Consistency is defined as ‘reliability or uniformity of successive results or events.’ The dictionary meaning of the word is no different. Consistency is perceived as virtuous (?)
Consistency is defined as ‘reliability or uniformity of successive results or events.’ The dictionary meaning of the word is no different. Consistency is perceived as virtuous (?)
It therefore follows that consistency relates to constant performance, undeviating behaviour, steady effort, uniform standards, persistence, steadfastness and faithfulness.
And inconsistency is defined as not suitable or agreeing, self contradictory, changeable and fickle. It therefore follows that inconsistency relates to incompatibility, dissonant, inharmonious, in-accordant, incongruous and irresolute and variable. So by mere definition and its related interpretations, it is given that ‘consistency’ has all the positivity attached to it and inconsistency is all about negativity. Therefore it implies that all positives are good and hence consistency is a virtue; however since all negatives are bad, hence inconsistency is a vice. But is that true and correct?
I grew up quoting Napoleon Bonaparte that ‘consistency is a virtue of small minds’; infact the reality is that it is only the absurd man who never changes. Continuity in everything is quite an unpleasant thing. If continuity leads to monotony, then it is even worse. Life is full of spice only in variety and change.
Consistency in management or the manager is essentially a negation of reality. The only thing consistent is change. A manager therefore needs to amend, alter and shift gears suiting the then conditions. If he fails to do so, the organisation is likely to find itself in the cold. The interval between the decay of old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error and wild and fierce fanaticism. (J. Calhoun)
Change is not synonymous with inconsistency. ‘There are those who would teach us that to stick in a rut is consistency – and a virtue, and in that of climb out of rut is inconsistency and a vice’ (Mark Twain on consistency). Life is not a static thing. It is never at rest. The only people who do not change their minds are incompetents in mental asylum, who can’t and those in cemeteries, who can never!
To the ‘relevant manager’ and here relevance relates to ‘here and now’ condition; it is imperative to abandon any ‘consistent theories’ of management when faced with new set of market challenges that require a departure from the ‘consistent reaction’ to a more developed, informed and changed response. Consistency must not lead towards failure. ‘The consistent thinker the consistent moral man, is either a walking mummy or else, if he has not succeeded in stifling all his vitality, a fanatical monomaniac (Aldous Huxley is ‘Do what you will’)
The environment may demand upon (managers) a need for them to be consistent with everything they may have said or done, previously. But it is not a perfect truth that a person who is almost totally consistent hasn’t learned anything of much value. Such managers who succumb to this demand will invariably find themselves in the rut of things. We accept the verdict of the past until the need for a change cries out loudly enough to force upon us a choice between the comforts of further inertia and the irksomeness of action (learned hand at the Supreme Judicial Council of Massachusetts). To remain a vibrant organisation full of zest and youthful energy, change is a constant. It is never to be forgotten that the perpetual campus hero is not a young man but an old boy.
To hold the same view at forty as we held at twenty is to have been stupefied for a score of years and to take rank, not as prophet, but as an unteachable brat, well birched and none the wiser (R.L. Stevenson).
Consistency of response in managers is complete boredom. Colleagues of such managers can safely predict reaction to any given situation. ‘Consistent managers’ fail to undo the killing status quo; they fail to challenge the validity of a thought, concept or action to their own ultimate peril. Business conditions are adept to continuous change and an obstinate consistency can only be damaging and harmful to the self and the organisation. Emerson in his essay, ‘self reliance’ says, ‘a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines’ and this scribe adds…, and managers, too!
‘He wears his faith but as the fashion of his hats’. Shakespeare in ‘Much Ado About Nothing’. Now that is inconsistency at its zenith. And certainly not within the ambit of the virtuous behaviour. As managers we need to remain cognisant that consistency in language and consistency in conduct are two different things. It requires no heavy price for the former, but for the latter it exacts reputation.
For a graduating class, a well known psychologist, George Kelly once conducted a brief seminar. Following giving a rather lengthy answer to a student’s questions, Kelly was confronted by another student who said ‘you have just contradicted yourself. On page such and such of your book, you wrote....... and the contradicting paragraph was read aloud in the class. A long sullen silence was followed. The aggressive tone and demeanour of the student shocked the class. Finally the quick witted and intelligent Kelly responded, ‘I feel insulted that you think I cannot learn anything new’. That is Inconsistency at its best!
Franklin Adams had captured the sentiment of ‘consistency and change’ when he remarked, when the man you like switches from what he had said a year ago or a few years ago, he is broadminded person who has the courage enough to change his mind with changing conditions. When a man you don’t like does it, he is a liar, who has broken promises. Personally for the former reason I liked Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and disliked General Zia for the latter reason.
Inconsistency is the forte of politicians. And Imran Khan takes the cake. Obviously Imran Khan is inspired by Emerson who had stated, ‘I wish to say what I think and feel today with the proviso that tomorrow perhaps, I will contradict it all.’
Consistency is virtuous only in relation to standards of conduct, inclusive of moral, financial and personal integrity and to the contrary it ends up being a vier. If contradicting is an acceptance of an earlier wrong then so be it for after all, isn’t it better to be at least right today than be wrong forever.
The writer is a senior banker
