Friend & Foe

When to Cooperate, When to Compete, and How to Succeed at Both

Buy on Amazon

by Adam Galinsky & Maurice Schweitzer

“A fascinating read, and an eye-opening look at how we navigate an increasingly complex social world. Meticulously researched, filled with compelling real world anecdotes, Friend And Foe is a unique and vastly entertaining roadmap to improving relationships and resolving conflicts- at work, at home, and in life.”

— Ben Mezrich, NY times bestselling author of The Accidental Billionaires and Once Upon A Time in Russia

Why We’re Wired for Both Harmony and Rivalry

Humans survived pre-history by banding together for protection and jockeying within the band for scarce resources. That evolutionary double-helix still governs modern life. Galinsky (Columbia Business School) and Schweitzer (Wharton) argue that success requires skillfully toggling between the “friend” instinct—sharing, empathizing, building trust—and the “foe” instinct—competing for status, mates, bonuses, or market share. The biggest mistakes we make arise not from being too cooperative or too competitive, but from misreading which mode the moment demands.

Six Core Insights

1. Social Comparison Is Inevitable—and Useful
   We gauge our performance relative to peers, not in absolute terms. Upward comparisons can motivate (Olympic silver medalists often train harder), but they can also trigger sabotage if status gaps feel unbridgeable. Wise leaders spotlight collective metrics (“team revenue”) to keep comparisons healthy.

2. Power and Status Tilt the Coop-Compete Dial
   Power (control over resources) and status (respect) aren’t the same. High-power / low-status actors—think new money in old-money circles—tend to compete aggressively. By giving such individuals dignified roles or public recognition, you can channel their energy toward collaboration.

3. Perspective-Taking Beats Empathy in Negotiations
   Empathy (feeling another’s emotions) boosts rapport but can make you concede too much. Perspective-taking (understanding another’s motives) unlocks creative win-wins without eroding your own interests. Studies show negotiators who were instructed to imagine their counterpart’s thoughts struck deals 94 % of the time versus 74 % for empathy-primed counterparts.

4. Scarcity Cues Spur Cheating and Hoarding
   When resources appear limited—last seats on a flight, expiring coupons—cheating, lying, and hoarding behaviors spike. Organizations can blunt these effects by framing resources as expandable (“We’ll add another session if seats fill up”) or by clarifying allocation rules.

5. Fairness Is More Important Than Absolute Gains
   People will accept less money if they believe the split is fair; they will destroy value to punish cheaters (see ultimatum-game research). Managers who explain the “why” behind pay decisions or promotion criteria reduce destructive envy.

6. The Best Overall Strategy Is “Tit for Tat… with Grace”
   Classic game-theory work shows that starting cooperatively, reciprocating good acts, and quickly reciprocating exploitation discourages freeloaders while rewarding allies. Yet adding a sprinkle of forgiveness (occasional non-retaliation) prevents endless vendettas triggered by misunderstanding.

Real-World Case Studies

• Sibling Rivalry to Sibling Synergy – The Wright brothers alternated leadership on projects to balance competition and cooperation, a system modern design firms emulate with rotating “project captain” roles.

• Microsoft vs. Netscape – Initial cooperation (licensing the browser) flipped to cut-throat competition when market stakes grew; missing the pivot cost Netscape the war.

• Amazon’s Publishing Battles – By publicly framing negotiations as price cuts “for readers,” Amazon rallied customer allies even while competing aggressively with publishers.

• NBA Draft – Teams overpay for early picks because relative status trumps objective value; data analytics departments now counteract this bias by forcing absolute-value comparisons.

Practical Playbook for Individuals and Teams

1. Diagnose the Context
Is value fixed or expandable? Fixed-pie contexts (one promotion) demand sharper competitive tactics; expandable pies (joint ventures) reward early collaboration.

2. Master Status Choreography
– Elevate overlooked contributors with shout-outs; it reduces destructive envy.
– Self-deprecate when entering a low-power, high-status group; it signals humility and disarms gatekeepers.

3. Use Perspective-Taking Questions
– “What would a win look like for you?”
– “What constraints are non-negotiable on your side?” These queries surface hidden interests that can convert zero-sum into win-win.

4. Set Fair Processes, Not Just Fair Outcomes
Publish transparent criteria for bonuses or resource allocation. Research shows procedural fairness doubles acceptance even of unfavorable outcomes.

5. Build Slack to Minimize Scarcity Mindset
Keep a small budget, buffer stock, or extra schedule runway. Slack dampens zero-sum panic and invites cooperative brainstorming.

6. Apply “Tit for Tat with Grace”
– Start meetings cooperatively—share data, voice appreciation.
– Respond proportionally to freeloading—but after one strategic delay (grace), just in case the slight was accidental.
– Once trust is re-established, reset to cooperation.

Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

• Over-Collaboration – Teams stuck in harmony bias avoid hard feedback. Schedule “red-team” sessions where someone is assigned to poke holes.

• Chronic Competition – Sales teams with winner-take-all commissions often hide leads. Introduce a shared team bonus to restore balance.

• Misplaced Empathy – In hostage negotiations, excessive empathy can get agents manipulated; training emphasizes perspective-taking instead.

• Scarcity Signaling by Accident – Publicly ranking employees 1-to-N breeds cut-throat culture; use tiered ratings or broader bands.

10-Day “Friend & Foe” Skill Sprint

Day 1–2: Identify one relationship where you default to competition; list ways to add a cooperative element (shared goal).
Day 3–4: Practice perspective-taking in a low-stakes negotiation—guess the other side’s priorities before they state them.
Day 5–6: Notice scarcity cues at work (limited budgets, end-of-quarter crunch). Counteract by proposing resource expansion ideas.
Day 7: Offer public credit to a peer; observe any shift in your collaborative dynamic.
Day 8–9: Hold a “red-team” critique session on a pet project to inoculate against groupthink.
Day 10: Reflect: Did toggling friend-and-foe modes consciously improve outcomes? Adjust default settings accordingly.

Memorable Quotes

• “Cooperation enlarges the pie; competition decides who eats what.”

• “Power without status is a recipe for conflict.”

• “Perspective-taking lets you see the deal they’re dying to agree to.”

• “Fairness is not a luxury—it’s the lubricant of collaboration.”

Key Takeaways at a Glance

• Success hinges on reading situations and toggling smoothly between help-and-fight instincts.

• Power, status, and scarcity cues predict whether people lean friend or foe.

• Perspective-taking produces smarter deals than pure empathy or pure assertiveness.

• Procedural fairness, public recognition, and small resource buffers keep competition constructive.

• A “tit for tat with grace” strategy discourages exploitation while preserving long-term cooperation.

Final Reflection

Friend & Foe moves beyond pop-psych bromides—“always win-win” or “nice guys finish last”—to a nuanced, research-backed framework for daily life. Galinsky and Schweitzer remind us that neither tooth-and-claw competition nor kumbaya cooperation alone fosters great outcomes. Mastering the art of switching—sometimes within minutes—lets you seize opportunities, safeguard your interests, and build relationships robust enough to weather both rivalry and alliance.

Business Floss is reader-supported. When you use our links we may earn an affiliate commission that helps us keep the site running. Thank you for your support!