When the Past Isn't Prologue

In both my personal and professional life, whether reflecting on my own career trajectory or counseling the employees and employers I work with, I've come to believe we are not beholden to that familiar phrase as if it were an absolute truth. There are simply too many variables that can shift: situations evolve, new exposures emerge, and sometimes even the butterfly flapping its wings creates ripple effects that completely alter outcomes. The same individual, presented with what appears to be the identical opportunity or situation, could produce an entirely different result.

The typical question that arises is whether someone who has shown little effort can actually become a leader and truly successful. But, we can equally ask: is it truly a foregone conclusion that someone who has consistently over-performed will continue to do so? While we could debate the nuanced use of "best" in the phrase "best predictor," I'll move past that semantic argument. The fundamental question remains: can and will someone have a different outcome when presented with the same situation again?

Perhaps we should revisit this very article next year, same time, same place, and see what new patterns have emerged.

The Gospel of Prediction

The morning performance review carries weight beyond its scheduled thirty minutes. In conference rooms across organizations, the same ritual unfolds: managers cite patterns, employees defend exceptions, and somewhere in that exchange, futures get written based on documented pasts. Yet in that repetition, a quiet resistance pulses: the idea that individuals can break with the past, can act counter to former habits, can even thrive because they decide to defy them. In that silence, the phrase still lingers, used in boardrooms and interviews alike: the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Yet beneath that assertion sleeps unrest and, more importantly, boundless potential. In examining the claim, researchers caution against its absolutism. Psychology Today reports a modest correlation: students' attendance in early classes predicted later presence with r ≈ 0.46, but only under narrow conditions: task frequency, situational repetition, stability of self, and brief time spans. These caveats ripple through every workplace evaluation, every leadership judgment. They also create space for growth, adaptation, and the emergence of capabilities that past performance could never fully anticipate.

Academic Roots

The phrase has deep academic roots. Social psychologists Wendy Wood and Judith Ouellette's research found that frequent, stable behaviors often repeat due to contextual cues. Yet they also showed that when context shifts or goals sharpen, behavior can change significantly. Past action informs, but does not command. The present holds room for revision.

In talent selection and hiring, the principle becomes gospel. Paul Glatzhofer of Talogy notes that structured behavioral interviews rest on this foundation: asking candidates to recount past experiences ostensibly reveals their future performance. The STAR technique emerged because superficial responses masquerade as insight. Only details rooted in specific TIME‑ACTION‑RESULT stories can expose patterns.

That confidence emerges from roots in behaviorism. Early twentieth-century psychologists like John B.

Watson argued that behavior, not internal reflection, should be the cornerstone of scientific understanding. Yet Watson's mechanistic view also flattened individuality, neglecting how reflection, adaptation, and coaching can shift the arc of actions.

The Problem of Context

Personality theory deepens the complexity. Walter Mischel and Yuichi Shoda's cognitive-affective system explains that people respond differently in varying contexts due to stable psychological signatures. Past behavior reflects patterns only within those narrow conditions. Someone who once avoided conflict in a rigid culture might thrive in a psychologically safe team, offering critique and vision. The past is not the full sentence.

Within teams, that maxim echoes conflicting realities. When someone falters in delivering work on time, the team instinctively adds that evidence to their ledger: "they'll do it again." But, that ledger can distort.

What if the missed deadlines stemmed from burnout, overload, or an unresolved personal crisis? The weight of one failure sets expectation, but circumstances may defy it.

Consider the logic of psychological inertia: behaviors and cognitive patterns often carry forward unimpeded unless actively disrupted. But, change interventions: coaching, honest feedback, or support, can oppose inertia. That friction is lived when a manager, after a misstep, lends clarity and guidance.

The behavior shifts. The past recedes.

