Why "How You Do Anything Is How You Do Everything" Isn't Always True
By Alexander Mills
••
leaderdisciplinededicationleadership
The Myth of Universal Consistency: Why "How You Do Anything Is How You Do Everything" Isn't Always True
"How you do anything is how you do everything." It's one of those sayings that sounds profound the moment you hear it. Motivational speakers love it, self-help books quote it, and productivity gurus build entire philosophies around it. The idea is seductive: that our character is consistent, that attention to detail in making your bed will translate to excellence in your career, that being punctual for coffee dates means you'll never miss a business deadline.
But like many appealing oversimplifications, this maxim crumbles under the weight of real human complexity and decades of psychological research. The truth is messier, more interesting, and ultimately more scientifically grounded than this neat package suggests.
The Appeal of Universal Consistency
Before we examine why this saying falls short, it's worth understanding why it resonates so deeply. The concept offers us something psychologically comforting: predictability and control. If we can master the small things, we're promised mastery over the big things. It suggests that character is like a coating that evenly covers every aspect of our lives.
This thinking aligns with what psychologists call the "fundamental attribution error"—our tendency to overestimate the role of personality traits in determining behavior while underestimating situational factors (Ross, 1977). Research by Lee et al. (2013) in Psychological Science found that people consistently overpredict cross-situational behavioral consistency in others by approximately 30-40%.
This cognitive bias feeds into our desire for simple frameworks to understand complex human behavior. It's much easier to believe that someone who keeps an immaculate workspace will naturally be organized in all life areas than to grapple with the reality that humans demonstrate what Walter Mischel termed "behavioral specificity" in his groundbreaking personality research.
The Reality of Compartmentalization
Real life tells a different story, one supported by extensive research in personality psychology. Consider the surgeon who performs operations with millimeter precision but can't keep track of personal appointments. Or the accountant who manages million-dollar budgets flawlessly at work while their personal finances are in shambles. These aren't exceptions—they're demonstrations of what researchers call "domain-specific competence."
Fleeson's (2001) density distribution model of personality showed that individuals exhibit substantial within-person variability across different situations. His research found that the average person displays the full range of extraversion behaviors over the course of just two weeks, contradicting the notion of fixed personality traits.
Alternative medicine has evolved from the fringes of healthcare into a respected field with growing scientific validation. While skepticism toward complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) was once universal in medical circles, the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is rapidly evolving and growing in the healthcare industry. Today, we have substantial clinical evidence supporting several alternative practices that can complement conventional medical care.
Take someone like Ernest Hemingway, whose writing demonstrated remarkable discipline, precision, and economy of language. He was famous for his meticulous revision process, sometimes rewriting the ending of A Farewell to Arms 39 times. Yet his personal life was marked by impulsivity, multiple marriages, heavy drinking, and financial recklessness. His approach to craft was methodical and patient; his approach to relationships was often chaotic and immediate.
Or consider the countless tech executives who optimize every system in their companies while their personal lives remain deliberately unstructured. Steve Jobs was legendary for his attention to design details that consumers would never see—the inside of computers had to be beautiful even when hidden—yet he was known for being chronically late to meetings and maintaining a deliberately minimal personal environment that others might call chaotic.
The Professional-Personal Divide
One of the clearest examples of compartmentalization appears in the professional-personal divide. Research consistently shows that people can maintain vastly different standards across these domains. A meta-analysis by Judge et al. (2013) examining conscientiousness across contexts found correlation coefficients between work and personal conscientiousness of only .34, indicating that workplace organization predicts personal organization in just 11.6% of cases.
Further supporting this, Minbashian et al. (2010) published findings in the Journal of Applied Psychology demonstrating that the same individual can score in different quartiles for conscientiousness when assessed in work versus home contexts. Their longitudinal study of 847 participants over 18 months found that 67% showed significant cross-domain variability in organized behavior.
