I heard a fascinating story on the radio a few days ago. It was a discussion with three academic researchers about why people seek consistency, how we regard inconsistency in others, and the implications for political leadership.
Here’s the gist of the story. According to David Linden, a professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins, our brains are hard-wired to like consistency. Consistency helps us understand the world so we can make good predictions about what will happen next. For example, if we burn our fingers every time we touch a flame, we learn to keep them away from fire – a good thing. We are so hard-wired for consistency that our brains reward us with a dose of feel-good chemicals whenever we make a correct prediction.
We especially like consistency in others. We like it so much that if someone is inconsistent on something important to us, we react strongly – we feel betrayed by that person. That’s why politicians often try to cast their opponents as flip-floppers. They’re hoping to capitalize on that sense of betrayal.
Our need for consistency, however, is at odds with reality. Change is constant. Not only is the world around us in a constant state of flux, so are we. We go to school, build families, get jobs, change jobs, move, travel, succeed at some things and fail at others, etc., all of which can change the way we think about ourselves and the world. We are shaped by our experiences. Interestingly, some people will see our change as growth, while others will see it as a betrayal of the person they used to know. The researchers point out that how people perceive inconsistency in others is not based on the facts of the situation but on whether or not they consider themselves a part of the other person's “tribe.”
The story reinforces some important things we know related to leadership. Needless to say, organizational change creates some level of tension in the people who work there. Whether or not employees see the change as growth or betrayal will depend largely on whether they feel an allegiance to leadership before the change is initiated. The implication here is that leaders need to always work on strengthening their connection to followers if they hope to minimize the tension that occurs inevitably with change and have it seen as growth.
In addition, this research reminds us of another important leadership axiom. In one of the most influential business books of our era, Built to Last, Collins and Porras describe the most successful companies as having the ability to preserve the core and change everything else. These successful companies capitalized on something important by carefully choosing and promoting the non-negotiables at work – the things employees could expect to remain consistent, no matter what. It appears these non-negotiables satisfied the human need for consistency yet allowed the companies to grow and change as the times required.
The paradox is that we seek both consistency and change. Great leaders understand this. They know the non-negotiables that define who they are as leaders while staying open to changing everything else, and they bring the same clarity to the organizations they lead.
