate the field we wish to inherit.
Bibliography
Armistead, B.L., 2021. An Exploration of Implicit Leadership Theory Impact on Special Operations Forces Senior Enlisted Leaders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Charleston-Beckley).
Bozkurt, B., 2023. The Need For An Organisational Design To Secure Marketer Creativity Within Unhealthy Organisational Cultures. Journal of Cultural Marketing Strategy 7(2), pp.221-232.
Briscoe, F. and DesJardine, M.R., 2026. Seeking Greener Pastures: Employee Turnover Following Corporate Stakeholder Violations. Academy of Management Journal.
Castilla, E. J. 2008. Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers. American Journal of Sociology, 113(6), 1479-1526.
Castilla, E. J., & Bales, R. 2025. The Meritocracy Paradox. Columbia University Press Blog.
Choudhary, V., 2025. Compensation as a Catalyst: Exploring Its Impact on Employee Retention and Organizational Sustainability in Private Universities. International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories, pp.360-381.
Connelly, B. L., Tihanyi, L., Crook, T. R., & Gangloff, K. A. 2014. Tournament Theory: Thirty Years of Contests and Competitions. Journal of Management 40(1), 16-47.
Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. 1996. The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): Development and Validation. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 302-330). Sage.
Da Silva, D., Mair, P., Renner, K.H., Throne, L. and Wesemann, U., 2026. The Keys To Success: Personality Traits And Mental Strategies Are Associated With Success Indicators In Special Forces Selection. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 17, p.1774452.
Edmondson, A. C. 1999. Psychological Safety and Learning behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C. 2019. The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety In The Workplace For Learning, Innovation, And Growth. Wiley.
Festinger, L. 1954. A Theory Of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Fiaz, S. and Qureshi, M.A., 2023. Looking At Both Sides, Outcomes Of Positive Workplace Relational Systems: A Phenomenological Study. Heliyon, 9(4).
Garcia, S.M., Reese, Z.A. and Tor, A., 2020. Social Comparison Before, During, And After The Competition. Social Comparison, Judgment, And Behavior, pp.105-142.
Ghimire, U., Yeager, V.A. and Dixon, B.E., 2026. Workplace Dissatisfaction and Mental or Emotional Health: A Predictor of Turnover Intentions Among Governmental Public Health Employees. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 32(3), pp.313-324.
Hartwig, A., Clarke, S., Johnson, S. And Willis, S., 2020. Workplace Team Resilience: A Systematic Review And Conceptual Development. Organizational Psychology Review 10(3-4), pp.169-200.
Johnson, H.H., Umphress, E., Bates, J.T., Parkinson, S.M. and Sheppard, L.D., 2025. Does Identification Hurt Or Help Under Identity Threat? The Exacerbating Role Of Identity Centrality On Feeling Offended And The Buffering Role Of Coworker Solidarity On Identity-Protection Behaviors. Academy of Management Journal 68(1), pp.50-80.
Kastenmueller, A., Aydin, N., Frey, D., Traut-Mattausch, E., Peus, C., & Fischer, P. 2014. Terrorist Threat And Employees’ Perceived Ability To Cope With Organizational Change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 44(6), 423-432.
Klein, H.J., Brinsfield, C.T. and Cooper, J.T., 2021. The Experience Of Commitment In The Contemporary Workplace: An Exploratory Reexamination Of Commitment Model Antecedents. Human Resource Management 60(6), pp.885-902.
Lazear, E. P., & Rosen, S. 1981. Rank-Order Tournaments As Optimum Labor Contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 841-864.
Lindström, S., 2024. Strategic Human Resource Management: Building Competitive Advantage Through Talent Development and Performance Excellence.
McCarter, M.W., Haeruddin, M., Mustafa, M.Y., Abadi, R.R. and Syahrul, K., 2022. How Work Discipline And Leadership Influence Employees’ Performance?. International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership, 3(1).
Montanaro, E., Mennicke, A., Basinger, E. and Meehan, E., 2025. Speaking Our Culture Into Existence: A Successful Application Of The Stewardship Model. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership In Learning 33(4), pp.501-522.
