Compassion does not require compliance.
Here's something that might ruffle a few feathers.
You can understand someone's behaviour, have compassion for their circumstances, recognize their humanity, and still decide that what they're asking of you is not acceptable.
Somewhere along the way, I think we've confused being a good human with being an endlessly accommodating one.
We celebrate empathy. We encourage understanding. We tell people to assume positive intent, extend grace, practise kindness and consider perspectives other than their own.
And I'm all for it.
But when did understanding someone become an obligation to accommodate them?
When did compassion become a reason to abandon our own judgment?
And when did saying no become evidence that we don't care?
Understanding Is Not Agreement
I can understand why someone is angry without agreeing with how they express that anger.
I can recognize that someone is struggling without accepting responsibility for fixing their circumstances.
I can appreciate the experiences that shaped someone's beliefs without adopting those beliefs as my own.
And I can genuinely care about someone while deciding that a particular relationship, request or expectation is not healthy for me.
None of those things makes me unkind.
They make me a human capable of holding more than one truth at a time.
That's something I think we desperately need to get better at.
We seem increasingly uncomfortable with complexity. We want people to be right or wrong, good or bad, supportive or unsupportive. We want tidy categories that tell us how to feel and what to do.
But humans are rarely tidy.
And compassion isn't supposed to erase complexity. It's supposed to help us navigate it.
When Empathy Becomes Self-Abandonment
Now, here's where I want to get a little feisty.
Have you ever found yourself explaining away someone's behaviour because you understood where it came from?
Perhaps a colleague repeatedly dismisses your contributions, but you know they're under enormous pressure.
Perhaps a family member consistently crosses a boundary, but you understand their history.
Perhaps someone asks more of you than you can reasonably give, but you feel guilty saying no because you know they're struggling.
So you accommodate.
And accommodate.
And accommodate some more.
Until eventually, your compassion for their circumstances has become a justification for ignoring your own.
Understanding someone's pain doesn't mean volunteering to absorb its consequences.
That's a difficult sentence for some of us to sit with.
Especially those of us who learned early that being useful, agreeable, accommodating or endlessly available was how we earned approval.
We became very good at reading the room.
Very good at anticipating needs.
Very good at explaining why other people's behaviour made sense.
And sometimes remarkably bad at asking whether any of it was working for us.
Grace and Accountability Can Coexist
I believe in extending grace and space to every human being.
Not because everyone behaves well.
Not because I agree with everyone.
And certainly not because every request deserves a yes.
I believe in it because human dignity isn't something people should have to earn through perfect behaviour.
But here's the distinction:
Unconditional positive regard is not unconditional permission.
I can believe in your inherent worth and still hold you accountable for your choices.
I can respect your humanity and still challenge your behaviour.
I can offer you compassion without giving you unlimited access to my time, energy or attention.
And I can say no without turning you into a villain.
Imagine what might change if we stopped treating boundaries as declarations of hostility.
What if a boundary could simply be an honest expression of what we are willing and able to do?
What if we didn't need to prove that someone else was wrong before giving ourselves permission to make a different choice?
Now there's a thought.
Leaders, This One's for You Too
This isn't only about personal relationships.
It shows up in organizations every single day.
A leader understands why an employee is struggling and feels compelled to lower expectations indefinitely.
A team member recognizes that a colleague is overwhelmed and quietly absorbs more and more work.
A manager avoids a difficult conversation because they don't want to appear insensitive.
And before long, compassion has become confused with the absence of accountability.
But that's not particularly compassionate to anyone.
Not to the person who needs clarity.
Not to the colleagues carrying an uneven burden.
And not to the leader who is now trying to manage an increasingly unsustainable situation.
Human-centred leadership doesn't mean avoiding difficult decisions.
It means making those decisions without forgetting the humanity of the people affected.
Sometimes the most respectful thing we can offer someone is a clear expectation, an honest conversation or a thoughtful no.
Not because we care less.
Because we care enough to be truthful.
You Don't Have to Make Someone Wrong to Choose Yourself
This might be the part I care about most.
For years, many of us have operated as though we need a compelling argument before we're allowed to say no.
We assemble evidence.
We justify our discomfort.
We rehearse explanations.
We wait until we're exhausted, resentful or completely overwhelmed before finally deciding that something has to change.
And even then, we feel compelled to convince everyone else that our decision is reasonable.
But what if you didn't?
What if someone could be a perfectly decent human being and still not be the right person for you to spend time with?
What if an opportunity could be genuinely wonderful and still not be yours to pursue?
What if someone could need your help and you could still be unable to provide it?
What if your no didn't require a prosecution of someone else's character?
You can honour another person's humanity without negotiating away your own.
That's not selfishness.
That's self-trust.
And self-trust is something we develop through practice, not simply by understanding the concept.
A Feisty Invitation
This is part of the work behind The Feisty Human and the reason I created Feisty Foundations.
Because recognizing these patterns is one thing.
Learning to interrupt them in real life is another.
Feisty Foundations is an opportunity to explore the assumptions, expectations and habits that shape how you see yourself, make decisions and navigate your relationships with others.
And our January 2027 open cohort is now accepting registrations.
If you've been exploring these conversations with me and finding yourself thinking, “I understand what she's saying, but how do I actually live it?” — this might be your next step.
You can explore Feisty Foundations and the January cohort through The Feisty Human website.
And if you'd rather begin with the philosophy at your own pace, my book, The Feisty Human: Recipes for Becoming Someone You Don't Have to Negotiate, is available there too.
This Week's Feisty Challenge
Think about a situation where you've been saying yes because you understand why someone wants or needs something from you.
Now ask yourself:
If I could care about this person without being responsible for their reaction, what would I choose?
You don't necessarily need to change your answer.
But you deserve to know whether it's actually yours.
And here's the question I'd love to explore together:
Have we become so committed to being understanding that we've forgotten how to be honest about our own limits?
Or is there a perspective I'm missing?
I welcome the challenge.
Because we can be fierce with ideas and generous with people.
And sometimes, being generous with people includes being generous with ourselves.
Forward, with purpose.
Amber McMillan
The Feisty Human
If this reflection stayed with you, explore The Feisty Human: Recipes for Becoming Someone You Don’t Have to Negotiate.
Enjoyed this essay? Connect with me on LinkedIn or join the email list below to receive every new edition.
