Patience is a virtue. Yet fortune favors the bold. In this battle of the leadership cliches, which adage is correct?

The answer, of course, is “it depends.” Leaders are defined by taking effective, meaningful actions. But that means leaders can privilege unnecessary action for the sake of avoiding the kind criticism for inaction that associations often receive (see: slow-moving ships). 

So as a guide for figuring out when it’s OK to sit tight, a recent piece by a group of business scholars in the MIT Sloan Management Review offers some helpful assistance. In “When Wait and See Is a Smart Strategy,” the authors spotlight this particularly complicated moment—are tariffs coming or not? are grants being funded or not?—and advises leaders to slow down. Though they recognize the virtues of taking action, they note that “wait and see can also be a smart strategy for delaying commitments while observing an evolving situation.”

It’s important to note that the authors’ concept of “wait and see” is very distant from “ignore the problem.” Indeed, in their reckoning, holding back is still a kind of action: What you’re doing is setting up a structure where you pay close attention to an ongoing but immediate challenge and determine response strategies. 

“In wait-and-see mode, the seeing element is as important as waiting,” they write. “This means setting up a team to track legislative changes and policy announcements, as well as public sentiment and competitors’ moves — which may hint at emerging beliefs regarding the future state of the world. Intelligence may also be gathered through industry coalitions or expert networks.”

Associations with advocacy departments are already well-versed in this approach. But this version of strategic monitoring doesn’t have to be limited to legislative work. It may mean putting a survey in the field about students in your association’s industry before finalizing the structure of an emerging-professional program. Or being more attentive to new facilities that might offer more affordable options for the board retreat. Or deeper research into who in your membership is affected by federal grant funding. Or if there are professional groups that are not currently in your cohort that might now find your association more attractive in the current environment.

The tricky part here is that though you’re doing a lot of strategic listening and seeing while you wait, you do eventually have to act. “Wait and see can be successful only if uncertainty is elevated temporarily,” the article’s authors note. You’re working toward a solution, not punting on one. 

The article suggests that you can avoid paralysis-by-analysis by doing what’s necessary to establish a monitoring plan you trust. The authors challenge readers to ask: “How confident are we in our ability to detect signals on policy moves and competitor shifts?” And whoever is involved in those discussions need to be charged with a simple but challenging mandate—that ultimately they’ll have to make a move. The article authors also prompt leaders to ask: “What precise triggers will shift us from ‘pause’ to ‘go’ mode?” A process that’s built on a solid understanding of problems can relieve the anxiety that you’re acting rashly—or not acting at all.