Why Do We Treat Consistency Like Proof of Capability?
There are some jobs where consistency is the job.
If you are administering medication, processing payroll, flying an airplane, or making sure a child gets picked up from school, “I’m excellent at this sometimes” is not enough.
I am not arguing that consistency never matters.
I keep wondering why we use it as evidence of capability even when consistency is not the thing we are trying to measure.
Someone produces excellent work, but not at the same pace every day.
Someone can solve the complicated problem and then take far too long to answer a simple email. (I know that contradiction personally.)
Someone contributes more when they have time to think instead of when everyone is expected to respond immediately in a meeting.
Someone has weeks when they get an astonishing amount done and others when getting started takes much more effort.
We look at the unevenness and start making conclusions about the person.
Reliable.
Unreliable.
Focused.
Distracted.
High performer.
Not meeting expectations.
But what are we trying to measure?
I think this question matters especially for neurodivergent people because unevenness is common. A person can have areas of significant strength sitting right next to things that are genuinely difficult.
That does not make the difficult thing imaginary.
It also does not erase the strength.
Sometimes consistency really does matter
I don’t want to turn this into one of those arguments where every workplace expectation is arbitrary and nobody should ever have to adapt.
That isn’t useful.
If your work affects another person’s ability to do their job, timing may matter. If you commit to a deadline, other people need to know whether they can depend on you. If information has to be documented, “I hate documentation” does not make the requirement disappear.
There are times when the person needs a skill, a system, support, practice, accountability, or all of the above.
But I think we skip a step.
We see inconsistency and immediately ask:
How do we make this person more consistent?
Before we do that, I want to know:
→ What outcome are we trying to protect?
→ Does consistency directly affect that outcome?
→ Is the current method necessary, or simply familiar?
→ What happens if the standard stays the same but the way someone gets there changes?
→ Are we measuring the work, or how easy the person is to manage?
That last one is uncomfortable.
It is also worth asking.
A person who works in predictable blocks, responds quickly, speaks up in meetings, keeps a beautiful project plan, and produces at roughly the same rate every day is easier for many workplaces to understand.
That does not automatically mean they are better at the work.
Predictability and capability are not the same thing
The student who finishes quickly looks capable.
The student who remembers the homework looks responsible.
The student who sits still and raises a hand at the expected time looks engaged.
Those behaviors can tell us something.
They do not tell us everything.
Then the child grows up.
Now the measures are different, but the pattern can look strangely familiar.
Respond quickly.
Stay organized.
Be visibly engaged.
Work steadily.
Communicate the expected way.
Do it with roughly the same amount of energy every day.
Some of those expectations matter in some jobs.
Some of them are proxies.
And proxies get dangerous when we forget what they are standing in for.
If the goal is excellent analysis, does it matter that someone needed a quiet afternoon to produce it?
If the goal is a strong decision, does the fastest person in the meeting have to be the person whose thinking carries the most weight?
If the work is completed on time and at a high level, how much should we care whether it happened in one steady stream or three intense bursts?
There are situations where the answer is: a lot.
There are others where I’m not sure we have ever stopped to ask.
This is not an argument for lowering the standard
That distinction matters to me.
Changing how someone works is not necessarily the same as changing what good work looks like.
A deadline can stay a deadline.
The quality standard can stay high.
Other people can still need clear communication.
The person can still be accountable for what they agreed to do.
But maybe the path does not have to look identical for everyone.
Maybe someone needs written information after the meeting instead of relying on what they retained in the room.
Maybe a person produces better thinking when they can respond after they have had time to process.
Maybe a manager needs to be very clear about which deadlines are fixed and which ones have room.
Maybe a person needs help building a system around a part of the job that is genuinely difficult for them.
And sometimes the person needs to get better at the thing.
Both can be true.
I keep coming back to the measure
When I look at school and work together, I see how early we learn to confuse things that are easy to observe with the things we really care about.
Speed is visible.
Neatness is visible.
Participation is visible.
Consistency is very visible.
Capability can be harder to see.
So can judgment.
Creativity.
Pattern recognition.
Depth of understanding.
The ability to solve the problem everyone else has been circling for weeks.
That is why I want to know what we are measuring before we decide what the person needs to fix.
Sometimes consistency is essential.
Sometimes it is useful.
And sometimes I think we have mistaken predictability for competence.
Those are not the same thing.
