Who benefits from your patience, and who pays for the wait?

In Patience pays, and so does impatience, Innocent argues for choosing where to give time. Waiting has a purpose when there are reasons to expect it to help. Where those reasons are missing and change is needed now, impatience may be useful. Applying that thought between people means looking at who needs room, who can act and who bears the delay.

What does the extra time make possible?#

Imagine helping a new colleague learn an unfamiliar task. They are slow because they have to check each step, but they are listening and beginning to understand. Taking over would get today’s work done sooner. Allowing them to finish may help them become able to do it without you.

Here, your patience has a visible purpose. The colleague gets a chance to learn, and the shared work may benefit later. You still have your own duties. You can say how long you are available and arrange another time for what remains. Giving someone room does not mean pretending your time has no other claims on it.

Now consider a different wait. A manager has not decided next month’s rota. Several staff members need it to arrange childcare or make commitments outside work. Each request for a decision receives “be patient,” with no explanation of what is preventing one.

Perhaps there is a real uncertainty: someone has not confirmed whether they can return, and that affects the available cover. Knowing this would help everyone understand the delay and consider a temporary arrangement. But if the manager already has what they need and keeps postponing an inconvenient decision, more waiting serves a different purpose. The staff carry the uncertainty while the manager avoids dealing with it.

The slow learner and the undecided manager both need time in some sense. The important difference is what another wait would enable, and whether the person asking for it is doing the part they can do.

Make the cost part of the conversation#

You can ask about a delay without treating every slow response as disrespect. “What still needs to happen before this can be decided?” invites information. It gives a genuine obstacle a chance to become clear instead of leaving everyone to guess at motives.

You can also explain the cost plainly: “I need to arrange care for those evenings. When can you confirm the rota, or tell me which dates are still uncertain?” That is more useful than either waiting silently or accusing the manager of never caring about anyone.

A person may have a good reason for needing time while you have a good reason for being unable to wait indefinitely. Then a temporary answer, a different arrangement or help from someone else may be needed. Recognising both sides prevents patience from being assigned automatically to whoever has less power to refuse.

You may not be able to secure a timely answer. Some people can delay decisions that others depend on, and asking clearly does not remove that imbalance. It does let you name what is happening accurately. If further action is available, your next choice can be based on the actual obstacle and cost, rather than on the assumption that agreeing to another wait is always the kinder thing to do.