“Stress is necessary to perform, but too much stress is unhealthy.” This (or some variation) is a frequently heard mantra. It seems to be based on the idea that there is one type of stress and that this one type of stress, with moderate exposure, ensures that you are sharp and can perform well, but with excessive exposure leads to lower performance and, ultimately, to health damage. This is not the case. They are actually two fundamentally different kinds of physiological responses. One type (hereinafter: Performance Response) contributes to peak performance, high productivity and flow,[1] and under the influence of the other type, the so-called fight or flight response (hereafter: FF Response), cognitive performance is virtually impossible.
A good understanding of the disadvantages of the FF Response, the advantages of the Performance Response and the triggers for both responses is the start of improving employee health and gaining a competitive advantage.
The FF Response occurs as soon as the brain perceives danger. In the workplace, fear of inadequate performance, or of failure, rejection, or exclusion can qualify as such. The body’s automatic response is the fight or flight response, which is mainly triggered by the stress hormones cortisol and a large amount of adrenaline. In this state, rational thinking is difficult: the amygdala is activated by the signaled danger and the rational brain goes offline, as it were: instead of acting rationally, we act reactively and instinctively with a focus on the stressor. [2] With chronic stress, this response is continuously triggered – people sometimes no longer realize that they are stressed – with all the harmful consequences that this entails.
Scientific research shows that the FF Response does not occur as long as people experience control. As long as a person knows that they are in control of the task or situation, they will not perceive ‘danger’ and thus the FF Response will not occur and the rational brain remains online. Employees who feel that they are unable to achieve their goals, that the work is never finished, that it is never good enough (compared to others), or that they do not belong, do not feel in control. They may experience ‘threat’ on a psychological level and, if so, experience the disadvantages of the FF Response.
The Performance Response is something completely different and can arise in a situation that is challenging but achievable. A well-known example, in optima forma, is flow: a state in which people are highly focused and have the feeling that the (challenging) task is accomplished effortlessly. In a 10-year study by McKinsey, senior managers reported being five times more productive in flow. [3] Adrenaline and cortisol, responsible for the FF Response, play no role here. Instead, there is another mix of neurochemicals that activate the body, give a good feeling and increase concentration and focus. Here the rational brain stays online and we benefit from the increased focus and concentration: the mind becomes calmer. Employees can therefore increase their performance enormously by going after the Performance Response. In addition to maintaining a sense of control, triggering the Performance Response is subject to a number of other conditions, including, as mentioned, challenge and confidence that the job can be done, but also clarity about the task, feedback and intrinsic motivation.
Increasing the sense of control and matching the challenges to the employee’s skills is a good start. Let’s go for peak performance and, if possible, flow.
[1] Kotler, S., Create a Work Environment That Fosters Flow, Harvard Business Review, October 2019.
[2] Arnsten, A. Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function, Nat Rev Neurosci 10, 410–422 (2009).
[3] Cranston, S. en Keller, S., ‘Increasing the ‘meaning quotient’ of work’, McKinsey Quarterly, January, 2013.