Fog, Not Depth: When Overthinking Masks Low EQ and Poor Logic

He once slammed a calculator on the table in visible frustration. It was not over a formatting mistake or a last-minute deadline. It was because someone had responded with clarity on an issue he had misunderstood. The contrast between their calm reasoning and his confusion left him emotionally cornered. This was not about the topic. It was about being confronted by what he could not process.

We often describe someone as "overthinking" when they hesitate to act, weigh too many variables, or appear caught in mental loops. In people-centric settings with stakeholder-heavy environments, overthinking is sometimes a mask. Beneath it, there is no real depth. Instead, it reveals emotional fog caused by low EQ and a lack of structured logic.

It is a costly combination.

These leaders cannot read interpersonal dynamics well. They struggle to distinguish between what is sensitive and what is simply procedural. At the same time, they shy away from logical frameworks that could help them make better decisions. They brood and try to guess at the emotional landscape. When that fails, they spiral further.

They are unable to rely on either instinct or logic. As a result, they interpret every scenario as risky. Since they cannot show up to decision-makers without an opinion, they pressure themselves to "think harder." The issue is not effort, but misalignment with reality.

They often frame this confusion as emotional sensitivity. They say things like "We have to consider people's feelings," yet their actions contradict that claim. They avoid direct conversations. They allow emotionally reactive individuals to set the tone. They mistake emotional discomfort for emotional depth.

Clarity from others unsettles them. Structure feels threatening. They often resent those who bring precision, perceiving it as coldness. In reality, it is a service to everyone in the room.

In leadership, emotional literacy and structured thinking are not optional. Especially in relational environments. When both are missing, the result is not thoughtful leadership. It is paralysis, performative empathy, and a trail of decisions that never land cleanly. These decisions exhaust everyone around them.

What feels like a simple call to most becomes, to them, a battlefield.Not because the situation is complex. It is because they are.

Illustrative Moments

What often goes unspoken in moments like these is the impact on the observers who are competent, emotionally aware, and still trying to believe in the leadership structure they’re part of.

In one situation, two senior staff were asked to pick up the pieces of a mismanaged engagement with an external speaker. The original error, an inappropriate, last-minute message sent by their colleague in the middle of the night, was never directly addressed. Instead, the leader who received the speaker’s feedback diverted the emotional weight of the fallout.

He called the two team members into his office. He framed the discussion as “not to gossip,” but disclosed sensitive remarks made by the speaker and then asked that one of them be present at the upcoming panel meeting. He instructed them to call, not email, the speaker to smooth things over and specifically told them not to inform the colleague who had created the problem in the first place.

On the surface, this looked like problem-solving. But in truth, it was a quiet demolition of trust.

There’s a unique kind of damage that occurs when someone you report to invites you to witness their lack of courage. Not through rage or incompetence, but through emotional avoidance and the delegation of integrity. In that moment, the leader we were asked to support became someone we could no longer respect.

It wasn’t just about a miscommunication. It was about how he failed to handle the responsibility of leadership. He had the power to restore respect and chose not to. He had the authority to call for accountability and deflected it. He had the opportunity to model leadership and instead outsourced the emotional labour to others.

That erosion doesn’t announce itself. But it is deeply felt.

After that, the staff were no longer looking to him for direction. They started looking past him, trying to keep the wheels moving without becoming complicit in the fog.

In different organisations, similar patterns emerge. Here are three anonymised examples that highlight what this looks like in practice. They also show what a grounded leader might have done differently.

Case 1: When Clarity Is Met with Collapse

A team member raised concerns about a persistently underperforming colleague. The team was lean, and support had been extended for months. He offered three reasonable options: reassign the role, provide part-time support, or redistribute the work.

The leader became visibly emotional. "How can you talk about empathy and yet say this?" he retorted, eyes welling. The conversation ended without action.

What a grounded leader would have done:Thank the team member. Acknowledge the tension. Offer a follow-up. For example:

"Thank you for bringing this up. Let us walk through options that support both team sustainability and individual dignity."

Case 2: When Pushback Is Framed as Betrayal

A working mother was invited to a one-on-one conversation with the leader to share her thoughts on a pending shift from three to four in-office days. She opposed it and explained that the arrangement had shaped her choice to join the firm, as well as her current childcare setup and working rhythm.

Her input was met with: "I am so disappointed. Not with you... but..." and silence. There was no clarity, no dialogue, and no preparation for the impact on team members. This deeply affected her. It was clear the policy was not up for debate. Yet the leader still asked for "views." Why did he do that?

What a grounded leader would have done:If the policy was fixed, this should have been stated upfront. The conversation could then focus on transition, not seek false consensus. For example:

"This change is confirmed, but I want to help you plan for it. Let us look at a suitable lead time or support options to ease the shift."

Case 3: When Conflict Is Avoided, Then Avenged

In a budget meeting, a senior staff member challenged the data presented by both finance and the team lead. The leader, instead of managing the disagreement, left the room. On his way out, he made a pointed remark about submission deadlines. Later, he called everyone else into his office, excluding her, and explained how they would proceed around her.

What a grounded leader would have done: Hold the conversation with composure. Invite clarification. Address the issue with transparency. A better response might have been:

"Let us sit down and walk through the numbers. I want us aligned on the submission and to understand where our assumptions differ."

What Emotionally Intelligent Leadership Actually Looks Like

Emotional intelligence in leadership is often misunderstood. It is not about being agreeable. It is not simply being "nice" or "soft." It is about a leader's ability to hold complexity, face conflict with steadiness, and still create clarity for others.

As outlined by psychologist and emotional intelligence pioneer Daniel Goleman, the five foundational domains of EQ, which are self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill, are not abstract traits. They are observable behaviours that show up in the quiet moments that define culture: how a disagreement is held, how bad news is shared, how ideas are received, and how people feel after speaking up.

An emotionally intelligent leader does not try to avoid discomfort by overexplaining, withdrawing, or triangulating. They do not fish for confirmation disguised as trust. They do not project vulnerability as a test. They build cohesion by anchoring the team, not crowd-sourcing their courage. They are steady even when the room is not. They do not need control, because they have earned trust. Most of all, they make others feel safe to think, speak, disagree, and still belong.

For the Leaders Reading This

If you are reading this and find it confronting, pause. That discomfort may be telling you something. Not about your intentions, but about your patterns. It may not be about malice or incompetence. It may be about unawareness, or isolation, or fear. You do not need to defend yourself. You need to decide what kind of leader you want to become.

If you are someone living under a poor leader, take heart. Their fog is not your failing. Clarity is not a crime. You may not be able to change the system overnight, but you can strengthen your own inner structure. You can choose not to mirror emotional chaos with silence or second-guessing.

Final Reflection

Overthinking, when driven by fear, poor logic, and emotional misalignment, does not signal leadership depth. It signals instability.

True leadership is not about having all the answers. It is not about managing emotion with performance. It is about carrying the responsibility of a room with maturity, humility, and steadiness.

In the end, people do not remember what decision was made.They remember how they felt when it was made.