Should Leaders Act (In)Consistently?

• In Event: Interactive Roundtable Discussions & Member Community Information Tables
  In Interactive Roundtable: Leadership Scholarship Interactive Roundtable Discussions

Short Description

Some of the most popular leadership theories take opposing stands on the issue of behavioral consistency. LMX and transformational leadership theories, for example, emphasize (although often implicitly) tailoring one's actions to each individual subordinate. Authentic and ethical leadership theories suggest quite the opposite. So, what exactly should leaders do?

Detailed Abstract

Despite leadership theories often discussing the importance of behavioral consistency, none have focused on this consistency and the outcomes of it. In addition, there is disagreement between these theories regarding the desirability and necessity of consistency. For example, leader-member exchange and transformational leadership theories suggest that leaders need to act differently towards different subordinates to find success. In contrast, authentic and ethical leadership theories posit that leaders must be consistent. To resolve this discrepancy, I present a new theory of leadership, stemming from impression management, that focuses on the ability of a leader to act consistently across "audiences" (i.e., individuals). I propose that leaders' ability and motivation to act consistently combines to affect behavioral consistency that, in turn, benefits the organization at the individual, group, and organizational levels. These benefits are proposed to be stronger when the behaviors leaders convey are positive, when the distance between leaders and their subordinates is high, and when leaders are operating in collectivist cultures. Finally, I propose that the level of success that leaders obtain due to consistency will ultimately moderate their likelihood of acting consistent in the future and combine with the moderating effect of leader distance. To discuss the proposed model, we will focus on the following questions:

1. Is acting (in)consistently necessary for effective leadership?
2. Can a leader be “all things to all people”?
3. What are the negative consequences of behavioral (in)consistency?
4. Are there specific situations in which (in)consistency is necessary?
5. Are there specific situations in which (in)consistency is detrimental?
6. What is more important – the actual amount of (in)consistency that a leader portrays or how (in)consistent others’ perceive the leader to be?
7. What may influence when/if a leader acts (in)consistently?
8. Is behavioral (in)consistency a byproduct of a leader’s personality or their situation?
9. Do different people have different reactions to behavioral (in)consistency?
10. What are the implications of this discussion for current/future leaders?

Participant

• Austin Lee Nichols, Luxembourg School of Business