It’s easy to look like a committed leader when something goes wrong. A complaint comes in, somebody misses a deadline, an employee makes a mistake, or a problem finally gets enough attention that it can’t be ignored. Now there are meetings, new expectations, closer supervision, and plenty of conversation about what needs to change. For a little while, everybody is paying attention. The question is whether anybody will still be paying attention three weeks later.

I think most of us have been guilty of this at some point.

Something happens that gets our attention, and we become determined to fix it. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. Some problems require an immediate response, and there are times when a leader needs to become personally involved to get something back on track. But that kind of intensity is difficult to maintain, especially once the immediate problem has passed and twenty other things are competing for your attention.

That’s where I think consistency makes the bigger difference. If I tell somebody that a standard is important on Monday, it should probably still be important three weeks later. If I address an employee for failing to meet an expectation, I can’t turn around and ignore the same behavior from somebody else. And if I spend an entire meeting explaining why something needs to change, I should be willing to follow up after everybody has returned to their normal routines. Otherwise, I haven’t necessarily established a standard. I’ve reacted to a problem.

People figure out pretty quickly what a leader actually expects, and it isn’t always based on what that leader says. They pay attention to what gets corrected, what gets overlooked, and whether the expectations are still there after the initial urgency has passed. If something only becomes a priority when somebody complains, employees eventually learn to wait for the attention to die down. And when the same problem comes up again six months later, management acts surprised that nothing really changed.

I also think consistency makes life easier for the people you’re responsible for. Employees shouldn’t have to guess whether the rules are going to be enforced today or whether something that was unacceptable last month is acceptable now because the boss is in a better mood.

They should have clear expectations and a reasonable understanding of what happens when those expectations aren’t met. That doesn’t mean every situation deserves an identical response, but the standards shouldn’t depend on who happens to be involved or how much attention the issue is getting.

The same principle applies outside the workplace.

Parents, coaches, and just about anybody responsible for other people can fall into the habit of becoming intensely involved when something goes wrong, only to gradually return to the same practices that allowed the problem to develop. People notice that too. If you want somebody to take an expectation seriously, you have to demonstrate that you’re going to take it seriously yourself.

Of course, being consistent doesn’t mean stubbornly doing the same thing when it clearly isn’t working. Sometimes new information changes the situation, and sometimes experience tells you that an expectation or approach needs to be adjusted.

I’d rather explain why I’m changing the standard than continue enforcing something I no longer believe makes sense. There’s nothing inconsistent about making a better decision when you have better information.

For me, the consistency needs to be in how I lead. That means setting reasonable expectations for my officers and the public, following through after the original problem has been addressed, and applying the same judgment whether an issue is getting a lot of attention or hardly any at all.

None of that is as noticeable as a sudden burst of activity after something goes wrong, but it gives people a much better understanding of what they can expect from me.