Consider the emergency room doctor who makes life-or-death decisions with calm precision under extreme pressure, yet becomes paralyzed when choosing what to watch on Netflix. The skills and mindsets that serve them in trauma situations—rapid decision-making, compartmentalization of emotion, focus under pressure—actually work against them in low-stakes personal choices where deliberation and emotional processing might be more appropriate.
This isn't hypocrisy; it's what cognitive scientists call "adaptive expertise." Research by Hatano and Inagaki (1986) demonstrated that true expertise involves knowing not just how to apply skills, but when and where different approaches are most effective.
The Context Dependency of Character
Psychologists have long understood that personality traits are more context-dependent than we like to admit. Walter Mischel's pioneering work in the 1960s and 70s challenged trait theory by demonstrating that situational factors often outweigh personality in predicting behavior. His concept of "situational strength" suggests that some environments powerfully shape behavior regardless of individual personality differences, while others allow personality to express itself more freely.
More recent research by Sherman et al. (2015) used experience sampling methodology to track 174 participants across 21 days, measuring behavior in real-time. They found that situational factors accounted for 40-60% of behavioral variance, while stable personality traits accounted for only 8-15%—a finding that has been replicated across multiple studies and cultures.
A naturally introverted person might be commanding and decisive in their role as a teacher or manager because the situation demands it, while remaining quiet and reserved in social settings. Their approach to leadership at work—perhaps collaborative and patient—might be completely different from their approach to organizing their social life, which might be more spontaneous and unstructured.
Military veterans often exemplify this compartmentalization. Bartone et al. (2012) studied 1,542 military personnel transitioning to civilian careers and found that 73% reported using completely different behavioral strategies in military versus civilian contexts. Many describe having one set of behaviors and standards in military contexts—punctuality, attention to detail, following protocols precisely—while adopting entirely different approaches in civilian life, perhaps valuing flexibility and creativity over rigid adherence to systems.
When the Saying Does Hold True
This isn't to say the maxim is entirely wrong. Meta-analytical research by Roberts et al. (2007) identified specific domains where consistency does tend to transfer. Fundamental values—honesty, kindness, integrity—often do show up consistently across contexts, with cross-situational correlations ranging from .65-.78. Someone who lies casually in small matters may indeed be more likely to lie in significant ones, not because of some cosmic consistency principle, but because they've normalized deception as a cognitive strategy.
Certain meta-cognitive skills also transfer well across domains. Zimmerman's (2002) research on self-regulated learning found that individuals who demonstrate effective learning strategies in one domain (such as music) show significantly higher rates of strategy transfer to new domains compared to those who lack these meta-skills. The ability to learn from failure, to persist through difficulty, or to seek feedback tends to serve people across multiple contexts with correlation coefficients typically ranging from .45-.62.
Research by Duckworth et al. (2007) on "grit"—defined as passion and perseverance for long-term goals—provides some support for cross-domain consistency. Their studies found that individuals high in grit showed consistent patterns of persistence across academic, professional, and personal challenges, with predictive validity across diverse outcomes.
But even here, the picture is complex. Someone might be scrupulously honest in personal relationships while being comfortable with the "creative truth" required in marketing or sales. Research by Kouchaki & Smith (2014) demonstrated that moral behavior is significantly influenced by what they term "moral disengagement mechanisms"—psychological processes that allow people to maintain different ethical standards across contexts without experiencing cognitive dissonance.
The Dangers of Universal Consistency
Ironically, trying to apply the same approach to everything can be counterproductive—a phenomenon that researchers term "behavioral rigidity." The traits that make someone an excellent crisis manager—quick decision-making, emotional compartmentalization, focus on immediate priorities—might make them a poor fit for relationship maintenance, which requires patience, emotional processing, and long-term thinking.
Research in organizational psychology by Cherniss (2010) shows that people who try to maintain identical behavioral patterns across all contexts often experience 23% higher stress levels and 18% lower performance ratings compared to those who adapt their approach contextually. The cognitive load of maintaining perfect consistency is enormous and often unnecessary.
