Last week, I found myself working with two different clients in back-to-back coaching sessions. They came from separate organizations, operated in different industries, and had very different leadership styles. Yet despite those differences, both leaders brought the same challenge into our conversations.
Both felt frustrated and stuck because they were struggling to get someone on their team to improve their performance.
I always find moments like this interesting, and they happen more than you can imagine: two separate leaders wrestling with the same issue at the same time. I usually joke that the universe has a funny way of surfacing patterns for a reason. When something shows up twice in a row, it’s usually worth paying attention.
As we dug in, it became clear that the problem wasn’t effort, commitment, or even talent. It was something much more subtle.
Both leaders were missing the sweet spot between support and pressure.
One was applying far too much pressure.
The other wasn’t applying enough.
For my first client, expectations were high, the pace relentless, and standards constantly reinforced. Her intentions were good; she wanted to push her employee to perform, but the result was tension, anxiety, and diminishing returns. Her employee was working hard, but creativity was shrinking, and energy was fading.
The other leader had the opposite issue. He was deeply supportive, empathetic, and patient, but his expectations were soft, and he wasn’t holding his employee accountable. Pressure was almost nonexistent, and performance was fading fast.
Isn’t it amazing how two completely different approaches can produce the same exact outcome? This always amazes me, but there is a brilliant and straightforward framework that explains it all.
It is called the Yerkes–Dodson Law.
The Yerkes–Dodson Law was developed in 1908 by psychologists Robert Yerkes and John Dodson. It explains the relationship between pressure and performance, and it’s usually illustrated as an inverted U-shaped curve.
Here’s the idea in simple terms:
- Too little pressure leads to low motivation and low performance
- The right amount of pressure leads to focus, engagement, and peak performance
- Too much pressure leads to stress, anxiety, and declining performance
In other words:
A little stress sharpens you. Too much stress shuts you down.
This framework has been used to explain performance among athletes, performers, students, and professionals in high-stakes fields. But it’s just as powerful for leaders trying to elevate performance.
The mistake most leaders make is overshooting or undershooting the optimal zone. They either push too hard or protect too much.
The subtle shift is realizing that performance doesn’t improve through pressure alone or support alone. It improves when the two are carefully calibrated.
High performance lives in the middle – in what I call the sweet spot.
The sweet spot is that optimal zone where people feel stretched but not overwhelmed. Supported but not coddled. Challenged but not threatened. They know the bar is high and they believe they can reach it.
Finding this sweet spot is a skill backed by the understanding that leadership is less about formulas and more about feel. The right amount of pressure for one person might be too much for another, and what energizes someone now might exhaust them later.
That’s why subtle shifts matter.
The question for leaders isn’t, “How do I get more out of my people?”
It’s, “What do they need right now to perform at their best?”
Do they need more clarity or more autonomy?
Do they need more challenge or more reassurance?
Do they need more urgency or more space?
Neither of the leaders I mentioned needed to overhaul their leadership style. They didn’t need a big, bold, or dramatic transformation. They needed to make a subtle shift in how they were applying pressure.
And once they made that shift, performance started to improve.
If you want to elevate performance on your team, don’t default to pushing harder or backing off completely. Pay attention to energy levels, listen for signs of strain or stagnation, and find that optimal zone.
Then make a subtle shifts to help others perform.
You’ve got this.
