Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When Your Leader Just Does Not Make Any Sense: Conceptualizing Inconsistent Leadership

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Perceived consistency, and even more so inconsistency of behavior is an important factor in the evaluation of other people. This is especially true for leaders, whose behavior is typically closely monitored and interpreted by their followers. While perceived consistency is typically rewarded, behaving inconsistently as a leader can be ethically problematic, as it violates fundamental ethical principles. To theoretically capture how followers interpret and react to unexpected, ambiguous and/or confusing leader behavior, we introduce the concept of inconsistent leadership. We define this new concept as a process in which over a longer period of time the activities, experiences, and/or relationships of an individual or the members of a group are repeatedly influenced by their leader in a way that followers cannot make sense of in light of prior behavior or traits of that leader. We propose that a sensemaking process is triggered in followers whenever they register salient/important leader behavior that is novel, ambiguous and/or confusing when compared to behavioral expectations for that leader. Ascriptions of inconsistent leadership arise when followers’ sensemaking strategies temporarily or permanently fail to resolve the behavior–expectation discrepancy. Moreover, we clarify the relationships to other leadership concepts and delineate relevant follower and environmental influences on the sensemaking process. In doing so, we offer a clear conceptualization of inconsistent leadership and provide a solid base for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allgeier, A. R., Byrne, D., Brooks, B., & Revnes, D. (1979). The Waffle phenomenon: Negative evaluations of those who shift attitudinally. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 170–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avolio, B. J., Griffith, J., Wernsing, T. S., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2010). What is authentic leader development? In P. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 39–51). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balkin, J. M. (1999). How mass media simulate political transparency. Cultural Values, 3, 393–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

  • Banks, G. C., Gooty, J., Ross, R. L., Williams, C. E., & Harrington, N. T. (2018). Construct redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 236–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 634–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrendt, P., Matz, S., & Göritz, A. S. (2018). An integrative model of leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bless, H., & Fiedler, K. (2006). Mood and the regulation of information processing and behavior. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Affect in social thinking and behavior (pp. 65–84). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohner, G., Moskowitz, G. B., & Chaiken, S. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 33–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1: Attachment). Basic Books.

  • Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss (Vol. 2: Separation). Basic Books.

  • Brown, A. D., Colville, N., & Pye, A. (2015). Making sense of sensemaking in Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 36, 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy—Talk, decisions, and actions in organizations. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christianson, M. K., & Barton, M. A. (2021). Sensemaking in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Management Studies, 58, 572–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J. A. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader–member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 615–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D. (2003). Why inconsistent leadership is regarded as procedurally unfair: The importance of social self-esteem concerns. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erber, R., & Fiske, S. T. (1984). Outcome dependency and attention to inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 709–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2010). Followers’ personality and the perception of transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 21, 393–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (2012). Deonance: Behavioral ethics and moral obligation. In D. De Cremer & A. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Behavioral business ethics: Shaping an emerging field (pp. 123–142). Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18, 108–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 443–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansbrough, T. K. (2012). The construction of a transformational leader: Follower attachment and leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 1533–1549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansbrough, T. K., Lord, R. G., & Schyns, B. (2015). Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 220–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansbrough, T. K., Lord, R. G., Schyns, B., Foti, R., Liden, R. C., & Acton, B. (2021). Do you remember? Rater memory systems and leadership measurement. The Leadership Quarterly, 32, 101455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. G. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based perspective. Organization Science, 5, 309–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, M., Treadway, D. C., & Heames, J. T. (2007). The occurrence of bullying in global organizations: A model and issues associated with social/emotional contagion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2576–2599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44, 501–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2008). Social psychology. Pearson.

  • Johnson, R. E., Venus, M., Lanaj, K., Mao, C., & Chang, C.-H. (2012). Leader identity as an antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1262–1272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 192–238). University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Wang, G., & Piccolo, R. F. (2018). Jekyll and Hyde leadership: A multilevel, multisample examination of charisma and abuse on follower and team outcomes. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 25, 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of justice in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–56). Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 57–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malle, B. F. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malle, B. F., & Knobe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Koopman, J., & Passantino, L. G. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 743–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual’s tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 183–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel, J. S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Leadership coherence: An application of personality coherence theory to the study of leadership. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 688–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, N. V., & Cowen, A. P. (2020). How leader gender influences external audience response to organizational failures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 639–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Teed, M. (2011). Inconsistent style of leadership as a predictor of safety behaviour. Work and Stress, 25, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogunfowora, B. (2013). When the abuse is unevenly distributed: The effects of abusive supervision variability on work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 1105–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation bias. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (pp. 79–96). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Academic.

  • Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 41–72). Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peus, C., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2015). Despite leaders’ good intentions? The role of follower attributions in adverse leadership—A multilevel model. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220, 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 159–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawlins, B. (2008). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 71–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, D. A., & Hackett, R. D. (2012). Attachment and emotion regulation: Compensatory interactions and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 686–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. A. (2014). Follower forgiveness and reactions to leader interpersonal transgressions. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Concordia University.

  • Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership–innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 956–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 6–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, J., & Schyns, B. (2021). How Can Anyone Be Like That? Systematising destructive and ineffective leadership. In S. M. Camgöz & Ö. T. Ekmekci (Eds.), Destructive leadership and management hypocrisy (pp. 21–34). Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schyns, B. (2001). The relationship between employees’ self-monitoring and occupational self-efficacy and transformational leadership. Current Research in Social Psychology, 7, 30–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schyns, B., & Day, D. (2010). Critique and review of leader–member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. L. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. L. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. L., Leroy, H., Collewaert, V., & Masschelein, S. (2015). How leader alignment of words and deeds affects followers: A meta-analysis of behavioral integrity research. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 831–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. L., Leroy, H., & Nishii, L. (2022). Revisiting behavioral integrity: Progress and new directions after 20 years. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 365–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1022–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorek, A. Y., Haglin, K., & Geva, N. (2018). In capable hands: An experimental study of the effects of competence and consistency on leadership approval. Political Behavior, 40, 659–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 1–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vonk, R. (1994). Trait inferences, impression formation, and person memory: Strategies in processing inconsistent information about persons. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 111–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Zhang, L., & Bishoff, J. (2019). Meta-analytic and primary investigations of the role of followers in ratings of leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 70–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, A. M. (1986). James Callaghan: The statesman as CEO. Harvard Business Review, 64, 106–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE Publications.

  • Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. Guilford.

  • Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunette & L. E. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 147–197). Consulting Psychologists Press.

  • Zacher, H., & Wilden, R. G. (2014). A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self-reported employee innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 813–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y.-L., & Li, X.-B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 538–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive financial support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Applied Administrative Sciences, Wielandstr. 8, 30169, Hannover, Germany

    Jan Schilling

  2. NEOMA Business School, Campus Reims, 59 rue Pierrre Tattinger, 51726, Reims, France

    Birgit Schyns

  3. Free University of Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Daniel May

Authors
  1. Jan Schilling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Birgit Schyns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel May
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Schilling.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schilling, J., Schyns, B. & May, D. When Your Leader Just Does Not Make Any Sense: Conceptualizing Inconsistent Leadership. J Bus Ethics 185, 209–221 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05119-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05119-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation