On the Tabloid in Your Head: Performance, Pressure, and Cognitive Distortions at Work

He did not take her extended hand.
Was it a sign of impending divorce — or did he simply not see it?

When we encounter stress — ours or someone else’s — we often jump to premature conclusions. The results are sometimes misguided responses, actions, or behaviors that may not help and, in fact, may make the situation worse, leading to unfortunate outcomes.

We lose ourselves in stress labyrinths sometimes of our own making.

Like tabloid journalists, we rush to assign meaning before understanding the context and often rely on hyperbole. Tabloids exploit predictable patterns in how we create narratives and process fear, success, failure, and identity under pressure, thereby preying on cognitive distortions.

Into the Stress Labyrinth (illustration by Francois Top)

And because we tend to prefer bad news, and it spreads much more rapidly than good news, most stories in tabloids tend to be negative.

So what looks like burnout might be jet lag, or temporary disengagement could be grief or feeling discombobulated by technological change. And what looks like irritability or withdrawal might actually be the invisible toll of chronic illness or underlying dis-ease.

What matters is not jumping to conclusions, but learning to ask: What might I really be seeing? What else might be true?

This approach does not mean avoiding strain or challenge, which propel us forward and also help build resilience. Much of the discussion around resilience centers on our desire to get better at overcoming adversity. But what if we shifted our focus to avoiding potential adversity in the first place by being better at detecting and interpreting it?

Developing (and keeping and adapting) the tools necessary to understand what we can do to face these challenges and inevitable life stresses in the best possible way, both mentally and physically, requires us to be very attuned to and better observers of our own sources of stress, but also to those of others and how they relate.

In this piece, Susanna Sjoberg, Stephanie Mojica, and I explore how we can transition from self-care to community care, shifting from reactive understandings of stress — intervening only once symptoms become disruptive — to a model based on early detection and ongoing regulation. To do so, we explore how to move from being the National Enquirer of our work lives to being a more rational inquirer, like Sherlock Holmes and other legendary private investigators. We provide reflections for actions at the individual, team, and organizational levels.

On Writing Headlines Before We Know the Story

To see how this narrative leap works in the wild, we can look at one of the most enduring sources of distorted meaning-making: the supermarket tabloid.

The National Enquirer has been a fixture of checkout lanes and American pop culture since 1926, but found its tabloid voice in the 1950s with a new owner. Its pages are filled not with facts, but with feelings disguised as facts; its journalists excel at spinning fragments and innuendos into full-blown scandals without much concern for context or truth. This is how Elvis shopped post-mortem, John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe had a secret love child, aliens infiltrated the Pentagon, and the [fill in the blank of your choice] have been divorcing for years based on “insider sources,” facial expressions, and travel schedules.

Ambiguity is fertile ground for narrative manipulation.

And this is exactly how many of us interpret stress — not only our own, but also that of others. We become mini-”Enquirers” in our minds: a missed handshake becomes a falling out; a delayed response, a betrayal. We headline before collecting all the data — or just try to do so. Many of us are writing our own version or workplace tabloids, The Daily Spiral or The Anxiety Gazette.

As you read, please keep the following question in the back of your mind: “What is the last mental headline you wrote at work without all the facts?”

More Rational Inquirer, Less National Enquirer

Usually, we are less investigative journalists and more tabloid journalists.

Where the former collects evidence and clues and (hopefully) pauses and checks their biases and blind spots before interpreting, the tabloid journalist seeks drama and thrives on speed, spectacle, and bluster. They take fragments of behavior — a sigh, a silence, a missed meeting, or a hand not taken — and spin them into dramatic stories.

Instead of asking “What might this signal mean?,” they leap to “Here’s what’s going on and what it means.”

When we fall into “tabloid thinking,” our stress lens is magnified by assumption and emotional projection, leading to significant distortion and narratives that are unverified but emotionally compelling. And in high-pressure environments, unchecked narration (whether inner voices or projections) can do more damage than the stressor itself.

Practicing “investigative thinking” encourages us to describe before labeling, search for and consider alternative explanations (at least hypothetically, as brain training), and resist the pull of instant interpretation.

It also should encourage us to focus more on the trees than the giant forest, and notice smaller details and changes. Perhaps in the behavior, body language, facial expression, and tone of voice of others. This can be particularly complex in hybrid and remote team — 55–90% (depending on whom you ask) of our communication is nonverbal.

But becoming a stress-literate manager or leader — or, more aptly, a better investigator of stress and its origins and consequences in themselves and others — requires us to understand why we rush to judgment and slow that instinct. Three major cognitive distinctions help illustrate.

This pivot raises the question of how to conceptualize and observe stress not only as a subjective experience, but also as a dynamic process with identifiable clues. We can move from “How do we handle or avoid stress?” to asking “How can we increase our stress literacy?”

