Consistency is a good thing. “Leadership paradoxes” prevent consistency. This is according to a white paper by I/O At Work . This white paper entitled “Leadership Research Trends & Insights” is chock full of interesting ideas and the latest research on leadership. In fact, some of it might make your head spin. I didn’t think that “paradoxes” is a word, but indeed it is. I visited a website about paradoxes by Encyclopedia Britannica and it just gave me a headache. Trying to lead during a paradox situation at work will no doubt give you a headache as well.

The white paper offers that leaders who can engage in big picture thinking seem to fare better during paradoxical times. This has to do with the ability to see different perspectives. In other words, the paper goes on, clinging to one philosophy or perspective if you will, just for the sake of chasing consistency never works.

Christmas, Hanukah, MLK Day, and St. Patrick’s Day, and other celebrations come once a year, every year. Some of these may cost us time, money, and other resources that we invest in their celebration. We know they are coming, they are all on our calendars. So we always prepare for them. Right?

Business growth comes in the form of higher revenues, more customers, through mergers and acquisitions, or maybe franchising. Regardless of the growth methodology, the fact is that businesses must grow or die. Growth brings change. So, we expect change and are always prepared for it. Right?

An executive client knows his organization is engaged in aggressive growth. However, when I asked how his department might change with the next two acquisitions, all he could replay was, “That’s a good question.” Well, yes, indeed it is. The fact that the thought had apparently not entered his mind was a surprise; and it’s especially surprising given the fact that he wants to be president of the company upon the current president’s retirement. So much for planning. So how can this executive better prepare his department for growth and change?

They are dreaded, awkward, often biased, and described as a necessary evil. Indeed, many companies, such as Adobe, Deloitte, and GAP have stopped giving performance reviews. Is it working? According to a new study by CEB (now Gartner) maybe not. The study posits that performance went down in companies not using performance reviews. Brian Kropp with CEB suggests that there are not too many managers who can provide good reviews without some type of rating system. With apologies to cognitive psychologists out there, perhaps this is a cognitive function. In other words, from the managers point of view, how are we to rate someone at any level without something to rate them by? Then from the employee’s point of view, how do I really know where I stand without a scale to measure myself against? Except for the Picasso’s in the world, the human mind probably doesn’t think as well in the abstract. A good question to ask is, “Have the ratings really disappeared?”

Imagine the sound of a ping pong ball falling on a hard surface. It bounces, bounces, bounces some more, and faster as it bounces away, and then bounces again, and then stops until someone picks it up and either bounces it again, or puts it in play. The phrase, “We need to…” is like that. You can insert whatever ending you like. It might be, “We need to get the roof repaired.” “We need to change that policy.” “We need to ensure we mesh our cultures.” Now imagine a CEO making such a statement to the executive team. “We need to make sure that before this merger, our two companies understand each other’s culture,” for example. What happens next? Bounce, bounce, bounce.

Well that’s the question, isn’t it? When anyone makes such a statement what is the expectation? Is the one asking the question going to do it? Is the listener supposed to do the action? You know you’ve made such a statemen; and I’m sure you’ve heard it from someone.