The Wells Fargo Fracture

This isn't just theoretical. In September 2016, Wells Fargo's cross-selling scandal revealed how dramatically people can deviate from their established patterns when circumstances shift. The bank had built its entire hiring and management strategy on the premise that past behavior predicts future behavior. Employees with strong sales records and ethical track records would continue performing reliably.

But when the corporate environment became toxic with "aggressive" and "unrealistic" sales targets, something unprecedented happened. Employees who had operated ethically for years, people whose past behavior suggested they would never compromise their integrity, began opening unauthorized accounts to survive. Between 2011 and 2016, Wells Fargo employees opened as many as 2 million fake accounts. Past ethical behavior became meaningless when the context changed so dramatically.

More revealing were the employees who broke their patterns in the opposite direction. Bill Bado, a loyal, high-performing employee, was fired in 2013 after voicing concerns about unauthorized accounts just eight days after calling the ethics hotline. His years of compliance meant nothing when he chose to act on his values rather than follow the corporate script.

The real lesson emerges from what happened next. As the scandal unfolded, Wells Fargo employees increasingly began using the bank's confidential hotline to report violations. People who had stayed silent for years, whose past behavior suggested they would never speak up, suddenly found their voices. The crisis didn't just reveal who people really were; it created space for them to become someone different.

This is the fundamental flaw in using past behavior as a predictor: it assumes static individuals in static environments. But people aren't fixed, and neither are the contexts they operate in. When either changes significantly, all bets are off.

The Possibility of Change

Implementation intentions, studied extensively by Peter Gollwitzer, affirm this possibility. When people commit to specific if-then strategies (if I feel anxious before a meeting, then I will prepare three key points) they increase the likelihood of new behavior. Habit changes when intention is paired with context and repetition. Even ingrained responses yield to clarity and planning.

Mental rehearsal creates neural pathways that, over time, substitute the old script. A once-silent contributor begins presenting. A chronic latecomer shifts patterns. A team leader known for rigidity embraces ambiguity. These are not anomalies. They are deliberate deviations, seeded by awareness and sustained by design.

Habits do form easily. They arise from repeated pairings of behavior and context, reinforced by reward.

Yet the same mechanics that build a habit can dismantle it. A person who once micromanaged their reports can become a champion of autonomy, not because their nature changed, but because their environment and goals did.

The Appeal of Certainty

Simple truths seduce. Clear phrases comfort decision-makers unsettled by complexity. If you can sketch a pattern, you can preempt it. It appears authoritative, yet it is incomplete.

In performance reviews, this shows up regularly. Someone says "I can't change" and the team echoes:

"They've missed deadlines before." The phrase becomes shorthand for futility. But, professionals grow. Teams evolve. Organizations pivot. New contexts demand fresh responses, and individuals often adjust, sometimes in ways that surprise everyone.

The appeal of predictive certainty runs deeper than convenience. It offers psychological comfort in an uncertain world. But, that same logic could prevent organizations from recognizing when someone is ready to stretch beyond their established patterns, or when contextual changes demand entirely new capabilities.

Creating Expectations

Expectations about someone's future often influence their future self. Sociologists since Merton have labeled this the "self‑fulfilling prophecy." In a team, if a person is labeled "unreliable," and then given less complex tasks, they may internalize that narrative. They cease being perpetually unreliable, but become reliably overlooked.

Leadership discourse urging a person to "prove themselves" drives that dynamic. The phrase begins to sculpt reality more than predict it. By expressing confidence in potential, organizations create conditions for growth. The positive expectation becomes a platform for development rather than a cage of predetermined limits.

This reveals a crucial insight: past behavior may predict future behavior, but future context shapes both. Organizations that understand this paradox create environments where past excellence becomes a foundation for new growth rather than a ceiling that limits possibility.

Beyond Patterns

The Theory of Planned Behavior suggests that behavior results from intentions, attitudes, norms, and perceived control. Past behavior might feed those intentions, but it is not sole arbiter. Each element carries weight, and without one, behavior may diverge.

