Performance Science Digest #2

Reading Time: 8 minutes

In this issue:

• What it means to be an underdog

• Why you need to invest in recovery

• How relationships impact performance

The Underdog Effect: When low expectations increase performance.

Most high performers know what it's like to want to prove someone wrong. This feeling is what we typically associate with being an underdog - we believe that others have misjudged our capabilities and don't see what's possible for our full potential.

As a result, we feel slighted, and misunderstood, and the occasional bout of righteous indignation. Underdog expectations are based on the perception that other people see the performer as unlikely to succeed.

Subscribe to Perform

This article looked at what goes on underneath underdog expectations, and when these expectations help or hurt performance.

Psychologists have been looking at the role expectations play in performance for decades. Early studies on expectations demonstrated that teachers who expected better performance from their students tended to end up with students who performed better (and vice versa).

The phenomenon of positive expectations leading to positive performance was termed the Pygmalion Effect, and it's been demonstrated in academic performance, military performance, sports performance, and in business. In most situations, it's useful for leadership to hold positive expectations of the followers.

The inverse - low expectations leading to worse performance - is called the Golem effect. In some studies, we've seen that preventing people from forming low expectations mitigates the risk of low expectations hurting performance.

Here's where things get a little complicated.

There are some situations in which high expectations can backfire.

Performing in front of an audience and putting pressure on yourself to perform effectively both seem to undermine the value of high expectations. And, it's not about only playing in front of a hostile crowd.

Performing in front of a supportive audience can also undermine the value of high expectations since the supportive crowd can trigger our desire to appear positively rather than simply perform well (self-presentation issues). Even positive stereotypes can undermine performance.

So how do underdog expectations work?

The expectations that we won't succeed motivate us to show the observer that their opinions are wrong and untrue. In a sense, this motive is us trying to assert control over the situation and make the environment more predictable and stable by making it more consistent with our own beliefs of who we are.

We have a core need to think of ourselves in generally positive terms, and we will work hard to protect that belief from negative evaluations (self-enhancement theory).

We also tend to experience other people's expectations as a constraint, which can trigger reactance, or the psychological tendency to push back against restrictions on our freedoms. It turns out that a short-term focus on proving ourselves to others can heighten cognitive engagement, sharpen focus, and lead to better performance.

But this motivation isn't always productive.

Underdog expectations fuel performance when the people who have levied a judgment that we won't succeed are not so credible. When we don't perceive the judgment as coming from a trustworthy or expert source, it's easy to focus on proving the expectations wrong.

The problem comes when the negative expectations come from real experts we trust. If the observer is credible, we tend to internalize the expectations just a little bit more, which hurts our performance. When the observer's credibility is high, these beliefs tend to detract from the focus and attention we need to perform our best. We're focused on constantly evaluating whether we're surpassing someone else's goals for us, rather than what we need to do in each moment to facilitate peak performance.

So how can you use this to your advantage as a leader?

Framing low expectations as an opportunity to prove others wrong (essentially framing it as a challenge) can facilitate performance. Or, if your team is receiving some criticism, undermining the credibility of the observer is another way you can mitigate the risks of these underdog expectations backfiring.

Finally, make sure that your leaders carry high expectations for the performance of others - putting people in leadership positions with low expectations is going to undermine the performance of the whole group.

Citation: Nurmohamed, S. (2020). The underdog effect: When low expectations increase performance. Academy of Management Journal,63(4), 1106-1133.

The quality of the coach-athlete relationship predicts objective performance in elite cricket.

We're learning more and more about how "soft skills" impact performance.

This article took it to the next level. What the researchers found is that the quality of the relationship between the coach and athlete predicted objective performance in cricket. It's the first study I'm aware of that shows that the quality of a social connection can provide an actual performance advantage.

Performance, in this case, was measured by the percentage of shots that cricketers "middled", or connected with the ball in the correct location of the bat. The better the hitting, the better the performance.

The relationship between a coach and athlete is an important social situation. How each member feels, thinks, and behaves directly impacts the other, both in terms of their experience (things like happiness and well-being), and, as it turns out, performance.