Mostafa, A.M.S. and Bottomley, P.A., 2020. Self-Sacrificial Leadership And Employee Behaviours: An Examination Of The Role Of Organizational Social Capital. Journal Of Business Ethics 161(3), pp.641-652.
Murphy, K.J. and Jensen, M.C., 2018. The politics of pay: The Unintended Consequences Of Regulating Executive Compensation. Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting 3(2), pp.189-242.
Murtza, M.H. and Rasheed, M.I., 2023. The Dark Side Of Competitive Psychological Climate: Exploring The Role Of Workplace Envy. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights 6(3), pp.1400-1418.
Peng, H. 2012. Counterproductive Work Behavior Among Chinese Knowledge Workers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 20(2), 119-138.
Penić, S., Drury, J. and Bady, Z., 2021. Collective resilience. In In The Shadow Of Transitional Justice (pp. 197-214). Routledge.
Piao, X. and Managi, S., 2022. Long-Term Improvement Of Psychological Well-Being In The Workplace: What And How. Social Science & Medicine 298, p.114851.
Pineda, R.C., Abad-Pinlac, B., Yao, D.P.G., Toribio, F.N.R.B., Josephsson, S. and Sy, M.P., 2024. Unraveling The “Greener Pastures” Concept: The Phenomenology Of Internationally Educated Occupational Therapists. OTJR: Occupational Therapy Journal of Research 44(4), pp.661-670.
Sajko, M., Boone, C. and Buyl, T., 2021. CEO Greed, Corporate Social Responsibility, And Organizational Resilience To Systemic Shocks. Journal of Management 47(4), pp.957-992.
Sánchez‐Marín, G., Lucas‐Pérez, M.E., Baixauli‐Soler, S., Main, B.G. and Mínguez‐Vera, A., 2022. Excess Executive Compensation And Corporate Governance In The United Kingdom And Spain: A Comparative Analysis. Managerial and Decision Economics 43(7), pp.2817-2837.
Sekhar, S., Uppal, N. and Shukla, A., 2020. Dispositional Greed And Its Dark Allies: An Investigation Among Prospective Managers. Personality and Individual Differences 162, p.110005.
Silver, J., 2024. Your Grass is Greener: Use What You Have. Get What You Want. At Work and In Life. Simon and Schuster.
Uzun, S.U. and Kılıç, B.B., 2024. Seeking Greener Pastures: Attitudes Towards Brain Drain Among Turkish Medical Students. BMC Medical Education 24(1), p.1473.
Vlăduț, C., Elshaarawy, O. and Tiniakos, D., 2022. Career Beasts And How To Cope With Them: From Toxic Workplace Culture To Healthy Competition. United European Gastroenterology Journal 11(1), p.134.
Warnock-Smith, D., Cameron, D. and O’Connell, J.F., 2020. Organisational Trust: A Case Application In The Air Transport Sector. Transport Policy 88, pp.69-78.
Weingarten, E., Davidai, S., & Barasch, A. 2023. Who’s on first? People Asymmetrically Attend To Higher-Ranked (Vs. Lower-Ranked) Competitors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 104, 104-119.
Wood, H.D., 2024. Applying Stewardship Leadership That Impacts Employee Work Attitudes to Reduce Voluntary Turnover. Liberty University.
Woolley, A. W., Kim, Y., & Malone, T. W. 2018. Measuring Collective Intelligence In Groups: A Reply To Credé And Howardson. MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 5431-18.
Xu, S. and Hao, A., 2021. Understanding The Impact Of National Culture On Firms’ Benefit-Seeking Behaviors In International B2B Relationships: A Conceptual Model And Research Propositions. Journal of Business Research, 130, pp.27-37.
Zhang, Q., Gong, H., Ouyang, C., Han, J. and Saks, A.M., 2025. Building Micro‐Foundations for Positive Workplace Relationships: Validation of a Strategic Relational Human Resource Management Measure. Human Resource Management 64(3), pp.793-810.