Why the Same Action Works Once - and Fails the Next Time

In professional life, we often assume consistency is rewarded. If a certain behavior worked once—asking a question in a meeting, sending a follow-up email, challenging an idea—we expect it to work again. When it doesn’t, the instinctive reaction is self-doubt: Did I do something wrong?In many cases, the answer is no. What changed was not the action, but the context.

Organizational research has long shown that behavior is never evaluated in isolation. Meaning is produced through interaction, timing, power relations, and social cues. The same action can be perceived as initiative in one situation and as disruption in another—not because the actor changed, but because the environment did.

Context Is Not Background Noise - It Is the Message

Karl Weick’s work on sensemaking emphasized that people do not respond to objective events, but to the meaning they construct around them (Weick, 1995). In organizations, this means that actions are interpreted through multiple lenses at once: who performed them, in front of whom, under what conditions, and at what moment.

An identical behavior—such as offering help or proposing an alternative—can be framed as collaboration when psychological safety is high, or as a threat when uncertainty or territoriality is present. Amy Edmondson’s research demonstrates that in teams with low psychological safety, even well-intended contributions are more likely to be perceived defensively (Edmondson, 1999).

This explains a common professional frustration: “I did exactly the same thing as before - why did it backfire this time?” The mistake lies in assuming actions carry fixed meanings. They don’t.

Behavioral Consistency vs. Situational Intelligence

Traditional performance models often reward consistency: be proactive, speak up, and show initiative. While these behaviors are generally associated with positive outcomes, research on situational judgment suggests that effectiveness depends on adaptability rather than repetition.

Mischel’s work on personality and situation highlights that behavior varies systematically across contexts (Mischel, 1977). In other words, effective professionals are not those who apply the same behavior everywhere, but those who adjust their responses to situational cues.

This has direct implications for careers. High performers are often described not only as competent, but as “good readers of the room.” That ability—sometimes mislabeled as intuition—is in fact a form of social and contextual intelligence, grounded in attention, experience, and feedback.

When “Best Practice” Becomes a Liability

Organizational learning literature warns against the uncritical transfer of successful behaviors from one context to another. What worked in one team, culture, or managerial relationship may fail elsewhere because informal norms differ (Argyris & Schön, 1978).

This is particularly visible in global organizations and startups, where employees move rapidly between teams and roles. A communication style rewarded in a flat, informal environment may be penalized in a more hierarchical one. The action itself is neutral; the interpretation is not.

Recognizing this helps reframe failure. Instead of asking “What did I do wrong?”, a more productive question is: “What changed in the situation, and how was my action read this time?”

Learning to Read Shifts, Not Just Rules

Most organizations communicate rules clearly: processes, policies, and KPIs. What they rarely articulate are shifts: changes in power dynamics, emotional climate, or strategic priorities. Yet these shifts heavily influence how actions are received.

Research on adaptive performance shows that the ability to detect and respond to changing situational demands is a key predictor of long-term success (Pulakos et al., 2000). Professionals who rely solely on past success patterns risk misalignment when conditions evolve.

This is why feedback that comes as a “small correction” or unexpected pushback should not be dismissed. Often, it is the system signaling that the context has shifted even if no one announced it.

From Repetition to Awareness

Professional growth, then, is less about perfecting a single behavior and more about developing contextual awareness. Doing “the right thing” repeatedly is not enough if the definition of “right” is fluid.

Organizations reward those who can pause, observe, and recalibrate. Not because they hesitate, but because they understand that timing, audience, and environment shape outcomes as much as skill does.

The same action working once does not guarantee it will work again. That is not a failure of competence - it is a reminder that work is relational, dynamic, and deeply contextual.

References

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads (pp. 333–352). Erlbaum.

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.