In high performance environments, attention often centres on intelligence, technical skill, and data. These factors provide a partial account of performance. They explain how individuals learn, process information, and execute tasks in stable conditions. They do not explain performance when pressure increases, uncertainty rises, and conditions degrade. In those contexts, character, judgement, and non cognitive skills begin to determine outcomes.
This issue sits at the centre of performance psychology and is particularly relevant to those operating in high stress and high reliability roles. It is also a recurring theme across conversations on the Optimising Human Performance platform, where the focus is on sustained performance rather than short term output.
A recent discussion with Professor Mike Matthews of West Point provides a useful framework for understanding this problem. His work in military psychology and human performance has focused on how individuals perform in demanding environments. A consistent observation is that cognitive ability explains part of performance. It does not explain most of it.
The limits of cognitive ability in performance
This does not diminish the importance of intelligence. Cognitive ability remains relevant for learning, planning, and technical execution. Professor Matthews described this using what he has termed the “25 75 rule”. Cognitive factors may account for a proportion of performance variance, often in the region of a quarter. A larger proportion remains unexplained.
This remaining variance includes factors that are less visible but no less important. These include motivation, self regulation, resilience, and other aspects of character. In controlled conditions, these factors may remain in the background. Under pressure, they become central.
This aligns with broader observations in applied settings. Individuals who perform well in predictable environments do not always transfer that performance into complex or stressful conditions. Others, who may appear less exceptional in stable contexts, often show greater consistency when demands increase. The difference is rarely explained by intelligence alone.
Grit and sustained performance
Professor Matthews illustrated this through his work on grit at West Point. Working alongside Angela Duckworth, he examined whether grit predicted success during Cadet Basic Training. This is a relevant test case because the initial selection process already identifies highly capable individuals. These are candidates with strong academic records, leadership experience, and high motivation. Despite this, a proportion do not complete training.
Grit predicted persistence.
The interpretation requires care. Grit is often reduced to short term effort or day to day discipline. In this work, it refers to sustained commitment to long term goals that require continued effort over time. This distinction matters for those working in demanding roles. Many outcomes in these environments do not respond to short bursts of effort. They require consistent engagement across extended periods, often with limited feedback and repeated setbacks.
Performance requires more than persistence
Grit contributes to performance. It does not define it.
There is a tendency in popular discussion to treat grit as a solution to performance challenges. This creates a narrow model. Performance depends on a broader set of capabilities that include decision making, social awareness, emotional control, and ethical judgement. These factors influence how effort is applied and whether it is directed toward appropriate goals.
This has direct relevance for leadership. Individuals can persist in pursuit of goals that are poorly defined or misaligned with organisational objectives. Persistence without judgement can create risk. High performance requires alignment between effort, decision making, and values.
Character, culture, and organisational performance
Character becomes visible when individuals operate under pressure. It shapes how authority is exercised, how decisions are made, and how individuals respond to stress and uncertainty. Despite this, many organisations continue to prioritise outputs that are easier to measure.
Professor Matthews emphasised the role of culture in shaping behaviour. Organisations do not operate in a vacuum. They influence how individuals act and what behaviours are reinforced. A strong culture supports long term performance by reinforcing standards and aligning behaviour with shared values. A weak culture allows behaviours that undermine cohesion and trust to persist.
This is evident across sectors. Teams often retain individuals who deliver short term results but disrupt collective performance. Over time, these individuals reduce overall effectiveness. Removing them may reduce immediate output. It often improves performance across longer timeframes. This pattern is consistent with observations in both military and professional sport environments.
Situational awareness and decision making
Situational awareness is a central component of performance in complex environments. It involves identifying relevant information, interpreting that information accurately, and anticipating likely developments. In military psychology, it is closely linked to decision quality.
Training and experience improve situational awareness. Exposure to varied scenarios allows individuals to build pattern recognition and respond more effectively. This is consistent with approaches used in aviation and increasingly in other high risk domains. Repeated exposure to realistic scenarios enables individuals to make better decisions when confronted with similar conditions in practice.
This has relevance beyond the military. Leaders in business, healthcare, and other high pressure domains face similar demands. They must interpret incomplete information and act under time pressure. Improving situational awareness enhances decision making in these contexts.
The modern information environment
The current information environment introduces additional complexity. Social media increases the volume of available information while reducing its reliability. This creates a challenge for situational awareness.
Professor Matthews highlighted the role of psychological influence in modern conflict and competition. Information can shape perception, influence behaviour, and affect outcomes. This is not limited to military contexts. It extends to organisational decision making and public discourse.
Individuals operating in high performance environments must develop the ability to evaluate information critically. This includes recognising misinformation, filtering irrelevant inputs, and focusing on signals that inform action. These skills now form part of effective performance in complex systems.
Human performance optimisation in practice
Human performance optimisation has developed into a multidisciplinary field. It integrates insights from physiology, psychology, and leadership to improve performance outcomes. This approach is reflected across the Optimising Human Performance platform, where emphasis is placed on combining domains rather than relying on a single intervention.
The field also attracts unsupported claims. Organisations are frequently presented with products or systems that promise performance gains. These claims are not always grounded in evidence. Professor Matthews distinguished between scientific research and superficial investigation. Research requires sustained empirical work. It is not equivalent to brief online searches or persuasive marketing.
For practitioners, this creates a requirement to evaluate evidence carefully. Decisions about performance interventions should be informed by credible data rather than novelty or presentation.
Implications for sustained performance
For those responsible for performance in demanding environments, several implications follow. Non cognitive skills should be developed alongside technical capabilities. Organisational culture should reinforce behaviours that support long term performance. Training should include exposure to realistic scenarios that develop situational awareness. Individuals should be educated to recognise misinformation and evaluate evidence effectively.
These principles align with a broader focus on sustained performance. They also connect with related areas such as sleep and recovery, which underpin cognitive and behavioural functioning and are explored in more detail elsewhere on this platform.
Final point
Performance is often assessed over short timeframes. This encourages a focus on immediate outcomes. A more useful perspective considers performance over extended periods.
Character, judgement, and culture shape that trajectory. When conditions are stable, differences between individuals may appear small. When conditions deteriorate, those differences become more pronounced.
This is where character and non cognitive skills determine performance.