When the quality of the relationship between the athlete and coach is high, athletes tend to feel trusted, engaged, and safe. It also impacts the way coaches perceive the performance of their athletes - the more positive the relationship, the more favorable the perceptions.

Dr. Sophia Jowett has dedicated her career to studying the dimensions of effective coach-athlete relationships. Her work has led to the development of what she calls the 3+1Cs model: closeness, commitment, complementarity, and co-orientation.

Closeness is about the emotional connection between coach and athlete.

Commitment reflects the intention to stay connected over time.

Complementarity reflects cooperative and collaborative behavior.

Co-orientation is about the degree to which the coach and athlete have a shared mental model of performance.

What this article showed was that two of these Cs in particular are important for predicting performance: commitment and complementarity.

As these two qualities in the relationship increase, athlete performance improves, as does their ability to replicate the skill of batting effectively. Athletes who have a committed coach are more likely to execute their batting consistently and successfully, and the greater the complementarity, the more comfortable the athletes are when going to bat.

This doesn't mean that the other two dimensions are unimportant - previous research has shown that closeness and co-orientation have impacts on things like athlete mental health - but that the way these dimensions influence performance might be more indirect.

What this paper suggests is that, if you're a leader or coach, demonstrating a commitment to your followers (athlete, employees, whoever) by investing in their development, working with them through difficult problems, and supporting their autonomy and skill development increases the likelihood of repeated good performance in the future.

Similarly, creating a safe environment where athletes or employees can feel at ease around you is also likely to facilitate performance. That means being responsive, respectful, and kind as a leader, while also maintaining a commitment to high standards and expectations.

Citation: Phillips, K., Jowett, S., Krukowska-Burke, A., Rhind, D.J.A. (2023). The quality of the coach-athlete relationship predicts objective performance in elite cricket. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 54(1), 32-47. doi:10.7352/IJSP.2023.54.032

Daily Recovery from Work-Related Effort during Non-work Time

This one is for those who believe that the only way to improve performance is to grind it out.

I can remember as a coach being told to "sleep when I'm dead" and that recovery is for the weak. I can even remember a mentor of mine (a psychologist!) telling me that "my generation is too focused on work-life balance and doesn't appreciate the value of hard work."

I suppose that grinding it out and sleeping when you are dead could be valuable if you don't care about the quality of your work.

This book chapter covers a range of research at work that demonstrates that allowing for adequate recovery between bouts of work both maintains well-being and improves performance.

Recovery works through several mechanisms.

The first is that it allows us to recover from the short-term stressors we all experience at work - the difficult customer, the overbearing boss, the missed deadline. These stressors, if accompanied by adequate recovery, are short-lived and don't need to harm employee health or engagement. But, without recovery, we run the risk of long-term harm like burnout and even some physical health conditions like hypertension.

In the words of Steve Magness and Brad Stulberg, stress + rest = growth.

The second mechanism is that recovery allows for increased engagement in the future, and the more engaged we are, the better we tend to perform. Daily work engagement is a function of how much recovery we get between work days, and daily engagement predicts performance. Simply put, if you're checked out, your work is going to suck.

Recovery allows us to more effectively appraise the challenges we face at work. When we're adequately recovered, we tend to see stressors at work as challenges that we have the resources to manage.

Working hard is good as long as there is adequate time to recover.

We tend to intuitively understand this with our athletes (or if you've ever played sports). We leave time to rest between sprints or sets and we never work the same muscle group two days in a row. Why wouldn't we need some time to recover in between bouts of hard work?

So how can we effectively recover from work?

The key mechanism for effective recovery from work is psychologically detaching. If you're still thinking about work during non-work hours, you're not recovering. That means that good recovery involves letting go of work and being fully present in another, restorative activity.

Here are some ideas:

• Sleep

• Active relaxation (yoga, meditation, etc.)

• Social activities (time with your partner or friends)

• Creative activities (painting, drawing, making music)

• Physical activities (working out, playing sports)

Each of these activities has the potential to allow us to detach from work and effectively recover so that we can give our best the next day.

Recovery is an investment in your future performance.

Citation: Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Geurts, S. A., & Taris, T. W. (2009). Daily recovery from work-related effort during non-work time. InCurrent perspectives on job-stress recovery(Vol. 7, pp. 85-123). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.