Subscribe

◎⁃◎

Welcome to Connecting Dots—the innovation leadership newsletter by Brett Macfarlane.

◎⁃◎

Maintaining High Performance

High performance can be high risk—especially when dealing with the complex, uncertain and emotional dynamics of leading innovation. Surface level excellence can mask hidden erosion.

Part of the challenge is the nature of who steps up or is encouraged to lead innovation. I’ve identified four behavioural patterns commonly exhibited by serial innovation leaders.

1. High intrinsic motivation - Naturally motivated to take on challenges and do impactful work, yet rarely understand the deeper origin of their motivation.

2. Self-reliance - Capable of dealing with exceptionally complex and ambiguous work yet because of their competence they are rarely assigned or pursue leadership development.

3. Idealized - Excited to take on meaningful work and like being needed yet don’t fully read the unrealistic hopes and expectations of others projected onto them.

4. Demonized - Adaptively develop effective processes technically to progress yet rationalize rather than sense or feel their way through the inevitable change resistance.

The challenge is that these patterns enable people to accomplish great things. Yet great results cloak that in excess, or unregulated, these behaviours can lead to regressive professional and personal outcomes. For example, declining business metrics or burnout, self-harm and family strife can emerge along with questionable or unethical actions in any aspect of life. 

How to Spot Future Performance Declines Today?

Maintaining high performance means sensing the potential for these regressive outcomes to support leaders before they happen. The best evidence and techniques to do so that I’ve come across are from elite sports. 

The dangers of high performance have long been known and studied by scientists, coaches and performance management professionals. A relevant finding with robust validation in recent decades is that qualitative measures in the present are the best indicator of quantitative declines in the future.

An example of future performance decline: a 100m sprinter running at a world record pace today who repeatedly feels irritable without antagonism for long stretches is experiencing an early warning signal of overtraining. An example of future performance incline: high levels of motivation, satisfaction and meaning can signal future quantitative gains if persisting through phases of intense load where the performance gains have yet to emerge.

Athletes, like business professionals, have up-and-down days. It’s a full-time job and hard work. Sometimes the pressures of expectations, oversight, success or failure get to you. For athletes, this can happen in peak training blocks or periods of frequent or high-stakes competition like a world championship, playoffs or the Olympics. 

The conclusion is that it’s normal to periodically wake up and feel grumpy, unmotivated or anti-social. However, three or five days in a row, especially after a recovery day, signals something is off. Such signals strongly correlate with future underperformance, burnout or worse if not addressed (source: British Medical Journal of Sports Medicine).

Sensing Performance Signals

The ways to track and surface these signals are surprisingly simple. I find the Daily Analysis of Life Demands of Athletes (DALDA) the most relatable as someone responsible for innovation programs and leaders. Crucially, the questionnaire looks at a person holistically to identify if there are sources of stress emerging like changes in diet, interests, socializing, sleep, illness, etc. that signal future performance declines. 

As an example, in structured R&D processes or software development with sprints, velocity and bugs tracking days off due to illness are visible signals the team is running too hot or “something else” is going on. A signal whose performance effects may take a few sprints or months to fully reveal their negative effects. 

In my leadership development work over long periods of supporting individual leaders or teams, I use the drivers of the Innovation Leadership Map to identify role-specific stressors. For example, if a leader is consistently feeling over-exposed, is that a structural issue or they are struggling to accept the authority and permission they have been granted (and wanted)? Whatever the reason for the stressor, identifying their presence is a powerful and preventative signal for where support is needed.

Dual Role of Perceived Stress

A justified critical question: “What if everything is fine but they perceive or project something is wrong?”

A key aspect of DALDA is self-assessment. In the process of self-assessment, the potential sources of stress are identified. By being identified the stressors are illuminated and become something a person naturally questions and evaluates. 

This process of reflection seems to provide a helpful counter-stress either to question the validity of the stresser or if real to give autonomy for the individual to do something to resolve it (Source: Brain, Cognition and Mental Health.) As in, can they allow themselves a day off of training without guilt? Or, do they realize they are under-committed and feel ashamed of not taking up the resources and opportunities granted to them? 

The point to conclude with is that to accomplish great things requires stress. Innovation leaders are trying to change a system and that requires injections of energy. However, the cut and thrust of everyday life can erode energy or one can over-invest energy leading to a crash. Ongoing observation of life and work stressors can help high performers perform their best over time and when it matters most.

~ Onwards ~

Learn more about Brett’s leadership development practice for global executives with innovation responsibilities.

◎⁃◎