One of the things I find most dismaying in leadership development and executive coaching is the endless and changing stream of what's currently "on trend". Right now, diversity and inclusion are big, previously it was staff engagement, agile leadership, visionary leadership, and on and on. Which is not to say that they are not worthy topics, just that they seem to come along on a bandwagon and people feel the urge to unthinkingly hop on. We all do it, for fear of being left behind or left out. "Empathy" is one such topic - it's out there as an unquestionably desirable thing - few think about it and it has become a standard part of the coach/consultant/manager's standard lexicon. Having it is good, and the more you have, the better.

Having empathy is certainly desirable and is associated with improved relationships and better leadership impact, but are we overplaying its importance or misunderstanding it?

Empathy is considered to be a feature of emotional intelligence (EQ) and is assessed by EQ assessment tools. In using a number of these tools over the last few years we have noticed situations where clients score "well" on empathy (i.e. they are assessed positively to show empathy as a strength) when it's actually presenting a problem for them and their colleagues. This has happened fairly consistently. So why would an assessment interpret an empathy score above a certain level as being positive or a strength? The more you look into this the more it becomes clear that there is both a meaning and a measurement problem.

Cognitive psychologist Paul Bloom has highlighted the difference between:

• cognitive empathy - "I recognise your pain", and
• emotional empathy - "I feel your pain"

Whilst many people think of empathy as seeing things from another person's perspective (cognitive empathy), emotional empathy is more than that. It describes a situation where someone is literally experiencing the sensations you're experiencing. And it seems to be getting more common.

EQ assessments do not make this distinction in their assessments - they are usually not sufficiently granular or sophisticated to be able to do so (another reason to use them in tandem with a Big Five personality assessment that also assesses factors associated with emotional reactivity and agreeableness - this is likely to provide a better measure).

Why is this important?

Paul Bloom and others caution that high levels of emotional empathy can lead to faulty and irrational decision making. In our practice at Managing Change we have seen examples of this particularly where it has prevented a leader taking a detached and measured stance on a very troubling or complex situation. More frequently seen though is the deep, personal cost to those doing the empathising (and often their colleagues). 

In these situations leaders are described as being "empathetic" and score positively on EQ assessments for empathy*. The reality though is in them being overly emotionally drawn into the struggles and difficulties of others such that they:

1. become ineffective in helping the person(s) in difficulty or in resolving the situation
2. create emotionally charged and highly stressed environments for teams and colleagues
3. burn themselves out as their energy and focus is consumed by anxiety over the situation

​In short, emotional empathy like this leaves everyone worse off, and invariably means that an already poor situation is worsened. This has a significant negative impact on workplaces which we encounter on an increasingly frequent basis.

So, as coaches, consultants and leaders, what should we be developing instead?

#2 - develop self-awareness

It is important to recognise that when we indulge ourselves into feeling the pain of someone else we are not helping them and are probably simply being self-serving (albeit in a costly way). Reflecting on the underlying needs we are hoping to fill is a good start. Feeling strong emotions (even negative ones) through the safety of another person's feelings can be satisfying to those living fairly "numb" lives.  

#3 - boost critical thinking skills

In these times of social media echo chambers this is increasingly important (and particularly so for children and the iGen generation, neither of whom have experienced a pre-internet world). This should include learning about CBT-type tools and approaches that teach detachment, rational thought and experimental thinking.

#4 - focus on developing compassion instead

Compassion is not a soft and cuddly approach. It is based upon the notion of "detached caring". Professor Paul Gilbert from the Compassionate Mind Foundation describes the effective practice of compassion as requiring the courage to care, the wisdom to know what to do, and the ability to take action to address the situation. This approach provides effective assistance to those who need it but crucially, avoids creating a costly emotional burden on the carer.

​The Centre's website provides resources and information on courses to help develop your own and others' compassion.

​A recent radio programme fascinatingly described the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in Cambridge and their London 'colleagues' Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin. It is now a notorious story that the first recorded image of the double helix by Rosalind Franklin led to Watson and Crick's famous discovery. Watson and Crick won the Nobel prize for their discovery after Franklin had died - she was never made aware of her role in this groundbreaking achievement.

The programme described the troublesome working relationship between Franklin and Wilkins (apparently they didn't like each other, didn't communicate well, and were mutually unclear about the other's role and responsibilities). This impeded their research, Franklin's career, and, more widely, affected the already poor communication and competitive atmosphere between the Cambridge and London labs. (Competition in scientific research is well-known but, given the expectation of collaboration required with the source of the research funding, this seems to have been completely unchecked at the time.)

The story struck me very firmly how, despite the awe-inspiring nature of the work and the intelligence of the scientists, as always the same basic problems in self-awareness, communication and team working emerged to such powerful effect. Very often we learn about under-developed or even dysfunctional behaviour in senior/esteemed/super-smart people but who are not expected, supported or held accountable to change because of this status. How much more could be achieved - not least in their own personal fulfilment - by expecting even the elite to be accountable for their further development? This requires that those in less elevated positions (including in HR) are less in awe of them.

In the current climate of abuses in the charity sector and the ongoing stories of bullying and harassment at work, the frequent acceptance of poor behaviour in the workplace takes on a different hue. There are big differences in scale in these examples but the principle is the same - it is time that the same standards of behaviour are expected of all people and that one's status does not mitigate the need to develop. 

