Empathy Mythbusting: Work Edition

We have some myth-busting to do when it comes to the role of empathy in our workplaces and what it means to integrate empathetic business practices. Organizations have latched on to so many concepts that speak to the human experience — “collaboration”, “innovation”, “growth mindset”, “inclusion” — these have all been adopted into the corporate vernacular and are used regularly in addresses by executives to describe what is at the heart of a company’s success.

But, it’s my contention that before you can collaborate, you must get curious. Before you can innovate, you must seek a deeper understanding of your end user. Before you can focus on growth, you must feel safe to explore. And, before you can be considered inclusive, you must provide a space for everyone’s acquired and inherent diversity.

All of that begins with empathy.

Myth #1: “Empathy is a soft, trendy HR buzzword and has no place in business”

Empathy is hardwired into our evolutionary biology. It is not an ephemeral concept — it’s backed up by science. It is a core component in pro-social behaviour, which is necessary for us to effectively interact and collaborate with others (The Science of Empathy). Functional magnetic resonance imaging has identified a neural relay mechanism that dictates our ability to engage in physiological displays of empathy, like unconscious mimicry. Think about when a friend or family member is in emotional pain and they are conveying it to you in conversation. Do you sit there stone-faced? Or do you find yourself identifying with their story and conveying that through facial expressions? The degree to which people unconsciously mimic the person they are interacting with is one indication of varying forms and levels of empathy.

When we consider concepts like “The Matthew Effect” and the ‘winner-take-all’ cultures that have taken root in so many industries, it’s easy to see that the promulgators of these philosophies likely subscribe to social Darwinism at this basest form. I have had the experience of working in several environments over the course of my career where this was clearly the predominant method of leading and managing. “Sink or swim,” they would say. I remember starting my first day at a financial institution (FI) back in 2015. I walked in the front doors and found my manager was in ‘back-to-backs’ all day. I sat at an empty desk that I was told was mine and before long, the phone was ringing off the hook — angry recruiters who needed support from the person who was previously in my role, demanding that I provision access to platforms, provide them with credentials for logins, and troubleshoot complex issues. I didn’t have a computer and my role description, up until that point, had consisted of one line: “Lead digital strategies for Talent Acquisition.” I hadn’t been onboarded or orientated and I was instantly expected to have a wealth of institutional knowledge. The next day, when I finally caught up with my manager, she laughed. “Welcome to the bank!”

This was a pervasive attitude that permeated the whole TA team at this particular FI. Most of my colleagues had horror stories about being verbally attacked when presenting slide decks to the Vice-President, after being left hanging for weeks waiting for essential feedback and information necessary to do their jobs. What was the consequence? A team in turmoil. In my first year at this organization, I had no less than six managers. The first one (who said, “Welcome to the bank”) was let go after just a few months. She was experiencing a mental health crisis and was missing a lot of work. The rest of the team and I were shuffled around relentlessly, our work disrupted and de-prioritized continually. Many people left in frustration; turnover was high. These are the consequences of a ‘winner-take-all’, ‘sink-or-swim’-type culture. People begin to underperform because they feel dehumanized and unimportant and eventually they leave, costing the organization tens of thousands in human capital costs.

If human existence was just about Darwinism, or ‘survival of the fittest’, we would only ever try to dominate others, never reacting or responding to their pain and suffering. This is an un-evolved and backwards way to approach life on earth and, most certainly, life at work. There is a growing movement in the talent marketplace to turn away from cultures where workers are dehumanized and treated as cogs in ‘the machine’. Most every industry is experiencing a profound digital transformation as we look to integrate the ‘human voice’ of burgeoning technologies like VR, AI and IoT. The myth has been that these new technologies will replace jobs. The reality is that they may displace some jobs, and likely create more. The emerging digital workforce is sought-after and have a keen understanding of their worth and their boundaries. People are no longer interested in being a ‘cog in the machine.’ They are making their selections aligned to which future employer will be able to compensate them competitively, with part of that compensation being a workplace where their perspectives, contributions and humanity are respected and valued. 61% of people with highly empathic senior leaders report often or always being innovative at work compared to only 13% of people with less empathic senior leaders. (Catalyst)

It is impossible to cultivate these environments without an understanding and operationalization of empathy.

Myth #2: “Some people are naturally empathetic and some are not. That’s all we can do.”

Previously, empathy was considered an inherent trait that certain people were born with and others are not. Research has shown that this is not the case — empathy is mutable and can be cultivated. This is where a concept called ‘cognitive empathy’ comes into play. This has been especially prevalent in the medical industry.

Research has shown that years in the medical field does decrease empathy and there have been concerted efforts made to provide training and up-skilling in this field in the realm of cultivating cognitive empathy, so as to provide a patient experience that doesn’t just take into account the patients’ physical well-being, but there emotional and psychological well-being, too.

It’s important to say that being ‘empathetic’ in the work environment does not mean taking on your colleagues’ or employees’ issues and pain as your own. It does mean we should seek a deeper understanding of an individual’s situation so we can relate, interact and collaborate more effectively.

