The Palio di Siena and the prominence of rivalry 

Twice a year (July 2^nd and August 16^th), the Italian city of Siena erupts in wild celebrations by some of its citizens, while others fall in despair. The Palio di Siena is a spectacle like no other. On the surface, it is a horse race, involving ten of the seventeen neighbourhoods (contrade) of the city. But underneath, the Palio is much more than a horse race; it is a living system of alliances, loyalties, identities and, above all, rivalries. The stakes are high: contrade do not just compete, they feud. In a competition with medieval roots, loyalties run deep, rivalries shape decisions and relations well beyond the race itself. 

The Palio may be a distinct case, but rivalry is everywhere: in business, politics, sports, and academia. How does rivalry operate in the workplace? And how does it shape the ways in which we make use of our professional networks? In a recent study published in the Journal of Management Studies, we provide insights into these questions. Rivalry is not just a more intense form of competition. We show that it changes how people think about their social networks and mobilize them. Crucially, these changes are more beneficial for some groups than others. 

Network returns are not gender-neutral 

Social networks are powerful levers for career advancement. They provide access to information, support, and resources. But research consistently shows that men and women derive unequal returns from networks in the workplace, even when their structural positions are similar. We suggest that this is related to differences in how people activate and mobilize their networks. “Activating” means thinking of social contacts in stressful situations at work, while “mobilizing” refers to the actual process of contacting others in the pursuit of personal and professional goals. Our research sheds light on an important contextual factor that influences how these processes unfold: rivalry. 

Rivalry: Context, not just competition 

Rivalry is not a mere competitive encounter. It is personal, relational, and emotionally charged. Whether it is Coke vs. Pepsi or Cambridge vs. Oxford, rivalry introduces a logic of action that prioritizes goal achievement, strategic differentiation, and competitive intensity. It is not inherently good or bad, but it changes profoundly the rules of engagement. 

We argue that these changes have different effects on women and men. Traits typically associated with rivalry, such as agency, focus, or confrontation, tend to align with stereotypical expectations of masculinity. In contrast, women are typically expected to act in communal, cooperative ways. As a result, in rivalry-laden contexts, women are likely to experience a form of dissonance between the context and the behaviours expected of them. This mismatch between context and expectations may interfere with the ways in which women activate and mobilize their networks, even in those cases when they have comparable network ties to men. 

Evidence from the lab, the field, and from Siena 

We test and validate our arguments with a mix of methods: three experiments and two field studies across different contexts. In laboratory experiments, women exposed to rivalry recalled fewer social ties and showed less effective cognitive activation of both ego- and third-party networks. In contrast, men incurred little to no penalty, and in some tasks even displayed small improvement. 

In professional football, women in teams with a rival provided fewer assists per minute than comparable women playing for a team without a rival: a modest but reliable difference. In the Palio di Siena, the presence of a rival contrada on the track reversed the pattern for women captains; without a rival in the race they performed better, with a rival their odds of winning fell markedly relative to men. 

Across all cases, rivalry changed how people activate and mobilize networks. It did not reduce network use overall; rather, it affected who could deploy networks more effectively under pressure. 

Why the rivalry-gender-network interface matters for managers 

These findings matter because they challenge long-held assumptions in the workplace. Talent development programmes, mentorship schemes, and leadership coaching often focus on expanding one’s network, but they rarely consider the context in which networks are mobilized. 

If rivalry constrains how women, perceive or engage with their networks, then efforts to improve equity through networking alone are likely to fall well short of their objectives. The key managerial takeaway is that the impact of rivalry in the workplace is unequal for men and women. Leaders championing more inclusive human resource systems may consider practices that attenuate the intensity of rivalry and reduce discrepancies in processes of network activation or mobilization. These may include: 

1. Reframe high-stakes competition around common objectives and shared wins. When projects involve direct rivalry (for example, when Airbus and Boeing compete for the same client), make the collective goal explicit, so that people feel able to reach across teams for ideas and support. 

2. Avoid personalizing competition in career assessments, and use larger candidate pools. Rotate pairings and evaluators, and prioritize criteria that lower the social cost of seeking support. 

3. Facilitate individual reflection on network activation and use. Add “Who could be a good contact for this project?” and “Who did you consult?” to debriefs and reviews, recognise assists and referrals in job assessment, and encourage effective help-seeking in leadership practices. 

Rethinking context, reframing equity 

As we are preparing to watch yet another exciting edition of Siena’s world-renowned neighbourhood contest this August, it is worth remembering what the Palio can teach us about the intricacies of social life. Rivalry represents a lens through which people perceive opportunity, threat, and belonging. It is also a rulebook, which shapes how we play different types of games. 

For managers and scholars, the objective is not to try to eliminate rivalry, but to recognize its differential effects and to design work contexts that allow employees, irrespective of their gender, to fully develop and mobilize their networks of relationships. The Palio may last only 90 seconds, but it can teach a lifetime of lessons on social networks and identities, on the power of rivalries and alliances.