Leaders who fail to ‘walk the talk’ face emotional and performance setbacks  

By Dr Anders Friis Marstand and Professor Olga Epitropaki from Issue 15

We’ve all heard the saying ‘practice what you preach’. It’s advice as relevant in the boardroom as in everyday life. Yet even the most well-intentioned leaders sometimes fall short. A CEO promises transparency, but withholds key information. A manager pledges flexible working, then rewards those who are always at their desks. A team leader vows to protect workloads, yet keeps adding priorities. 

When these gaps between words and actions occur, attention usually turns to the fallout for employees – loss of trust, declining morale, and falling performance. Less often discussed is the toll such inconsistency takes on leaders. This was the focus of our recent research. 

In our recently published work, we found that when leaders fail to live up to their stated values or commitments, what we call ‘word–action misalignment’, they often experience shame. This emotion can prompt withdrawal, avoidance of colleagues, and poorer performance, which over time can spiral into a self-reinforcing cycle of disengagement. 

In the experiment, participants indicated many instances where they’d failed to deliver on promises to their staff. These included promising pay rises but not delivering, telling employees they could have time off before revoking it, and promises about recruiting new staff to alleviate workload but never doing so, resulting in higher shame. 

Our other experimental tasks and field study showed the same pattern: even when misalignment was minor or inadvertent, the emotional reaction could be outsized. Together, these findings indicate the personal cost of failing to ‘walk the talk’ isn’t merely momentary embarrassment; it reshapes leaders’ daily engagement and influences performance. 

Looking inward at leadership misalignment 

Leadership research has typically examined misalignment from the outside in: how it undermines credibility, weakens team cohesion, or harms organisational reputation. We wanted to reverse that lens and explore what happens within leaders when their actions don’t match their intentions. 

We carried out three studies with more than 800 managers from different sectors. These included real-world recollections, where leaders described occasions when they’d fallen short, and experimental tasks simulating such scenarios. 

Leaders told us that after recognising a misalignment, they often avoided conversations, kept a lower profile, and became less engaged. This behaviour rarely stayed confined to the original incident; it spilled into other tasks and relationships, further undermining effectiveness. 

Why shame matters

Shame differs from guilt in a crucial way. Guilt is tied to a specific action: “I did something wrong.” Shame is a judgement of the self: “I am inadequate.” For leaders, this is corrosive. 

Rather than motivating corrective action, shame tends to prompt avoidance. Leaders might retreat from their teams, delay difficult conversations, or disengage from key projects. Those with low confidence in their ability to influence outcomes are particularly vulnerable; withdrawal becomes entrenched, reduced engagement lowers performance, and the cycle repeats. 

This has obvious consequences. Leaders cannot inspire or guide teams if they’re mentally and emotionally pulling away. 

The role of autonomy and control

A consistent pattern we observed was the importance of perceived control. Leaders who felt they had autonomy and influence were better able to interrupt the shame–avoidance cycle. When leaders can act decisively and take ownership, they’re likelier to address misalignments promptly and constructively. 

In fast-changing environments, misalignment is often caused by factors beyond a leader’s control – shifting priorities, organisational changes, or resource limits. Without sufficient autonomy, leaders can feel powerless to fix problems, which deepens shame. Structures that give leaders meaningful decision-making authority can reduce both the frequency of misalignment and its emotional cost. 

Supporting leaders through development and culture

Our findings point to the need for organisations to support leaders in managing the emotional fallout of misalignment. Development programmes that build emotional intelligence, resilience and self-awareness can help. 

Resilience training aids recovery from setbacks. Coaching and mentoring give space for reflection, helping leaders process shame constructively. Reviewing job design to ensure control over key decisions can prevent the powerlessness that often follows misalignment. 

Equally important is a culture where acknowledging missteps isn’t seen as weakness. When leaders can speak openly about constraints, they’re more likely to confront problems rather than avoid them. 

A call for greater self-awareness and organisational empathy 

These insights should prompt leaders and organisations to rethink ‘walking the talk’. Misalignment will happen; leaders are human. The critical question is how leaders respond, and whether organisations provide the resources to help them recover. 

For leaders, cultivating self-awareness matters. Recognising the signs of shame and its behavioural impact can help break the cycle before it damages performance and relationships. For organisations, the focus should be on creating structures and cultures that support rather than punish leaders in these moments. 

Alignment between words and actions isn’t just about team trust or reputation – it’s central to leaders’ wellbeing and effectiveness. Leaders who receive self-awareness tools, organisational support and real decision-making freedom are better placed to re-engage, rebuild trust, and lead authentically.