Member-only story
The general definition of “empathy” is the “ability to understand and share the feelings of another.” Good start. We needed to define the word off the jump. Now let’s get a bit deeper.
Is empathy an “absolution?”
Good article here from Greg Satell about modern-day business myths, and he has a section on the buzzword that “empathy” has become, which I’ve also written about 12–15 times. Here’s his best part:
Still, the one-dimensional use of empathy is misleading. When seen only through the lens of making others more comfortable, it seems like a “nice to have,” rather than a valuable competency and an important source of competitive advantage. It’s much easier to see the advantage of imposing your will, rather than internalizing the perspectives of others.
Empathy is not absolution. You can internalize the ideas of others and still vehemently disagree. There is a reason that Special Forces are trained to understand the cultures in which they will operate and it isn’t because it makes them nicer people. It’s because it makes them more lethal operators.
What’s amazing about this quote is that most senior decision-makers inside organizations desperately want “lethal operators,” to the literal point of killing their rivals, and when they hear words like “empathy” and “inclusion,” they groan and assign that stuff to HR, where they know it will die a slow death.
But maybe if we reframed empathy around “Hey, this could be a strategic competency and advantage,” people would care more. As it stands out, it feels like something you attend three mandatory HR-led trainings about, but then said thing is never baked into the actual work.
I’m not entirely sure how to bake it into the work, but I do believe it can be done organically if you switch up teams and meeting…
