The Consistency Paradox: Why Your Team's Unpredictability Is Actually Your Biggest Asset

Here's something that'll probably ruffle a few feathers: consistency training is largely bollocks.

I know, I know. Coming from someone who's spent the better part of two decades working with teams across Sydney, Melbourne, and every major city in between, this might sound like career suicide. But hear me out before you slam your laptop shut.

Other Blogs of Interest:

• Growth Network My Thoughts
• Workplace Abuse Training

Last month I was running a workshop for a Brisbane-based manufacturing company. The CEO kept banging on about "consistent processes" and "standardised approaches." Fair dinkum, the bloke had spreadsheets for everything. Meanwhile, his star performer – let's call her Sarah – was breaking every single protocol in the book and delivering results that made the rest of the team look like they were moving through treacle.

This is the consistency paradox that nobody talks about in those fancy corporate training manuals.

The Consistency Cult Has Gone Too Far

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for chaos. Some things absolutely need consistency – safety protocols, compliance procedures, basic customer service standards. But we've taken this obsession with uniformity and applied it to areas where it's actually stifling performance.

Take emotional intelligence for managers for instance. You can't train someone to have the exact same emotional response in every situation. That's not emotional intelligence – that's emotional automation.

The most effective leaders I've worked with over the years – from mining executives in Western Australia to tech startup founders in Melbourne's CBD – have one thing in common. They're consistently inconsistent.

What I mean by that is they adapt their approach based on context while maintaining core principles. They might handle a performance conversation with their top performer completely differently than they would with someone who's struggling. Different people, different circumstances, different methods. Same underlying values.

The Research Nobody Wants to Talk About

Here's where it gets interesting. A recent study from Melbourne Business School found that teams with moderate variability in their processes actually outperformed highly standardised teams by 23% in problem-solving tasks.

But you won't hear about this research in most consistency training programs because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I've seen this play out countless times. Companies invest thousands in consistency training, create elaborate process maps, and then wonder why innovation flatlines. It's like teaching everyone to paint by numbers and then complaining that no-one's creating masterpieces.

The Golden Middle Ground

This doesn't mean throwing structure out the window. What it means is being smart about where consistency matters and where flexibility delivers better results.

Where consistency is non-negotiable:

• Safety procedures and risk management
• Legal compliance and documentation
• Brand standards and customer promises
• Basic professional conduct

Where controlled inconsistency wins:

• Problem-solving approaches
• Communication styles with different team members
• Innovation and creative processes
• Customer relationship management

The best teams I've worked with have what I call "flexible frameworks." Clear boundaries with plenty of room to manoeuvre within them.

I remember working with a Perth-based consultancy where the managing director had this brilliant approach. Instead of scripting every client interaction, he trained his team on core principles and then encouraged them to find their own authentic way of delivering those principles. Revenue increased by 40% that year.

The reason? Clients could sense the authenticity. When you're following a script, you sound like you're following a script.

The Neuroscience Bit (Bear With Me)

Our brains are wired for pattern recognition, but they're also designed to adapt. When we over-systematise human interactions, we're essentially asking people to operate against their natural cognitive processes.

This is why those cookie-cutter customer service training programs often fail spectacularly. You end up with team members who sound like robots and customers who feel like they're talking to robots.

I've lost count of how many times I've heard: "But our training manual says..." when discussing a customer complaint that clearly needed a human touch rather than a standardised response.

Building Anti-Fragile Teams

Instead of consistency training, what if we focused on building what Nassim Taleb calls "anti-fragile" teams? Teams that don't just survive variability but actually get stronger because of it.

This means training people to think, not just to follow processes. Teaching principles rather than procedures. Developing judgement rather than just compliance.

One of my favourite examples is from a Adelaide-based logistics company. Instead of having separate training modules for every possible scenario (which would take approximately forever), they trained their customer service team on core problem-solving frameworks and then gave them the authority to use their judgement.

Customer satisfaction scores went through the roof. Employee engagement followed suit. And here's the kicker – their process documentation actually became more useful because it focused on principles rather than trying to script every possible interaction.

The Implementation Reality Check

If you're thinking about moving away from rigid consistency training, here's what actually works:

Start with your best performers. What are they doing that others aren't? Often, you'll find they've developed their own methods that work better than the official process.

Document principles, not procedures. Instead of "say this, then say that," try "understand the customer's core concern, then address it directly."

Train decision-making skills. Teach people how to weigh options, not which option to choose in every situation.

Create safe-to-fail experiments. Let teams try different approaches in low-risk situations and learn from what works.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Here's what most training providers won't tell you: the companies that succeed long-term aren't the ones with the most consistent processes. They're the ones with the most consistent values applied through flexible methods.

Some of the most innovative Australian companies I've worked with – from mining giants to boutique consulting firms – have cultures that actually encourage productive inconsistency. They hire smart people and then trust them to figure out the best way to deliver results.

Where This Leaves Us

I'm not saying throw out all your processes tomorrow. That would be madness. But maybe it's time to question whether your consistency training is actually making your team more effective or just more predictable.

The goal shouldn't be to create identical responses to different situations. The goal should be to create thinking professionals who can adapt their approach while staying true to core values and objectives.

After all, if consistency was the key to success, McDonald's would be the only restaurant chain in existence. Instead, the most successful businesses are the ones that can be reliably unreliable – consistent in their commitment to excellence, flexible in how they achieve it.

And if that's not worth rethinking your training approach for, I'm not sure what is.

The best teams aren't perfectly consistent. They're consistently excellent. There's a massive difference, and it might just be the difference between surviving and thriving in today's business environment.