On this page
At an all-company meeting, Zofia publicly thanks her team.
— My people work harder than anyone here. I’m incredibly proud of them.
— Ouch — Helena says.
Zofia only wants to praise her team strongly. Helena hears a sentence that, through one superlative, automatically places every other team below them.
How does Empatyzer help praise teams without creating rankings?
Empatyzer helps you see that superlatives have a hidden cost: by praising one team, they automatically compare them to others. This makes it easier to understand how to appreciate without unwanted ranking.
Features that can help:
- Talk to Em about your team: Allows you to discuss the "My team works the hardest" issue with Em in the context of the entire team and prepare a common rule that will limit similar misunderstandings in the future.
- You vs. the team: Provides a baseline for "My Team Works Hardest" situations: Shows whether you are similar to the team or distinctly different from them in areas such as public praise of the team, comparisons, and unsolicited ranking.
What really happened
Zofia wants to give her team strong recognition, so she reaches for a superlative: “they work the hardest.” She is not thinking about Helena or any other team in that moment. The problem is logical rather than malicious: “the hardest” can exist only through comparison. If one group works the hardest, every other group necessarily works less hard. Zofia has created a ranking she never meant to create.
What the research says
Research on social comparison shows that information about rank changes motivation and behavior even when the underlying evaluation of performance does not change. Experiments with employee rankings suggest that ranking can increase effort, but its effects depend on how the ranking is presented and on individual differences among employees (Cadsby et al., 2019). We do not need a complex model to see the basic issue in this scene: the grammar of a superlative creates a comparison group by itself. Research helps explain why an accidental comparison can still matter socially even when the speaker intended only praise.
How to handle it
You can elevate your own team without lowering anyone else: “You did an enormous amount of work”, “Delivering this in a week was exceptional”, “I’m proud of the quality and pace.” If you genuinely need to compare teams, use data and state the criterion explicitly. The general rule: praise does not need a winner. If you are not trying to create a ranking, describe the value of the work rather than its superiority over unspecified “others”.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can help Zofia recognize her own team without accidentally ranking everyone else. Her profile may indicate a stronger orientation toward results, status and competition, making “my team works the hardest” feel to her like powerful praise rather than comparison. Before a public statement, Em can suggest: “Name the specific effort and result of your team without implying that everyone else contributed less.” At organizational level, aggregated profiles can also reveal whether recognition in the company regularly takes the form of competition between groups. Micro-lessons help leaders see that praise is more precise and relationally safer when it says what was exceptional about a team rather than requiring someone worse in the background.
Sources
- C. Bram Cadsby; Fei Song; Jim Engle-Warnick; Tony Fang (2019). Invoking social comparison to improve performance by ranking employees: The moderating effects of public ranking, rank pay, and individual risk attitude. Journal of Economic Psychology, 72, 64-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.02.004 10.1016/j.joep.2019.02.004
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.