The hidden bias in how we define high performance

High performance doesn’t look the same in everyone, even when two people are equally capable and working under similar conditions, writes Alessandra Edwards.

One may be ready to go at the first meeting of the day and seemingly able to maintain steady energy. Others may take longer to get going, prefer to process complex information, do their best thinking later in the day and move through more visible peaks and troughs. In corporate life, we tend to interpret these differences behaviourally, making immediate, subconscious judgements about an individual’s energy, confidence and, ultimately, potential. Yet some of what we are observing is biology interacting with the rigid way modern work has been designed. When we fail to recognise this, we risk making a critical diagnostic error: we mistake a difference in access to performance for a lack of capability, commitment or talent.

The performance template we don’t realise we’ve built

Most organisations operate with an implicit, unexamined archetype of the “high performer”. They must be highly visible, instantly responsive, quick on their feet, comfortable speaking up and capable of sustaining a gruelling schedule while appearing outwardly composed. Many of these characteristics sit within what we traditionally call “executive presence”, and as Sylvia Ann Hewlett’s research shows, perceptions of leadership presence are shaped heavily by projected confidence and decisiveness. The danger is that we confuse these behavioural signals with the capability they are supposed to represent. Underneath this confusion sits a distinction I see repeatedly in executive teams. Capability is what someone can do, the expertise and judgement they have built. Capacity is whether they can access it today, and again tomorrow. Performance conversations tend to focus on capability when the real issue is capacity.

The illusion of uniform output

In my work with executives, I map three dimensions of what I call a person’s DNA Energy Signature: when their energy is naturally available, how it fluctuates across the day and how they respond under pressure. Energy rhythm varies because our circadian timing differs. A 2025 systematic review of 65 studies found no consistent evidence that one chronotype is cognitively superior to another. What mattered more was the interaction between chronotype and testing time, with several studies finding better performance when testing occurred at an individual’s optimal time. Yet we routinely schedule cognitively demanding work as though time of day has no bearing on our ability to think. Energy quality also differs. Some people remain relatively stable across the day, while others experience more pronounced peaks and troughs. Visible consistency can therefore be misleading. Someone who appears to have endless energy is not necessarily more resilient than the colleague whose fluctuations are easier to see.

Stress response matters too. Under acute pressure, one person may become more verbally fluent while an equally capable peer needs quiet reflection to process complex variables before delivering a considered response. Measured against the classic corporate benchmark of speaking up, only one of them looks ready. Biology influences these patterns, but behaviour and environment shape how they are expressed.

What HR can do differently

Rethink how decisions are made. When every important decision relies on live discussion, the environment favours people who process and communicate well under those conditions. Detailed pre-reads, written strategic input and time for reflection create alternative routes to contribute. Scheduling deserves similar attention. Where roles allow, give people some control over when they undertake cognitively demanding work. Decentralise wellbeing. Instead of prescribing universal wellness programs and measuring success by attendance or adherence, offer flexible, individual paths to recovery.

Acknowledging biology doesn’t mean accepting fixed limitations. These patterns do retain some plasticity. Working with self-described night owls, researchers shifted sleep and wake timing forward by around two hours through targeted behavioural changes, with improvements in mood and some measures of cognitive and physical performance. For HR, the opportunity is to help people understand their own patterns and use that knowledge intelligently while designing work with enough flexibility to recognise that the conditions for sustainable high performance will not be identical for everyone. Most importantly, interrogate your definition of potential. Has executive presence become synonymous with immediate verbal confidence? Is a constant display of energy the only way you measure resilience? Does the leader who thinks aloud receive more recognition than someone who needs time to arrive at a view?

Consider again the two people from the beginning. Both are deeply capable. Whether the organisation sees that capability depends partly on the conditions it controls: what time a meeting is scheduled, whether they are given space to prepare, and what it has already decided readiness looks like. Much of the performance organisations are trying to create is already on the payroll. The question is whether the way we have designed work allows people to access it.

Alessandra Edwards is the author of The DNA of performance: Your blueprint for leading with unstoppable energy and resilience. She advises CEOs, senior executives and leadership teams on the biology of sustainable high performance.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.