One way to build cognitive empathy is to challenge your cognitive biases, like ‘fundamental attribution error’ — that is, the tendency to see our own flaws as nuanced and situational while others’ are simplistic and characterological. For example, if we are late to work every day for a week, we are likely to explain it in terms of our situation or given mental state — “I had a really challenging week because my kids were acting out every morning and I haven’t been sleeping well.” But, if a co-worker or employee is continually late (especially if their tardiness impacts our work) we are likely to explain it in reductive terms, “They have bad time management and they need to pull up their socks.” This is something that we all do — we look to generalize to create efficiencies. But, it is a major hindrance when it comes to relating effectively to others and contributing to a workplace where we are more attuned to our colleagues. It leads to tensions and unintended conflicts that are rooted in misunderstanding. I have struggled with this and continue to work on my ability to look past my own biases. It’s critical to not make assumptions and, instead, get curious about the ‘why’ behind the behaviour.

For executives and people leaders, this is absolutely essential. For your teams, when employees feel supported to be vulnerable, their sense of psychological safety increases, meaning they are more likely to contribute openly and be forthcoming in communicating information that helps embed a deeper understanding of who they are as individuals. For leaders, knowing your team and holding space for your employees to come to you when they are struggling leads to more cohesive collaboration and lessened frustrations on the part of leadership.

It’s really hard to judge or criticize anyone when you know what they’ve been through — their full, unfiltered lived experience.

Myth #3: “There is no tactical application for empathy in a strategic business environment.”

Empathy enables performance and unleashing the full potential of an organization. Leaders that actively cultivate empathy create environments where people feel enabled to bring their very best to work.

Mental health is on the decline and in 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) added ‘burnout’ to the ICD (International Classification of Diseases). Burnout is described as a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by three dimensions: (1) feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion (2) increased mental distance from one’s job, or feelings of negativism or cynicism related to one’s job; and (3) reduced professional efficacy.

“Sink-or-swim”, Darwinistic workplace cultures are notorious for high rates of employee burnout. Just look at the Adderall epidemic on Wall Street as evidence.

“Last year in London, there was a Bank of America intern who had an epileptic episode and actually died after working reportedly three all-nighters in a row. That shocked a lot of people, and for me, the shock was that it hadn’t happened sooner.” (Kevin Roose, Documentarian, “Young Money”, 2014)

Amazon has come under fire in recent years for conditions in their warehouses, with horror stories of employees who have to wear diapers because they aren’t allowed bathroom breaks, or passing out from exhaustion on the assembly line. It may well be that in the short-term, forcing employees to give more than they have in high-pressure, low-empathy environments might lead to spikes in productivity and profitability, but it is not sustainable. Last year, while I was conducting research for a client in the supply chain and transportation industry, I uncovered a briefing that stated Amazon’s recruitment practices were effectively depleting their workforce potential. Warehouse workers were being recruited, hired and fired through an automated process, with little to no oversight from actual human beings. This was being done so callously and cavalierly that it had turned into a revolving door and, in certain markets, the availability of new talent had dwindled to nothing, because of these un-empathetic, sub-human processes. If you are an executive that tacitly endorses these types of working environments in the hopes of winning or dominating your segment of the marketplace, you are effectively grinding down your workforce and driving them to a place in the not-to-distant future when your employees will enact a mass exodus and you will be scrambling.

Look no further than the Canadian Healthcare industry for a stark example of this phenomenon. According to a 2021 article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, in the fourth quarter of 2020, job vacancies in Canada’s health care sector hit a record high of 100,300 — up 56.9% from the previous year. Hospitals posted the highest job vacancy rate of any sector, reporting 15,700 more vacancies than in 2019, and health workers say emergency departments and intensive care units are disproportionately affected. Untenable working conditions, sweeping burnout and leadership that just doesn’t seem to care are cited as key reasons. The Government of Canada is currently in the process of pouring funding into the healthcare industry to fix this issue — subsidies for training programs and exploration of flexible work solutions are at the forefront. But, is anyone asking the questions:

“What if we embedded a humanistic, empathetic approach to human capital management? What if we dismantled our understanding of what ‘being at work’ in this industry meant and rebuilt a new understanding of how we lead and empower our people?”

According to Forbes, empathetic leadership creates trust and supports employees’ to focus on integrating both their work and life, which in turn creates a more positive work environment with better outcomes. A recent study by the organization Catalyst surveyed nearly 900 different employees and found that empathetic leaders cultivate more engaged teams and more profitable businesses. Of those surveyed, 86% said they are more successful at balancing their work and life concerns when they have a leader that is focused on empathy, while just 60% without an empathetic leader felt successful. When people report that their leaders truly cared about them this led to them being more innovative and acting like an owner. Team members with empathetic leaders experience higher rates of motivation to develop unique and different ideas, feel more connected to each other, and are more likely to want to stay with their employer.

So, the next time you are questioning whether or not it’s worth it to invest in building cognitive empathy on your leadership team, look at your retention numbers. Your engagement numbers. The amount of capital that is going out the door to support employees who are on short-term disability due to burnout and mental health challenges.

Ask yourself: How much is it costing us to ‘sink or swim’?