The Super-Chicken Problem: Why Everything We Think We Know About Performance is Wrong
I've been thinking about my recent conversation with Dr Andy Walshe on The Floorplan podcast, and it's left me with an uncomfortable realisation. Most of what we believe about high performance is fundamentally flawed.
Andy works with everyone from Navy SEALs to Olympic athletes, and the patterns he's uncovered challenge pretty much every assumption we have about excellence. We obsess over individual talent, grit, and being tough on ourselves. Meanwhile, reseach and real-world results point in a completely different direction.
Our Brains are Sabotaging Us (And It's Not Our Fault)
Let's start with something that'll make you feel better about that worst-case scenario spiral you went down at 3am last week. We aren’t all just neurotic at this point in the modern world of work, we're evolutionarily wired for it.
Our brains evolved to keep us alive, not happy.
That same mental circuitry is firing when you're about to give that big presentation. Or even just answer a Teams call apparently. Your amygdala doesn't know the difference between a lion and a boardroom/screen full of colleagues. Dr Rick Hanson's research shows our brains process negative information faster and more thoroughly than positive stuff.
We're literally hardwired to expect disaster.
I know, this isn’t very inspiring.
But here's what fascinates me about Andy's work with a vast range of individuals and teams, they've learned to hack this system. They've trained themselves to move from reaction to response. When that ancient alarm bell starts ringing, they don't fight it. They use grounding techniques: breathing, pausing, reframing to move into a place where they can feel better and perform better.
Instead of "this audience is judging me," they think "this audience wants me to succeed." Same room, same people, completely different brain chemistry.
And yes, I too was thinking but if your boss is a sociopath they really don’t want you to succeed….but for most people, this is helpful advice.
The Self-Compassion Revolution
I’m really tough on myself. And a quick scan of viral blogposts and YouTube videos would have us believing that self-flagellation is the road to success.
Happily, empirical research has shown that we can disregard this whole irritating genre of click-bait.
Kristin Neff's research at UT Austin shows that self-compassion is actually more predictive of motivation and performance than self-esteem. Read that again. Being kind to yourself isn't soft, it's strategic.
Andy put it beautifully when he said even elite performers "buckle." They fail, they stumble, they have off days. What separates them isn't an absence of failure, it’s how they respond when it happens. Studies show people high in self-compassion are more emotionally resilient, more likely to take responsibility for mistakes, and more motivated to improve.
When we're constantly fighting our inner critic, we're using up cognitive resources that could be going toward actual performance. It's like trying to drive with the handbrake on.
The Expertise Trap (or Why Being Good Makes Us Worse)
But expertise can also become a trap. The better we get at something, the worse we become at getting better at it.
As expertise develops, we become increasingly allergic to looking incompetent. We avoid beginner mode because it threatens our identity. Social psychology research shows experts become more sensitive to threats to their competence and more likely to avoid situations where they might appear clueless.
This is the expertise trap. The very mastery we've worked toward becomes a barrier to further growth.
To overcome this, Andy suggests we train in domains where our ego isn't at stake. He has business leaders taking improv classes. and top athletes learning instruments. The goal isn't mastery, it's maintaining comfort with discomfort. It's about preserving that beginner's curiosity that drives real innovation.
I’ve experienced this myself in the last year, learning a completely new domain where despite being very interested in the topic, I hated feeling completely incompetent and looking foolish. Ego definitely gets in the way despite us imagining it won’t.
So now I think about this constantly in my own work. How often am I avoiding something because I might not be immediately good at it? How often are we all doing this?
What High Performers Actually Have in Common
After working across defense, sport, and business, Andy's identified some consistent patterns in elite performers.
They're incredibly self-aware not just about their strengths, but their weaknesses and triggers. Meta-cognitive research shows this accurate self-assessment is crucial for performance across domains.
They're relentlessly curious. Not just about their field, but about everything. They maintain what researchers call deliberate curiosity, actively seeking information that challenges their existing mental models.
They have purpose beyond themselves. Intrinsic motivators, particularly those connected to meaning and contribution, are more sustainable than purely self-focused goals.
They have strong support networks. This isn't just nice to have. Social connection is performance-critical. Strong social support leads to better stress resilience and cognitive performance under pressure.
The Super-Chicken Problem
Despite what we often think, putting all the "best" people together doesn't create the best teams.
Purdue University evolutionary biologist William Muir conducted an experiment where he segregated chickens based on their egg production, grouping the most prolific egg-laying chickens together as “super chickens.” Instead of getting super-productive flocks, he got aggressive, dysfunctional groups that performed worse than mixed flocks.
Google's Project Aristotle found that psychological safety, not raw talent, was the strongest predictor of team performance. The best teams weren't necessarily composed of the highest-performing individuals. They were teams where people felt safe to take risks, make mistakes, and contribute authentically.
Think about every dysfunctional high-performing team you've encountered. The politics, the competition, the way people can create toxic environments when they're all trying to be the smartest person in the room without a willingness to take risks, make mistakes and be vulnerable.
What This Means for All of Us
This conversation with Andy has given me pause to think about our approach to performance, both individual and collective. Andy suggests we are not competing with machines but we're partnering with them. AI handles pattern recognition and data processing while we focus on creativity, ethical reasoning, and complex problem-solving.
The "imagineering" mindset Andy describes, deliberately exposing ourselves to diverse fields and applying insights through experimentation, becomes critical. When his underwater training for executives evolved into contributions to habitat design, it showed how cross-domain thinking drives real innovation.
But mostly, this conversation reminded me that sustainable performance isn't about grinding harder or being tougher on ourselves. It's about creating the conditions psychologically, socially, and culturally where both individual and collective excellence can emerge naturally.
We've been asking the wrong questions. Instead of "How can I perform better?" maybe we should be asking "How can I create the conditions where my best self shows up?" Instead of "How do I build a high-performing team?" maybe it's "How do I build a team where everyone feels safe to perform at their best?"
Listen to the episode with Andy here:
What resonated most with you from Andy's insights? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
P.S. Season 5 of The Floorplan will be here in July after a short Australian winter break (and Matt has surgery on his knee after a new cricket injury).
Libby x