Empathy Becomes Dangerous When Decisions Are Due

“I Understand” as a Reason to Delay a Decision

“I understand why this is happening. This is not the moment to push.”

Andrew, CEO of a regional services company, says this at the end of an executive meeting. The discussion was focused on repeated delivery delays in one business unit. The numbers have been reviewed. The causes are known. That unit has missed targets for three consecutive quarters, and other teams have been compensating to keep overall performance stable.

The issue concerns the unit head directly. His results are below expectations, and the situation has been discussed before.

Andrew does not minimise the issue. He names it directly. He acknowledges the cost of continuing this way. He also stresses clearly that something will need to change.

The meeting moves on to the next item on the agenda with no firm decision at the CEO level.

Later, in a one-to-one conversation, Andrew explains his reasoning without hesitation. He knows what the data shows. He also knows what pushing right now would trigger: tension, defensive reactions, and a sense of unfairness. He believes that forcing a decision at this moment would damage trust and reduce engagement when he needs the opposite.

From his perspective, waiting is not avoidance. It is a leadership judgment. He is choosing timing over immediacy and relationship over pressure. He considers this part of his responsibility as CEO.

Nothing about this reasoning sounds careless or naive. It reflects experience, awareness, and a genuine concern for people and outcomes.

And so the decision remains open.

When Empathy Turns the Leader into the Bottleneck

Six months pass after that meeting, with very little, if any improvement.

During this time, Andrew stays closely connected to the situation. He speaks regularly with the unit head. He asks for updates, listens to explanations, adjusts expectations, and helps manage pressure coming from other parts of the organisation. He does not ignore the problem. On the contrary, he stays involved.

What does not happen during those six months is a clear decision.

Andrew continues to understand the context. He continues to believe that pushing would be counterproductive. Each time the issue comes back to his attention, he reaches the same conclusion: now is still not the right moment. The unit head is still under strain. The conditions are still not ideal. Waiting continues to feel like the responsible choice.

Over time, something shifts in how Andrew operates.

Because no decision is made, he starts filling the space it would normally occupy. He clarifies priorities informally. He manages expectations on behalf of the unit head. He absorbs frustration from other executives and explains delays himself. He becomes the point where uncertainty is processed.

This is where Andrew turns into a bottleneck.

Not because others cannot decide, but because he has chosen to hold the situation personally. Empathy keeps him close to the problem, but it also prevents responsibility from settling where it belongs. The unit head remains protected from the full weight of the role, and Andrew carries it instead.

His work changes accordingly. Less of it is about direction and choice. More of it is about monitoring, explaining, and compensating. He takes on tasks and concerns that are not formally his, but feel necessary to keep things stable.

Leadership begins to feel heavier.

Andrew is not doing more, but he is doing things that should not require his attention at this level. He is no longer just leading the unit head; he is partially replacing the unit head. This was never a deliberate decision. It emerges naturally from Andrew’s wish to be fair, patient, and understanding.

The cost is not immediately visible, but it is concrete. Andrew’s attention narrows. His availability for other strategic matters decreases. Decisions elsewhere start to take longer because one unresolved situation keeps drawing him back.

Empathy has not removed the problem. It has concentrated it.

Andrew remains convinced he is acting responsibly. And in many ways, he is. What he does not see yet is that by postponing a decision, he has also postponed clarity and taken on work that no longer belongs to him.

The Cost Andrew Pays Internally

After several months, Andrew notices that his role feels different.

There is no escalation and no visible failure. At the group level, performance remains acceptable. What has changed is the amount of mental space an unresolved situation occupies. The same issue keeps returning to him, requiring follow-ups, explanations, and informal adjustments. Andrew carries the context, the justifications, and the unresolved decision each time it comes up.

This creates a constant internal load.

Instead of making a clear decision, Andrew keeps the situation open and mentally active. Instead of defining accountability, he continues to manage the uncertainty himself. The issue no longer sits with the unit head alone; it sits with Andrew. He is the one holding the reasons why nothing has been decided yet.

Over time, this affects how leadership feels. Decisions are not harder because they are complex, but because Andrew also feels responsible for how others will experience the consequences. He starts adjusting himself in advance, absorbing potential discomfort before it happens.

This is where the cost accumulates.

Leadership becomes less about choosing and more about carrying. Not because Andrew is overworked, but because he is aware of doing work that no longer belongs to him. His empathy has become the place where unresolved responsibility settles.

Andrew does not experience this as a problem. He experiences it as support, collaboration and seriousness. What he has not questioned yet is whether this seriousness still reflects leadership maturity or whether it has quietly begun to limit his authority.

When Empathy Stops Supporting Responsibility

Situations like Andrew’s are often seen as signs of emotional maturity. The leader understands people, context, and pressure. He avoids rushed decisions and tries to protect working relationships.

At the senior level, however, maturity is not measured by how well a leader understands others. Most capable leaders already do that. It is measured by whether that understanding leads to clear decisions when responsibility requires them.

Empathy becomes a limitation when it repeatedly delays clarity. When a leader keeps waiting for a better emotional moment, responsibility does not disappear. It moves. The leader starts carrying it personally instead of placing it where the role requires.

In practice, this means something very concrete. The leader still has authority, but he uses it only when it feels emotionally acceptable. He decides when tension is low and postpones decisions that would create discomfort. Authority is no longer exercised because the role requires it, but because the emotional conditions feel safe enough.

This is not a lack of care or competence. It is a confusion between being considerate and being responsible.

Emotional maturity at this level means allowing others to experience the discomfort created by clear decisions, without trying to absorb that discomfort yourself. It means letting responsibility sit with the person who holds the role, even when this creates tension, dissatisfaction or even conflict.

When this does not happen, the leader becomes the buffer. He protects others from the consequences of clarity and carries those consequences himself. Over time, leadership shifts from deciding to containing.

Empathy is still present. What changes is how it is used.

It no longer supports responsibility. It replaces it.

Before moving on,

it is worth stopping with three questions.

1.   Where are you delaying a decision, not because it is unclear, but because you are trying to protect someone from discomfort?
2.   In which situations have you taken responsibility into yourself instead of placing it clearly where the role requires it?
3.   What part of your work feels heavier today because you are doing things that should no longer need your involvement?

These are not operational questions. They point to how you relate to authority, responsibility, and empathy.

In coaching, this is where the work usually begins.

First, we look at how responsibility is interpreted and carried internally: what you automatically take on, what you protect others from, and how these choices shape your daily leadership experience.

Second, we work on clarifying authority from the inside out: not what your role allows you to do, but when and why you allow yourself to use it — and when you postpone it.

Third, we examine the cost of empathy when it replaces decisions: how it turns into over-involvement, creates bottlenecks, and quietly limits freedom and clarity at the senior level.

This work is not about becoming harder or less human.

It addresses a structural shift that occurs when responsibility remains personal rather than positional: leadership becomes heavier, authority weakens, and strategic capacity quietly shrinks.

How can I support you?

The Manager Mindset - One-on-one coaching designed to boost your performance and enhance your sense of fulfilment and satisfaction in life.

Master Your Resilience - Group coaching that helps you navigate life's challenges with greater ease and flow, empowering you to thrive through adversity.

Growth Mindset for New Managers - Your online autonomy training is designed to catalyse your personal growth and ensure your fast transition to your first management role.

Complimentary Strategy Call (FREE) - Let’s craft your personalised roadmap for transformation. Discover where coaching can take you in just 6 months with a free, strategic call to set your path toward success.