This kind of inquiry does not solve the mystery immediately, nor is it, of course, foolproof, but it might keep us from writing the wrong story or headline too soon.

Distortion # 1: All or Nothing Thinking

Tabloid type headline: “Star’s Career Over After One Bad Show!” (preys on the fear that one misstep can equal total failure).

Our very own The Daily Spiral mental tabloid headline: “If I mess this up, my reputation is ruined.”

This tendency to focus on the extreme without nuance can reflect perfectionism and the fear of failure — exacerbated by workplaces that only recognize wins. High performers in particular might internalize these mental headlines, believing that excellence must be unbroken, and that they are just as good as their last fights.

Instead of jumping to conclusions about the situation they are called on to investigate, detectives and other law enforcement officers use the 5Ws and 1H. These are:

• “What happened?”
• “Where did it happen?”
• “When did it happen?”
• “Who was involved?”
• “Why did they act as they did?” and perhaps also, “Why do witnesses often fail to intervene?”
• “How did the offender carry out the crime?”

A similar question set is used in journalism to set up a story. We can adapt these questions as follows for our stress detection and monitoring purposes:

• “What am I observing?”
• “Where is this showing up — in the body, behavior, or environment?”
• “When did the shift begin?”
• “Who else is affected?”
• “Why might this be happening?”
• “How do I stay open to multiple interpretations?”

An investigator checks their assumptions and is aware of personal (and professional) biases. They might think, “I wonder if I’m interpreting this based on my own experiences,” or “Could there be another way to understand what’s happening here?” And perhaps another or different type of conversation would be necessary with the person.

In addition, stress does not always originate from individuals, so a stress investigator places the person in context. They ask, “Is this person’s stress really about the meeting, or is it about the culture of the team? Or the wild fires across the country?”

In the end, our inner stress investigator is not trying to eliminate stress, but rather help us harness it for our benefit whenever possible. Success isn’t about avoiding failure — it’s about making sure it doesn’t knock you off course. That kind of mindset shift is powerful. We can reduce risk by keeping our experiments small and manageable. The idea is not to avoid pressure, but to notice it sooner and make more informed choices.

Distortion #2: Mind Reading

Tabloid headline: “She Must Be Furious with Him After What He Said!” (This promotes assumption-making and speculation without evidence.)

Our very own The Overthinkers Observer mental tabloid headlines: “My boss did not respond to my WhatsApp message, but it is marked ‘read.’ She must not like my idea,” or “Nobody responded to my comment in the team meeting; they probably thought it was awful.”

This could set off a spiral of self-doubt, especially for individuals anxious about the workplace, which can damage trust and increase social stress.

In both examples, the distortion is outcome exaggeration — assuming the worst will happen. And understandably, both of these workplace situations bring up emotions. To a stress investigator, they are not good or bad — they’re information. Feeling frustrated might be a clue that a boundary has been crossed. Feeling anxious might be a clue signaling uncertainty or overload.

This can also be true of supervisors whose behavior if often judged harshly in the modern workplace vernacular around toxic bosses. In fact, a 2023 Harris Poll found that over two-thirds of respondents have had a toxic boss, and nearly 1-in-3 are working with one at the time. It is then no surprise that many of us jump to quick, defensive interpretations of ambiguous behavior from our managers.

But labeling a boss as “toxic” based solely on tone, timing, or incomplete data can be just as distorting as assuming a colleague’s silence equals disapproval. What we read as rejection may be stress, distraction, or even insecurity on the other side. Our impressions are not unreal but sometimes we need more data before turning frustration into fact.

Instead of reacting to emotions, a more investigative approach requires us to at least become curious about them for a bit, and at least before acting. They ask themselves, “What might this feeling be trying to tell me?” The stress detective sees these signals not as problems to fix, but as clues to understand or discern patterns that may suggest shifts. The problem usually lies behind those. They ask:

• “What am I seeing?”
• “What might I be missing?”
• “What else might be going on?”

To mitigate this distortion, it can be helpful to try to describe before labeling. And then to enquire instead of speculating. Good investigators focus on asking the right questions and being open to alternative possibilities.

Distortion #3: Personalization

Tabloid headline: “He’s Taking All the Blame — Insider Says, ‘It’s Eating Him Alive’” (speculates that the individual assumes responsibility for the outcome)

Our very own The Weekly Distorter mental tabloid headline: “If they are quiet, it is probably something I did.”

When we engage in this distortion, we make ourselves into the main character of every failure. This is not always in an ego-driven way, but in a guilt-ridden, hyper-responsible way, and often can trigger a shame response. When something goes wrong — or just feels off — this version of our tabloid brain can rapidly spin a private narrative that we must have caused it.

This pattern is especially common among high performers, caregivers, and leaders who take pride in being dependable. Ironically, this sense of control can feel safer than confronting ambiguity or powerlessness. If it is “my fault,” then maybe I can fix it. Personalization unchecked can lead to burnout, shame, and distorted leadership behavior — like micromanaging or over-functioning.

