Why we need to have stable loci.
The way we explain our wins and losses says more about our future performance than the result itself. A short look at locus of control — and why an internal, stable one matters.
Swap in your own match-day imagery — a pitch, a team, a moment of effort.
Over the last few weeks I've observed a few really interesting occurrences in the world of professional sport — something that has impacted me in my own sporting and professional career too. I wonder if you've noticed it. Below are two quotes that characterise the observation:
"We lost today because the pitch was appalling."
"We were lucky to win today."
Have you noticed this too? The first quote relates to losing a match, the second to winning. And what's the difference between them? Not a whole lot, actually — they both reflect an External Explanatory Style / external locus of control. And both can be detrimental to us realising our true potential and reaching high performance. So let's explore how this plays out.
Locus of control (Rotter, 1954)
As you can see by the date, this isn't a new topic, so I'll keep it simple. According to Rotter, we have two loci of control:
- External — characterised by a mindset of 'things happen to me', no matter how hard I try.
- Internal — characterised by a mindset of 'I have control over how I perform and determine my future'.
I'm sure you'll agree we'd all like an internal locus of control — which has in fact been linked to resilience (think of the phrase 'control the controllables'). Weiner (1972) took this a step further with Attribution Theory, which helps us delve a little deeper. The matrix below depicts it:
This tells us more about our explanatory styles. Here's what each of the four quadrants might sound like in our everyday language.
Out of our control
Both of these attribute performance to things we can't control — we cannot control 'luck' or how hard our opponents work.
- Unstable · External — "The other team were lucky that everything went their way" / "We got lucky today."
- Stable · External — "The other team were too good for us today" (task difficulty).
Within our control
Notice how these attribute performance to things within our control — our own effort and ability.
- Unstable · Internal — "I didn't work hard enough today, I just wasn't up for it" / "I put in a lot of effort today."
- Stable · Internal — "We may have lost today, but we can learn from it and put more work into the weaknesses that were exposed."
Take some time to sit with the statements above. Do you notice anything similar in the way you explain your own wins and losses? How might that need to change?
Admittedly, I've had to work hard on this my whole life. I naturally look for things or people to blame when I lose — the court was too slippery, my coach didn't prepare me well enough. But I now know these aren't facilitative for my development or my performance. I need to take control and accountability for my own performance, and not blame others when things don't go right. And in terms of teamwork — to focus on how we can learn together and support each other in staying accountable to it.
Better quotes, a more stable style
So let's close by reframing those opening quotes with a more stable, internal explanatory style:
- "We lost because the pitch was appalling" becomes "We lost because we didn't cope well with the conditions. We'll go away and work hard so we're better prepared next time."
- "We were lucky to win today" becomes "We won because we'd worked hard on our skills and put in the effort to overcome the opposition. We created our own luck."
A final remark — with another potentially controversial quote:
"I would have done XXX in 2020, but COVID got in the way. I'll wait until it's over, then I'll work on my goals and passions." Is this something you've said? How could you shift it to a more stable, internal viewpoint?
I'll leave you to reflect on that one — and invite you to discuss it further in the comments. Thanks for taking the time to read.