The within‐person relationship of allostasis and allostatic load with job performance

Abstract Physiological indicators such as heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) are frequently used in allostatic load (AL) research. However, it often remains unclear whether these indicators reflect adaptive short‐term activation (allostasis), thus, represent primary mediators, or accumulated physiological burden (AL), and thus, represent secondary outcomes. We propose a classification scheme specifying when physiological indicators should be interpreted as primary mediators or secondary outcomes. We tested this scheme in two longitudinal multilevel studies using different sources of job performance ratings (self, peer/supervisor, and client ratings). In Study 1, participants ( N = 167–331) repeatedly measured HR and HRV under resting conditions over 4 weeks and reported job performance, resulting in 509–1001 observations. Peer/supervisor ratings were additionally obtained. In Study 2, counselors ( N = 11–15) measured HR/HRV before counseling sessions, and clients subsequently rated session quality (71–91 sessions). Results largely supported the proposed classification scheme. When HR/HRV were interpreted as secondary outcomes, lower HR, lower LFHF, and higher HRV predicted better job performance. When interpreted as primary mediators, higher LFHF predicted better client‐rated performance. Thus, the same physiological indicators may show opposite relationships with performance depending on the timing and context of measurement. Our findings refine AL theory by clarifying the distinction between allostasis and AL, help explain inconsistent findings in the literature, and provide guidance for interpreting physiological indicators in organizational research.