Everyone wants Rafael Nadal to win another Roland Garros, but not many people want to see Real Madrid win another Champions League. People enjoy seeing individuals perform extraordinary feats, whether they are athletes or company CEOs, we like to see the personal development behind those feats and put ourselves in their shoes. However, when it comes to a group of people, be it a team or a company, things change.
This concept has a name: Streaking Star Effect.
The study. Walker and Thomas Gilovich, a professor of psychology at Cornell University, conducted nine studies of 2,625 people, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, to show that “the success of individuals inspires awe in people in a way that success of a group does not”.
In one of them, they analyzed the opinions of the participants on the success of Usain Bolt, the Jamaican athlete who has won the 100-meter dash in the last Olympic Games. Bolt is also a member of a team that won the gold medal in the 4×100 meter relay at the same competition. But most entrants would rather see Bolt win individual gold than the relay tournament at the next Games.
The reason? “When we see Usain Bolt win three gold medals in a row, it surprises us how far the limits of human potential go. And team winning streaks don’t change that much what we think humans can achieve,” the authors explained. This explains the results of other similar studies, where people attributed individual streaks of success to the people themselves, while team success was attributed more to situational factors.
“When an individual wins at something or achieves anything, it’s much easier to identify who is responsible: they own their success. With a group or team, there are so many people involved and so many moving parts that it’s less clear,” says the study. That is, people attribute these feats to the talent or effort of people, which inspires more wonder and a recognizable feeling of empathy.
In the business world. And it doesn’t just happen when we talk about sports superstars. This preference also has implications in the world of business and companies. In another parallel study, participants read about electronic component maker AVnet, one of the 350 largest companies in the US. Half were told that a (fictional) CEO had guided the company for two decades, making a series of smart decisions that led to AVnet’s success. The other half were told that a group of executives had run the company, making the same astute decisions.
What do you think the study participants thought? For when people read that Avnet’s success could be attributed to its CEO, people were more attracted to the brand and thought that the company should have a larger market share than those who were told that the company’s success was linked to a group of executives.
Why Apple has more fans than Samsung. This could be one of the reasons customers personally connect with companies like Apple, because they identify with their founders and CEOs. Almost everyone knows Steve Jobs but few put a face to equally successful companies like IBM or Samsung. They don’t have a face behind them and find it more difficult to connect with staff on a more personal level. And the same would happen with Elon Musk or Bill Gates.