IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competitor Orientation: Effects of Objectives and Information on Managerial Decisions and Profitability


  • Armstrong, J. Scott
  • Collopy, Fred


Managers are often advised, "beat your competitors," which sometimes contrasts with the advice, "do the best for your firm." This may lead managers to focus on comparative measures such as market share. Drawing on game theory, the authors hypothesize that managers are competitor-oriented under certain conditions, in particular, when they are provided with information about competitors' performance. Empirical studies lead to the additional hypothesis that a competitor orientation is detrimental to performance. To examine these hypotheses, the authors conduct two studies. The first is a laboratory study in which 1016 subjects made pricing decisions. When information about the competitor's profits was provided, over 40% of the subjects were willing to sacrifice part of their company's profits to beat or harm the competitor. Such competitor-oriented behavior occurred across a variety of treatments. The second is a field study used to examine the performance over a half-century of 20 large U.S. firms with differing objectives. Firms with competitor-oriented (market share) objectives were less profitable and less likely to survive than those whose objectives were directly oriented to profits.

Suggested Citation

  • Armstrong, J. Scott & Collopy, Fred, 1996. "Competitor Orientation: Effects of Objectives and Information on Managerial Decisions and Profitability," MPRA Paper 81676, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:81676

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Parks, Bill & Pharr, Steven W. & Lockeman, Bradley D., 1994. "A marketer's guide to Clausewitz: Lessons for winning market share," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 68-73.
    2. Shimp, Terence A & Hyatt, Eva M & Snyder, David J, 1991. "A Critical Appraisal of Demand Artifacts in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 273-283, December.
    3. Ashton, Rh & Kramer, Ss, 1980. "Students As Surrogates In Behavioral Accounting Research - Some Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15.
    4. Armstrong, J. Scott & Brodie, Roderick J., 1994. "Effects of portfolio planning methods on decision making: experimental results," MPRA Paper 81684, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Alvin Scodel & J. Sayer Minas & Philburn Ratoosh & Milton Lipetz, 1959. "Some descriptive aspects of two-person non-zero-sum games," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 3(2), pages 114-119, June.
    6. Mueller, Dennis C., 1992. "The corporation and the economist," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 147-170, June.
    7. Marvin B. Lieberman, 1987. "The learning curve, diffusion, and competitive strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(5), pages 441-452, September.
    8. Anterasian, Cathy & Graham, John L., 1989. "When it's good management to sacrifice market share," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 187-213, November.
    9. Morton Deutsch, 1958. "Trust and suspicion," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 2(4), pages 265-279, December.
    10. Robert D. Boynton & Brian F. Blake & Joe N. Uhl, 1983. "Retail Price Reporting Effects in Local Food Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(1), pages 20-29.
    11. Cynthia A. Montgomery & Birger Wernerfelt, 1991. "Sources of Superior Performance: Market Share Versus Industry Effects in the U.S. Brewing Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(8), pages 954-959, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    competition; profitability; market share;

    JEL classification:

    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:81676. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.