Imagine someone who habitually sidesteps conflict. With new psychological safety, peer coaching, and trust built, they begin to voice dissent. Their predicted aversion no longer holds exactly. New responsibilities may activate leadership capabilities that individual contributor work never required.

The richness of human potential often exceeds the boundaries of established patterns. Past behavior provides valuable data, but it represents only one thread in a complex tapestry of capability, motivation, and contextual possibility.

When Narratives Stick

Organizational life often acts as an amplifier. Patterns observed by peers accumulate into reputations. A misstep becomes a defining mark. The phrase itself, used without qualification, can reinforce static views of dynamic individuals. But, the ledger is never final. People defy it regularly. They unlearn, revise, rebuild.

Despite nuance, the phrase endures. In leadership training, it's rarely qualified. In performance conversations, it becomes shorthand: reliability is baked in. It offers comfort at the cost of accuracy. But comfort can create entrapment.

After the Wells Fargo scandal, the bank noticed "volumes have increased on our ethics line" as employees were calling the hotline more frequently to report misconduct. This represented a complete reversal of past patterns. Employees who had previously stayed silent were finding their voices.

The Limits of Prediction

The idea that past behavior defines future behavior has utility. It alerts us to trends. It helps guard against empty assurances. But when wielded without nuance, it forecloses possibility. It misreads people at the moment they are choosing to grow.

Patterns can persist. Recidivism research finds that violent behavior does tend to repeat, though with modest predictive success. Only about 40 percent of those identified as moderate‑to‑high risk re‑offend. Past remains a piece of the puzzle, but even there, the picture is incomplete.

Yet in corporate contexts, change happens constantly: promotion, realignment, skill development, emotional maturation. People grow, contexts morph. Past performance informs, but hardly dictates.

Living with Uncertainty

The phrase remains audible in boardrooms and team rooms alike. It carries gravity and sometimes creates friction. Lean too heavily on it, and the community risks flattening individuals, scripting futures before they arrive. Yet abandon it wholesale, and planning lacks data; trust falters.

That tension reflects the reality of human development. It is present in every appraisal, every talent redeployment, every leap into ambiguity. The truth of past behavior as predictor survives, but only partially, shadowed by conditions, tempered by context, and always open to revision.

The echo of footsteps shifts tone. What once sounded like inevitability now becomes rhythm. Each new step layered over the old, forms a different kind of pattern, one not bound by precedent, but animated by the possibility of change. The ledger is still kept, but some pages are written anew, where past and possibility walk together toward futures where potential can transcend prediction and growth can exceed expectations.

References (Yes, it's long...)

• Vogel, Maura. "The Best Predictor of Future Behavior Is … Past Behavior." Psychology Today, Jan. 4, 2013.

• Ouellette, Judith A., and Wendy Wood. "Habit and Intention in Everyday Life." Psychological Bulletin, 1998.

• Glatzhofer, Paul. "Past Behavior Is the Best Predictor of Future Behavior." Talogy, Nov. 6, 2024.

• Mischel, Walter, and Yuichi Shoda. "A Cognitive-Affective System Theory of Personality." Psychological Review, 1995.

• Gollwitzer, Peter M. "Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans." American Psychologist, 1999.

• Wood, Wendy. "Habit in Personality and Social Psychology." Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2017.

• Merton, Robert K. "The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy." The Antioch Review, 1948.

• Ajzen, Icek. "The Theory of Planned Behavior." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991.

• “Wells Fargo Cross-Selling Scandal.” Wikipedia, last modified June 5, 2025.

• Tayan, Brian. "The Wells Fargo Cross-Selling Scandal." Stanford Graduate School of Business, Feb. 6, 2019.

• Egan, Matt. "Wells Fargo Workers: I Called the Ethics Line and Was Fired." CNN Money, Sept. 21, 2016.

• "More Employees Calling Wells Fargo Ethics Line." Mortgage Professional America, June 21, 2018.