Think of a world where you spend the majority of your time training to perform and then the occasional amount of time actually having your performance capabilities tested out. For the most part, that is the world of professional sport and as a result there’s been a huge amount of time, money and effort invested into understanding the biggest influences on performance and gaining control over those same variables.

Think of a world where you spend the majority of your time having your performance capabilities tested out and there’s an occasional flurry of activity that is focused on training and development time. From our experience, that’s pretty much the corporate world and one that is characterised by an excessive focus on outputs without fully understanding the science of human performance.

Why is the science of human performance important? Well, the people who deliver the inputs that are designed to produce the outputs obviously have an enormous influence on the final success achieved.

When we ask people in the corporate world to define performance, we typically get bombarded with the following: KPI’s, goals, Results, financials, share value, delivering to target. When we ask for a little more detail, then we might start getting words and terms that begin to focus more on the process of getting to the outcome, rather than simply the outcome.

If you focus on the nature of conversations that happen frequently within the corporate world and the kind of questions that get asked, the not wholly helpful definition of performance is reinforced; regular forecast meetings that focus on where we need to be result wise; regular “performance improvement” conversations that actually mean that someone isn’t delivering their required output; last minute flurries of activity every month or quarter to try to hit the number, rather than a focus on sustained excellence around fundamentals of performance.

Imagine if this was the case on the training grounds of the sporting greats all over the world. The coaches of these elite performers would be constantly asking them every day; “are you going to win your next game?”; “tell me how much you’re going to win by, I need to know what the score will be”; “what are you doing today to guarantee us a win next time out?”.

Such a focus of questions would not promote an appropriate learning environment within which the sports performers could break their Challenges down to methodically build up the component parts essential to delivering a great performance. It’s very clear that there’s much more to performance than the result. It’s a critical part of the whole reason for being in the game in the first place, but a maniacal focus on the result does very little to promote the sense of control and confidence that is required to deliver the very best performances under pressure.

So the conclusion here is that if you define performance in a certain way, you’ll get very specific attitudes and behaviours, and if you want to excel in your chosen field, you’d better make sure that the definition you have in the first place is as helpful as possible.

Sports performers know that performance is all about being on a “constant journey of understanding and action - it starts with a defined outcome, it requires the development of six key components and in the end it's a matter of choice". This emphasis on following a process in order to maximise the chances of achieving a desired outcome is absolutely key to really understanding and controlling performance. This emphasis is coupled with a huge desire to constantly improve the skills required to deliver the process.

Therefore, the sense of achieving the final outcome goal is often very far away, but an increased sense of control over the key variables that are most likely to determine success helps to manage the delayed gratification and increase the motivation to find out just how good the entire performance might be in time.

An analysis of most corporate CVs indicates there is a bias toward the technical and tactical elements of performance. Everyone goes to great lengths to outline their qualifications and key achievements that are examples of when these technical abilities were deployed effectively.

Certainly, technical and tactical components of performance are essential. Without the appropriate skill, or the ability to use those skills in the right way at the right time, performance would not be possible at all. However, when we’re talking about the most talented people, their technical and tactical abilities are very strong, but their performance improvement does not simply focus on these areas getting ever better. In fact, the evidence would suggest that, with time, there is less and less performance gain to be had from significant breakthroughs in technical skills or tactical thinking.

If performance is to be improved, the very best always look to the other four areas of influence, which in reality have an enormous impact upon the effectiveness and consistency with which technical and tactical resources are exploited. These are physical, mental, emotional and contextual.

All great athletes know that the physical component of performance is non-negotiable. The same is true for corporate performance. Just deprive yourself of sleep, good nutrition and water for a period of time and see how sustainable any level of performance is.

Within the corporate world there is no need to be a gym rat in order to be the best in your field, but there is a need to ensure that you are fully tooled up to cope with the length of hours worked and have a plan for maximising the physical elements on a daily basis. Failure to do this is simply wilfully underperforming – you’d be choosing to ignore a variable that undeniably impacts upon your ability to consistently deliver at the highest levels for you.

Elite athletes also know that failing to mentally prepare might mean the difference between success and failure. Therefore, a significant focus is placed upon ensuring that: confidence is high and robust; concentration can be focused and controlled regardless of circumstance and conditions; mental rehearsal has taken place so that the novel actually feels familiar; worry and pressure can be understood, controlled or exploited. The psychological influence upon performance is enormous, so not improving mental resource and skill would once again be tantamount to failing to control an obvious influence that will differentiate between good and great.

All athletes know the importance of their support network. Being emotionally connected to key people around you makes a significant difference to overall performance capability. If you’re isolated and expecting to do everything yourself, then you’re in a bad frame of mind to perform when the pressure comes on. The buck may stop with you, but knowing that you’ve drawn on all the people around you who have a vested interest in your success provides a critical source of ongoing confidence. How well do you have your support team in place and working for you?

Finally, the context within which you perform is critical. This basically boils down to whether you have the right equipment around you to do what you need to and that the environment is spot on in terms of the mood and attitude. If you haven’t got the right equipment, the mood and attitude of the context within which you work becomes even more important.

Can you be the world’s best at performing with the level of equipment you do have? Constantly working on getting the best equipment, but also the best-shared attitude towards the Challenges being faced, ensures the context you create within which performance is delivered has the most positive influence possible. As attitudes are our choice, once again, if this influence upon performance capability is not controlled, then that is a choice not to control a controllable.

Beginning to recalibrate a definition of performance to being obsessed with inputs rather than outputs begins to change a huge amount for people. Confidence grows, a sense of control improves and people become more connected by the shared step-by-step journey they are on. When people begin to think in this way, their motivation levels inevitably improve, which means that effort is more effectively targeted, with higher quality and increased persistence of effort. An excessive focus on outputs typically undermines motivation by decreasing confidence, reducing a sense of control and getting people focused only on their targets.

The evidence is compelling, but the risk to change to this kind of definition of performance might seem too great. The real risk is to remain steadfastly stuck to a definition of performance that means you are choosing to underperform. Is that a risk worth taking?