Waiting for a Situation to Play Out
Sometimes leaders must let a strategy, situation, or problem play out before deciding what to do about it.
Waiting for events to unfold can be painstakingly hard. The desire to act can be overwhelming for some leaders. But inaction is often the best course. Or, as Teddy Roosevelt liked to describe it, stubborn inaction is sometimes the wisest move.
Who can forget the Chinese proverb about a farmer who crosses paths with a wild horse? As the story goes, the farmer captures the horse and brings it home to his farm. His neighbors cry out, “What good luck!” The farmer is cautious and replies, “Maybe.” Soon thereafter, the farmer’s eldest son attempts to tame the horse and falls off, breaking his leg. His neighbors exclaim: “What bad luck!” The farmer replies, “Maybe.” A short time later, a war breaks out across the countryside. The army comes to recruit healthy young men to fight. The farmer’s son is passed over because of his broken leg. His neighbors cried, “What good luck!” Once again, the farmer replies, “Maybe.”
When to let a situation play out or when to intervene, augment, or change gears is never an easy call. Patience may be a virtue, but it is not always a good choice. Opportunities are lost and problems often become magnified when leaders don’t act. Good leaders have a bias for action that generally serves them well. Yet, there are times when temporary inaction is the smart choice.
While there is no perfect rule of thumb as to when to sit tight or not, the amount of information a leader has to act on should heavily influence their behavior. When leaders lack clarity because of what they don’t know, inaction buys them more time to obtain critical information. This period of inaction also makes leaders more open to contrary arguments and viewpoints.
Inaction is also attractive when there is high risk involved with a decision. Inaction can allow for a more thorough examination of the unintended consequences of a decision and a more rigorous analysis of the risk. Quality decisions benefit from fully debating the costs associated with taking an action. Temporary inaction gives decision-makers the chance to create a more considered view.
While inaction is never the default of good leaders and decision-makers, it is sometimes the right call for a period of time. Letting a situation unfold can test a leader’s patience, but it is the smart choice when indecision is caused by a lack of data. Clarity can be elusive until the dust settles and the picture comes into focus.
Don’t act until then unless you have to.
Intentionally observing developments and gathering intelligence is NOT the same as inaction. Time was once defined as the thing that keeps everything from happening all at once. Timing and sequencing should be part of every action plan.
Anyone in a position to criticize the leader is a key stakeholder and part of the leader’s job is to communicate that the action being taken is to wait until certain developments mature. Like any decision, that can be wrong or right, and listening to other voices is important. However, the issue is not one of indecisiveness or in action, but rather either one of communication failure, or the wrong choice of action,
I think a bigger part of the question is that leaders must avoid confusing themselves about intentional waiting versus inaction.
Many leaders can appear to be very decisive about waiting to take action, but in fact, may be fooling themselves and actually procrastinating. This requires self reflection rather than inability to take criticism.