Transcript (00:01): I recently noticed a dichotomy between performance and achievement as a result of my own and my client's experiences. As a result of noticing this gap between performance and achievement, I studied 147 academic theories and performance and achievement. So what I present to you here today is a scientific analysis of why some at certain times great performance may not always lead to successful outcomes or achievement. So listen to it carefully because I believe this can, and this will have a profound effect in the way you perceive success and the way you go about achievement. So visit it once. Visit it again if you need to, because I will leave you with two concrete frameworks that can change your results tomorrow morning. So let's dive straight to the content. Performance is not always equal to achievement. In fact, you can be performing very well and yet not achieve the results that you want. (00:59) Let's see a few examples. In your business, you may have created a great product to service, produce great marketing to sell them. It is possible that you still failed to achieve your goals. It is quite simplistic to assume that you haven't performed right. Have you ever noticed that there have been times when you just can't understand why people aren't buying from you? For example, one of the coaches recently told me, my course is so much better than Tony Robbins. What is wrong with people or at this price? My product is a no-brainer than Why aren't people buying? I recently bought a course from a very well-known creator. It's all over Instagram right now. The landing page was so compelling that it got me what was inside was total crap. The creator didn't perform as promised, but yet he achieved his results. In corporate life, this is very common. (01:49) High performance may get rewarded, but if achievement to you means the top job, then it may not come just because you performed and everyone in the corporate life is well aware of it. Or you may present a great idea that the decision makers just didn't get or pay attention to, but chose a mediocre one quite easily. Messi wasn't an underperformer yet until recently, he hadn't achieved World Cup success. You get the point, right? Performance may not be a sufficient condition for achievement. On the contrary, mediocre performance can also lead to achievement. Even in say, relationships. How many times have you heard people say, I gave it my all and did the best I could, but it didn't work out. In today's technologically savvy world, Google may well be an underperforming search engine. Apple hasn't done anything brilliant since Steve Jobs. Facebook is literally a spy agency. (02:42) Students from top ranked universities around the world aren't finding jobs, and some of the bestselling books are absolute disasters and fact checks. Scientifically, they won't stand a chance on peer reviews. I'll give you some more examples. I was consulting with this large company. It was over 3 billion US dollars, and I was consulting with them to make their culture journeys of culture maps. My final presentation was to the board. The chairperson said this, this is the best I've ever seen, but I don't think my people will be able to digest practices that are these good. Seriously, I'm not kidding. They finally implemented a third rate solution with a very well known consulting firm and paid 10 times the price. Another recent assignment. I helped this firm literally from a $3 million to Atex in two years. It's publicly traded today. Now naturally, as a result of producing these results, I became the go-to problem solver for key leaders. (03:38) It ended because the chairman felt insecure and jealous. He said to me, Jayan, I need some importance that you're getting. Can you step aside for a while? Can you believe it? I have many examples to conclude this. That performance can lead even to non achievement. There are several secure insecurities and jealousies at play. The earliest definitions of achievement are to perform, execute, and accomplish. This definition is perfectly fine. If everything was in your control and hands, the moment you add an external variable or another person or entity that your achievement is dependent upon, for example, even your customers, you can no longer guarantee that performance and execution will lead to accomplishment. Every academic theory emphasizes performance leading to behaviors for peak performance that will result in achievement, plain and simple. So people focused in peak performance, they create the best products, the best solutions, the best courses, the best books, the best advertising. (04:41) Yet not everyone accomplishes the best outcomes. The peak performance theory implies that the problem is always you, and so you must correct or better yourself. Look, I'm all in for taking 110% responsibility, but I'm also scientifically curious, assuming that I am always the problem, may sometimes lead us to solving the wrong problem. Think about it like this. When I assume that I'm the problem, I'll get better, create better products, better behaviors, better processes, and yet I may not get the results because the lack of accomplishment probably had nothing to do with my performance in the first place. Take FedEx for example. It guarantees deliveries in 24 hours. Suppose that it started doing not so well, which is the current reality. Would delivering in 20 hours solve the problem? I studied 147 peer reviewed papers on performance and achievement. I found no evidence that can correlate input of performance to output of achievement, except for in very well-defined technical machine-like tasks. Performance is not equal to achievement. Even mediocre performance can lead to superior achievement, and even the highest level of performance can lead to mediocre achievement. The reason and the solution in hindsight is fairly obvious and simple. I'm going to break this down for you. I call it the performance achievement framework, and here it is.