Patience Is a Virtue. Sometimes It's Also an Excuse.
By Judy Oyedele
A few years into running my firm, I brought someone onto my team in a role I'd designed with real intention. When I was in school for my degree, I wanted exactly that kind of opportunity — mentored, hands-on practice with someone who actually knew the work. Now that I was in a position to offer it, I had a personal stake in getting it right. That stake made it harder to be honest when things weren't working.
When my expectations weren't being met, I kept adjusting them internally instead of naming them. I told myself I was giving grace to someone still developing. In reality, I was holding quiet frustration while expecting her to read cues I hadn't made explicit. Eventually I had the conversation that needed to happen — helped her recognize the role wasn't the right fit and supported a transition that served her better. That outcome was the care in action. The months of "patience" before it cost us both.
I see this pattern constantly in my work with leaders of mission-driven organizations. Right now, when teams are stretched thin and carrying real weight, leaders are pulling back on hard conversations in the name of empathy. But silence isn't accommodation. Letting someone struggle without clarity or structural support isn't kind — it's just lonelier. Sometimes the most empathetic move is to step in. That's where decisiveness and empathy stop being opposites.
Conflict avoidance masking as empathy.
Emotional intelligence — EQ — gives us real tools: the ability to name what we're feeling, read a room, and respond rather than react. These skills matter. But EQ without relational skill can produce something that looks a lot like people-pleasing in practice.
When you care deeply about someone, your discomfort comes dressed in the language of leadership: I'm giving them space. I'm being patient. I don't want to discourage them. That story sounds like empathy. It's protecting you from a hard conversation more than it's helping them. The difference between compassionate leadership and conflict avoidance isn't always obvious from the inside.
EQ is the awareness. RQ is the action.
What bridges that gap is what researcher Isabelle C. Hau, executive director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning,
calls Relational Intelligence (RQ) — the capacity to build trust, navigate tension, and repair ruptures with the people in your care.
EQ and RQ are not the same skill. EQ is largely internal. Relational intelligence is what you do with that awareness inside a relationship — especially when it's under strain. A gap left unnamed doesn't stay still. It widens. Naming the gap — clearly, without cruelty — is what makes repair possible.
At senior levels, the stakes compound: a leader who waits too long to address a direct report's behavior that's harming their team doesn't just fail that person — the people below see what's not being said, and trust erodes in both directions.
Clarity is how care shows up.
Leaders who hold both strength and empathy understand that clear expectations aren't a withdrawal of warmth — they're what make warmth possible. Brené Brown's research affirms this: the most generous leaders are also the most boundaried.
Emotional intelligence is the bridge between knowing that and actually doing it. Using your EQ to move through discomfort — recognizing what you're feeling, slowing down, choosing your response — keeps you present in the relationship while you say the hard thing. This is not about being blunt. It's about letting your awareness drive action instead of silence.
Suppressing what you feel doesn't protect the relationship. It delays the opportunity for repair — and quietly erodes the trust between you.
Empathy is not the destination. It's the entry point. What you do with it — the clarity you're willing to offer, the tension you're willing to hold — that's where leadership with both strength and heart actually lives.
Connect With Judy
consulting
Comments