Organizational members frequently evaluate how their abilities and standing compare with those of their colleagues. Although these comparisons can have a negative impact on organizations, little attention has been paid to the role of leaders in these processes. Drawing on interviews with individuals in leadership positions in business schools, we develop a framework to explain what triggers leaders’ attention to social comparisons among faculty and how they become involved in them. Central to this framework are leaders’ self‐schemas, which encompass their preferences about the criteria members should use in making comparisons. Leaders’ self‐schemas are activated by discrepancies between their own comparative judgements and those they perceive members to be making and impel them to act in ways consistent with their preferred bases of comparison. Our framework repositions social comparisons as a multi‐perspectival, political phenomenon in which leaders see themselves as playing a role in shaping members’ evaluations and workplace interactions.