Why Haven't You Acted?
Some decisions are made long before they are actually acted on, quietly settled internally while the outward routine of daily work continues unchanged. The gap between the two can stretch out for months, sometimes waiting on nothing more than someone else finally asking the question directly, out loud, in a moment no one had planned for.
My decision to move on had already been made, but I had not taken any real steps toward it, because I wanted to avoid the painful confrontation that acting on it would require. I would likely still have been sitting in that same spot of inactivity if I had not been asked directly whether I was leaving. I was not expecting that question, and I certainly would not have chosen to have that conversation over the phone if the timing had been up to me. But there it was. I had to give an answer, and that conversation became the one that changed everything.
There is a particular kind of stall that happens after a decision has genuinely been made internally, but before any external action has followed. This is different from ordinary indecision, where a person is still weighing options and has not yet settled on a direction. In this kind of stall, the direction is already clear. What is missing is not clarity. It is the willingness to face the discomfort that acting on that clarity will require.
This distinction matters because the two situations call for very different responses. Someone still genuinely uncertain about the right path benefits from more information, more reflection, more input from trusted advisors. Someone who has already decided, but is stalling out of discomfort with the confrontation that action requires, does not need more information. Additional information at that point usually just provides another reason to delay a little longer, since the real obstacle was never a lack of clarity in the first place.
✦ ✦ ✦
Subscribe to the Weekly Roundup
Every Friday, one email with the week's Leadership Behind the Scenes articles. A headline and a one-line synopsis for each, so you choose what to read and skip the rest. No daily inbox clutter. Just the stories worth your time, once a week.
✦ ✦ ✦
Leaders in education, perhaps more than in many other fields, often carry decisions like this for extended periods, because the relationships involved run deep and the confrontation required feels disproportionately painful given how much history and investment sits behind it. A decision to leave a school community, to end a long standing arrangement, or to make a significant change that will disappoint people who have been trusted colleagues for years, carries a weight that makes avoidance especially tempting, even after the decision itself has been settled internally.
There is a specific cost that accumulates during this kind of extended stall, beyond the obvious frustration of remaining in an unresolved situation. The stall itself often becomes exhausting in a way that is separate from the original decision. Carrying a decision that has already been made, while continuing to act as though it has not been made, requires a kind of ongoing internal management that drains energy steadily, even when it produces no visible sign of struggle to anyone watching from the outside.
The moment that actually breaks a stall like this rarely comes from within. It usually comes from an external question, sometimes an unexpected one, that removes the option of continuing to avoid the conversation. Being asked directly, without warning, forces an answer that internal reflection alone had not been able to produce, not because the internal reflection was insufficient, but because avoidance of discomfort, not lack of clarity, was the actual obstacle the entire time.
This raises a useful question for any leader who suspects she may currently be in a stall of this kind, waiting on something external to force a conversation that internal clarity has already resolved. Rather than waiting for that external prompt to arrive on its own timeline, a leader can create it deliberately, naming a specific date by which the conversation will happen, and telling someone else about that date so there is real accountability attached to it. This does not remove the discomfort of the conversation itself, but it does remove the option of indefinite postponement, which is often the more damaging pattern of the two.
It is worth being honest about why the confrontation itself felt so difficult to initiate. In most cases, the difficulty is not about the content of the conversation, but about the anticipated reaction of the other person, disappointment, hurt feelings, or a sense of betrayal. That anticipated reaction, while understandable to want to avoid, is rarely actually avoided by delaying the conversation. It is simply postponed, often accumulating additional weight and complication the longer the delay continues.
Consider a decision you have already made internally but have not yet acted on, and ask honestly what is actually being avoided by the delay. If the honest answer is discomfort rather than genuine uncertainty, the most useful next step may not be more reflection. It may simply be setting a specific date and telling someone about it, so the conversation that has already been decided finally has a reason to happen.
There is a reason this particular pattern shows up so often among leaders who are otherwise decisive in their professional responsibilities. Making decisions about budgets, curriculum, staffing structures, and daily operations does not typically require confronting someone directly about a personal choice that will disappoint them. This kind of decision does, which makes it a fundamentally different category of leadership challenge, one that draws on emotional courage rather than analytical skill. A leader can be highly capable in one category and still stall considerably in the other, and recognizing that distinction removes some of the unfair self judgment that often accompanies this kind of delay.
It also helps to examine what specifically is being anticipated during the stall, since the anticipated reaction is often worse in imagination than it turns out to be in reality. Leaders delaying a difficult conversation frequently rehearse the worst possible version of how it might go, and that rehearsal itself becomes a significant part of what makes the delay feel justified. Naming the specific feared outcome directly, rather than leaving it as a vague sense of dread, often reveals that the anticipated reaction, while uncomfortable, is also survivable, and considerably less catastrophic than the extended anxiety of continuing to avoid it.
The conversation that finally happened here was not chosen on the leader's own terms. It arrived unexpectedly, over the phone, at a moment that would not have been selected deliberately. That detail is worth sitting with, because it illustrates something important about decisions stuck in this kind of stall. Waiting for the ideal moment to have a difficult conversation often means waiting indefinitely, since an ideal moment for disappointing news rarely presents itself naturally. The conversation that actually happens is far more likely to arrive imperfectly, at an inconvenient time, forced by circumstance rather than chosen deliberately, and that imperfect timing does not make the outcome any less valid or necessary.
Looking back, the actual content of that unexpected phone conversation mattered less than the fact that it finally happened at all. Months of internal deliberation had already settled the question. What the conversation provided was not new clarity about the decision itself. It provided the occasion, finally, to speak a decision that had been sitting quietly, fully formed, for far longer than it needed to.
-- Dr. Rhonda
The Next Step: If the decision is clear but the conversation keeps moving to another day, bring it to The Decisions That Move People Forward™. Leave with a plan for what to say and when to act. Join the workshop.
Add comment
Comments