The investigative approach challenges that inner blame engine to consider:

• “What other factors might have contributed?”
• “Am I assuming responsibility just because I care deeply?”
• “Would I hold someone else to the same standard?”

Instead of turning inward in shame, zooming out provides more perspective, which includes context — such as organizational culture, ambiguous expectations, and team dynamics. Stress is not just a personal problem, but is also something shaped by roles, expectations, group dynamics, and the constant influence of the outside world, which is now constantly pouring into our brains, barely mediated by technology.

All-or-nothing thinking can make us accusatory of others; personalization boomerangs the accusatory stance. Getting more agency without assuming omnipotence is the trick here.

Why This Matters

A key part of this work is tracking one’s state throughout the day. A stress detective might notice they’re starting to get irritable or unfocused and realize they’re shifting from a calm state to a stressed one.

The goal is not to avoid stress altogether, but to catch it early — before it becomes overwhelming and damages your health, affects your sleep and sex drive, and impairs your ability to lead the life you want. It is important to take note of these clues because one or more of the following things can also happen when stress becomes overwhelming:

· Avoiding loved ones

· Exercising less frequently

· Experiencing anxiety

· Having angry outbursts

· Losing the ability to concentrate on important tasks

· Struggling with food

· Smoking

· Undereating

· Using drugs or alcohol

Chronic stress is considered a leading cause of death, especially in aging.

So… Are You Writing Clickbait Headlines or Are You Solving the Case?

Stress literacy does not necessarily equate to eliminating or even reducing stress, but understanding the causes and conditions associated with stress can help us accept and perhaps even embrace stress.

We do not know how long we, or our loved ones, will live. Life is stress, and stress is life. We can be stress detectives for ourselves and others by taking even thirty seconds to look for clues.

• “What stress signals were visible (or missed)?”
• “What performance expectations shaped this moment?”
• “What systemic or interpersonal pressures were at play?”
• “What would a different response look like?”

That kind of strategic thinking — about risk, patterns, and signals — is exactly what good investigators, leaders, and colleagues share in common. They do not wait for disaster. They remain curious, take notes, and continue to ask the right questions.

And after all that, it does not mean taking dramatic actions — it often means small, thoughtful gestures. A quiet check-in, a change of pace, a moment of pause, giving the benefit of the doubt, or celebrating small wins can make a big difference and help others settle long enough to get the rest and encouragement they need to deploy their own stress investigation skills.

Perhaps he did not take her hand because he really just did not see it.

Exercises/Reflections

To move from awareness to application, here are a few practical ways to sharpen stress investigator skills at every level of the system

At the individual level: Develop a personal detection dashboard

Consider how to design a signals mapping exercise to track early warning signs across physical, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral domains (e.g., increased irritability, disrupted sleep, hyperfocus, withdrawal). Check your body for clues, like a physiological check-in? “Where does stress present?” “Where do I feel tension right now? What might it be signaling?” To learn more and hold yourself accountable, consider a weekly check-in with a fellow stress investigator partner.

At the team level: Hone interpersonal detection skills

Become more observant. We are often so focused on our own lives and well-being that we miss what might be right in front of us in our colleagues. In this “Change in Pattern” observation challenge, we can focus on observing a colleague at work over several days and track shifts in verbal, behavioral, or affective cues depending on context. This practice might enable us to be better skilled at engaging with them. It also invites us to reflect on how we interpret cues and what our filters and biases are.

Practice “reading the room,” as many Americans say, under pressure, to identify possible red flags and proposing low-intrusion ways to check in. Often, we are too busy to plan a response or are already in reaction mode, so our detectors are off or dimmed.

Better understand attachment and stress response profiles. Understanding more about attachment theory can help up open up conversations around our respective stress response or adversity go-to modes (e.g., “I tend to seek reassurance vs. I tend to withdraw”) and strategize how they might not just co-regulate in a shared project context, but also ensure that these responses can be appropriately interpreted and perhaps even leveraged. In some instances, it is better to withdraw, pause, and hesitate. In other cases, it is better to “charge up that hill.”

Also ask: “If this team were a material, what would it be? Where are the current stress points? What yield signs might you miss if you are not paying attention? How are the various materials coming together in a strength-producing or weakness-creating way?”

At the organizational level: Develop a human sustainability index

The trickiest part at the organizational level is identifying a set of observable indicators (e.g., increased absenteeism, tone shifts, and drop in quality) and implementing appropriate early interventions. Many more organizations have people analytics tools to track different metrics. A management team could consider what “non-verbal” detection mechanisms — like Slack check-ins, brief weekly surveys, and color-coded dashboards — could be used in which team members signal their current load, availability, or state of stress without stigma.