Behavior under pressure, within one organization.
Twenty employees observed their own behavior under pressure. We listened and provided insight into what was underlying it, without judgment and without imposing labels. A first, in-depth look at how people recognize their own reactions.
What you find below.
What we investigated
If people recognize their behavior under pressure as a logical consequence of what is going on inside, when that behavior is reflected through the three layers of INR.
What we saw
Participants strongly identified with what emerged. The three layers were consistently applicable to all twenty personal stories.
What it means
It shows that the model resonates and gives language, not that it's proven by that. The insights apply within this one organization.
Why this study.
Workload, psychological safety, and self-regulation are increasingly high on the agenda within organizations. Most behavioral models focus on the external aspects: they describe what people do and attempt to correct it. INR turns that on its head. It examines why behavior arises and treats behavior under pressure not as a weakness, but as a form of protection with its own logic.
We wanted to know if that premise holds up with real people, in a real work environment. That's why we deliberately chose one organization. Within one work culture, the circumstances are largely the same, allowing you to compare behavior more effectively.
How we worked.
Qualitative and observational. Our focus wasn't on numbers or averages, but on the story behind behavior. That's why we collected personal responses and looked at what lay beneath them.
People named themselves
During a two-day training, participants identified their own behavior under pressure and discussed it. The material came from them, not us.
We mirrored, without judgment
We provided insight into the motivation and the narrative beneath it. No labels, no types, no correction. Just making visible what was already there.
Three sources together
The training, the personal feedback afterward, and the open reflections that participants spontaneously shared. Together, they provide a richer picture than each element individually.
We then examined each story through the three layers of the INR Model. We always followed the same order, so that each story was treated in the same way.
The I-layer
The inner needs that come under pressure: autonomy, competence, connectedness.
The N-layer
The narrative that has formed about it. The story you tell yourself by observing your own behavior.
The R-layer
The visible behavior that arises from that, intended as protection.
Scientific justification
The INR Model is based on a solid, modern foundation in behavioral science. The I-layer builds on research into basic human needs, with autonomy, competence, and relatedness at its core. The N-layer aligns with the insight that people observe their own behavior and use it to deduce who they are, thereby forming a narrative about themselves.
This study is qualitative and exploratory in nature. This means that the findings are rich and in-depth, but not intended to be generalized to other organizations. The analysis followed the same pattern for each of the twenty stories, which enhances comparability.
Theoretical anchoring. The substantiation is based on established scientific work:
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory: Toward a motivational science of human.
- Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-Perception Theory, or how people observe their own behavior and infer who they are from it.
Twenty stories, across three layers.
The three layers could be applied to all twenty stories. Below are the patterns we observed, always within this group.
The I-layer, which need was met
Under pressure, one of the three basic needs was compromised for most people. Often, multiple needs were affected simultaneously, with one taking precedence.
The N-layer, which narratives returned
Despite differences in behavior, certain narratives returned with striking frequency. Stories that protect, while simultaneously evoking the situation they protect against.
The R-layer, what behavior became visible
Clear clusters emerged in the observable behavior. Different in form, but with an inner logic that was always in line with the structure beneath.
From recognition to action.
A model is only valuable if it sets something in motion. That's why we also looked at how participants experienced the feedback and what they did with it.
All twenty participants found their feedback relatable. Words like confrontational, clarifying, and accurate were frequently used. Importantly, this relatability was not just flattering, but also challenging. Something that touches you and is still accurate is harder to dismiss as a generality.
For most, their perspective on their own behavior shifted. What previously felt awkward or unprofessional became understandable and explainable. This made space for reflection instead of self-criticism. Several people spontaneously referred back to their feedback days later.
What this study doesn't say
- The insights apply within this one organization. That the same patterns recur in other cultures and sectors has not yet been demonstrated by this.
- Recognition is not proof. The fact that people recognize themselves shows that the model resonates and gives language. It does not show that the model is thus proven correct. We therefore paid attention to reflections that were specific and personal, not general.
- Not everyone reflects the same way. Some people are more verbally inclined than others, and the presence of trainers and colleagues may have influenced how openly they expressed themselves.
- It's a first step. A small, qualitative study suggests and explores. It forms the beginning of a broader line, not an endpoint.
The model resonates and gives language.
Within this organization, the three layers could be consistently applied, and people recognized themselves in what emerged. This makes the model useful as a mirror. It is a first, honest step in a broader line of research, not a final conclusion.