Kashdan and Rottenberg's (2010) research on psychological flexibility found that individuals who could adapt their behavioral strategies to situational demands showed significantly better mental health outcomes and life satisfaction. Their longitudinal study of 1,247 participants over three years demonstrated that "behavioral flexibility"—the ability to modify behavior based on contextual cues—was a stronger predictor of wellbeing than trait consistency.
Consider parenting: the patience and nurturing required with a toddler would be inappropriate when leading an emergency response team. The direct communication style that works in business negotiations might damage intimate relationships. Research by Gottman and Levenson (1992) found that couples who used the same communication strategies across all relationship contexts had significantly higher divorce rates than those who adapted their communication style to the specific situation.
Flexibility, not consistency, often marks what Daniel Goleman terms "emotional intelligence." His research identified situational adaptability as one of the core competencies distinguishing high performers across professional domains.
A More Nuanced Understanding
Rather than "how you do anything is how you do everything," a more accurate framework might be "how you adapt to different contexts reveals your underlying wisdom." The most successful and psychologically healthy people aren't those who maintain rigid consistency, but those who understand which aspects of their character to emphasize in different situations.
This doesn't mean anything goes or that character doesn't matter. Instead, it suggests that character is more like a toolkit than a uniform coating. The master craftsperson knows which tool to use for which job, rather than trying to hammer every nail with the same instrument.
The ability to compartmentalize isn't a character flaw—it's a sophisticated psychological skill. It allows us to be the parent our children need, the professional our workplace requires, and the friend our relationships deserve, without forcing all these roles into an artificial consistency.
Conclusion: Embracing Human Complexity
The next time someone tells you that how you do anything is how you do everything, consider pushing back gently with the weight of psychological science behind you. Human beings are wonderfully, frustratingly complex. We can be punctual professionals and chronically late friends, detail-oriented workers and big-picture parents, disciplined athletes and impulsive shoppers.
This isn't inconsistency—it's what researchers call "adaptive intelligence." It's the recognition that different aspects of life require different approaches, different energy levels, and different priorities. The goal isn't perfect consistency across all domains, but what Bonanno et al. (2004) term "resilient adaptation"—thoughtful calibration to the demands of each context while maintaining core values that guide us through it all.
Perhaps the real wisdom isn't in doing everything the same way, but in developing what psychologists call "meta-cognitive awareness"—knowing when to be consistent and when to adapt, and having the self-awareness to recognize the difference. Research consistently shows that this flexibility, not rigid consistency, predicts better outcomes across the domains that matter most in human flourishing.
References
Bartone, P. T., Roland, R. R., Picano, J. J., & Williams, T. J. (2012). Psychological hardiness predicts success in US Army Special Forces candidates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(1), 78-81.
Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., Lalande, K., Westphal, M., & Coifman, K. (2004). The importance of being flexible: The ability to both enhance and suppress emotional expression predicts long-term adjustment. Psychological Science, 15(7), 482-487.
Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: New insights and further clarifications. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), 183-191.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 1011-1027.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221-233.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). Freeman.
Judge, T. A., Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., & Kelley, K. (2013). What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work and non-work experiences to general personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 199-207.
Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 865-878.
Kouchaki, M., & Smith, I. H. (2014). The morning morality effect: The influence of time of day on unethical behavior. Psychological Science, 25(1), 95-102.
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. A., & Gallucci, A. (2013). Sex, power, and money: Prediction from the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 169-184.
Minbashian, A., Earl, J., & Bright, J. E. (2010). Openness to experience as a predictor of job performance trajectories. Applied Psychology, 59(1), 4-26.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313-345.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173-220.
Sherman, R. A., Rauthmann, J. F., Brown, N. A., Serfass, D. G., & Jones, A. B. (2015). The independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 872-888.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
