Unethical behavior under relative performance evaluation: Evidence and remedy

Does Local Government Competition Reduce Environmental Governance Performance? The Role of Public Value Conflict and Media Sentiment

With the increasing attention paid to environmental protection and sustainable development in various countries worldwide, the relationship between local government competition and environmental governance has become more subtle and complex. This paper provides new insight into their relationship based on public value theory and media sentiment perspective. Utilizing panel data from 2012 to 2019 in 216 cities in China, this study integrated Data Envelopment Analysis, Conflicting Attitudes Model, Computer-Aided Text Analysis, and machine learning-based sentiment analysis, as well as nonlinear mediation model to empirically test the relationships among local governments’ competition pressure, public value conflict, media sentiments, and environmental governance performance. The study found that: (1) Competition pressure and environmental governance performance exist in a “U-curved” relationship. (2) The core mechanism of the above relationship lies in the mediating role of public value conflict. Within a specific range, the public value conflict faced by local governments increases as competition pressure increases. This conflict would push local governments into a dilemma and induce them to commit misconduct. However, when competition pressure exceeds this range, the public value conflict faced by local governments will be weakened, leading environmental governance performance to rebound. (3) Negative media sentiments significantly alleviate the negative impact of public value conflict on environmental governance performance. This study helps researchers and policymakers recognize government competition’s influence on environmental governance from a public value perspective, with further exploration and confirmation of the moderating role of media sentiments. It also provides theoretical and policy enlightenment for rethinking the behavior logic of local government and solving the dilemma of local government environmental governance.

Science as collaborative knowledge generation

The COVID-19 pandemic points to the need for scientists to pool their efforts in order to understand this disease and respond to the ensuing crisis. Other global challenges also require such scientific cooperation. Yet in academic institutions, reward structures and incentives are based on systems that primarily fuel the competition between (groups of) scientific researchers. Competition between individual researchers, research groups, research approaches, and scientific disciplines is seen as an important selection mechanism and driver of academic excellence. These expected benefits of competition have come to define the organizational culture in academia. There are clear indications that the overreliance on competitive models undermines cooperative exchanges that might lead to higher quality insights. This damages the well-being and productivity of individual researchers and impedes efforts towards collaborative knowledge generation. Insights from social and organizational psychology on the side effects of relying on performance targets, prioritizing the achievement of success over the avoidance of failure, and emphasizing self-interest and efficiency, clarify implicit mechanisms that may spoil valid attempts at transformation. The analysis presented here elucidates that a broader change in the academic culture is needed to truly benefit from current attempts to create more open and collaborative practices for cumulative knowledge generation.

Adversarial alignment enables competing models to engage in cooperative theory building toward cumulative science

Crises in science concern not only methods, statistics, and results but also, theory development. Beyond the indispensable refinement of tools and procedures, resolving crises would also benefit from a deeper understanding of the concepts and processes guiding research. Usually, theories compete, and some lose, incentivizing destruction of seemingly opposing views. This does not necessarily contribute to accumulating insights, and it may incur collateral damage (e.g., impairing cognitive processes and collegial relations). To develop a more constructive model, we built on adversarial collaboration, which integrates incompatible results into agreed-on new empirical research to test competing hypotheses [D. Kahneman, Am. Psychol. 58, 723-730 (2003)]. Applying theory and evidence from the behavioral sciences, we address the group dynamic complexities of adversarial interactions between scientists. We illustrate the added value of considering these in an "adversarial alignment" that addressed competing conceptual frameworks from five different theories of social evaluation. Negotiating a joint framework required two preconditions and several guidelines. First, we reframed our interactions from competitive rivalry to cooperative pursuit of a joint goal, and second, we assumed scientific competence and good intentions, enabling cooperation toward that goal. Then, we applied five rules for successful multiparty negotiations: 1) leveling the playing field, 2) capitalizing on curiosity, 3) producing measurable progress, 4) working toward mutual gain, and 5) being aware of the downside alternative. Together, these guidelines can encourage others to create conditions that allow for theoretical alignments and develop cumulative science.