Regardless of political persuasion, our politicians' responses to the appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower in Kensington this week have been illuminating.  Theresa May, already on the back foot following a disastrous election decision and campaign, has now encountered further criticism due to her handling of the tragedy in the days which have followed. It has been reported that she was very upset on hearing the news of the fire which suggests that she feels deeply about the plight of residents and yet in meeting only the emergency services and not the residents themselves she has communicated something else entirely. In this situation, particularly with all the other highly sensitive features in attendance (e.g. a poor community in a very wealthy area, government cutbacks, etc) this has had serious and damaging consequences for her and for her party. In a climate where people seem particularly unforgiving this might seem rather tough.
 
Theresa May's apparently poor emotional intelligence (EQ) has been widely mentioned in the press in recent days following the election and appears to be in evidence again now. Feeling deeply about a situation and being affected by our emotions but not being able to act effectively on them is an example of underdeveloped EQ. To be clear, developing EQ is not some slick ad man's way of selling your product/message more effectively for the purposes of 'spin' or manipulation. It is about the genuine and deep development of our ability to understand our emotions and those of others and to be able to manage those emotions intelligently rather than merely being buffeted around by them (as for example, we might see with people who act aggressively or who run scared when under stress).
 
Why is this important? It is healthier, literally, for us to behave from a higher EQ position and it enables us to be more ethical, kinder and more effective in our relationships with other people. In Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature he makes the case for the development of empathy, an important component of EQ, in the increasing civilisation of society. (Whilst I consider that the recent fashion for empathy is a problem as it can be over-played and misapplied, we can all relate to the problems a lack of empathy causes).
 
High EQ is considered to be an essential plank in effective leadership. Empathy allows us to be able to stand in another person's shoes and see the situation from their perspective. That requires us to pay attention to others, to be genuinely interested and curious in their situation and experience, to listen to them and be willing to connect with them. We then need to have the self-confidence, assertiveness and relationship skills to act on those concerns. All of these are components of EQ.
 
It is said that we all have a deep-rooted need to be understood - when we aim to achieve that understanding of others we make better decisions, act more courageously and in the best interests of all.
 
What would a high EQ response to this disaster have looked like? I think it would have included a rapid visit to residents and the emergency services, a willingness to listen and understand with direct contact, and thereby to have withstood highly charged and legitimate emotions like anger, and to have acted clearly and speedily firstly to ensure care and support for those affected and then in getting to the root of the problem to ensure it never happens again. Good effective leadership would have achieved all of those things. Theresa May has done some of these latter things but seriously missed expressing empathy. In focusing on the practical task at hand and ignoring the emotional content she has unnecessarily caused harm.
 
Most of us, fortunately, will never have to manage such a situation but whatever your role and whatever situations you are faced with you will handle them more effectively the higher your EQ. Our EQ develops over time as we mature and can be further developed more specifically on the way.

​Wherever you get your EQ development from, do be sure to get some.

Further evidence that women are more self-critical regarding their performance at work than men was reported in a recent study at the British Psychological Society's DOP (Division of Occupational Psychology) annual conference earlier this year.

In a workplace study involving over 4,000 employees, women consistently underrated their performance in 10 out of 24 competencies. In comparison, men rated themselves lower than the ratings they received from others in just 5 out of 24 competences. At the same time, the study found that women tended to give more positive performance ratings than men for 20 out of the 24 competencies when assessing other people.

Significantly, men's performance was rated more or less equally by men and women raters, whilst women's performance was rated lower by men than by women. Given that in most industries men outnumber women in senior positions, this is concerning (particularly as men tended to rate women significantly lower on competences including leadership potential and persuasive communication, key factors in promotion decisions).

Whilst an argument might have been made to suggest that such ratings are simply an accurate reflection of performance, scores of actual potential found no significant differences between men and women, with both being considered equally competent in all areas.

The nature of this problem has been known about for a considerable time and there is still little concrete understanding about the underlying causal nature of this. Irrespective of this, the study provides further evidence that this is happening and if we value equal opportunity for men and women, and if organisations wish to harness their talent to the full, more should be done to address it. Whether in targeted briefing sessions, development programmes, coaching or training, men and women need to be given information, guidance and support to address this situation. Additionally, the study indicates that steps to address 'rater bias' in 360 feedback and appraisal are required and emphasises that the use of carefully designed appraisal systems is essential.

The study was carried out by Psychological Consultancy Limited (PCL) - to see their report see here.

One of the principal benefits of coaching programmes is the provision of space and time for the coachee in which to learn and reflect. This can be particularly valuable during periods of change.

There is strong evidence that executive coaching is valuable in helping people deal with the uncertainty and challenges of change - whether organisational change, career change, life transitions, etc. Such change is the "new normal" and there is a growing expectation that people should possess the flexibility and resilience to cope with such change. For this reason, enhancing resilience and well-being in organisations is increasingly important.   ​

Approaching his line manager with an expectation of praise having gone the extra mile to complete a goal, a client was surprised to find his boss expressing her irritation and disappointment with the result. What he’d done was not what she’d asked for, time had been wasted, and an important task had now become a scarily urgent one. In talking to me afterwards my client expressed his frustration that his boss was always like this - notoriously hard to please and difficult to work for.

This story is one I frequently hear in one guise or another. As often, this will be from from the line manager’s perspective, and the frustration associated with the inability of direct reports to undertake simple requests and complete straightforward objectives.

​In such cases I will usually ask how sure they were that the other person understood what was being requested. Invariably they will be very quick to assure me that they were absolutely clear. When I then ask, as I usually do, how they know that, typical responses will be “well, it’s obvious what was meant” or “she said she was OK about it…” and so on. In virtually all situations there has been an assumption made – an assumption that you understand my request, or an assumption that I understand what you are requesting of me. Rarely it seems do we test these assumptions.

Giving vague or unclear directions is terribly common in organisations (and at home!) – we all do it. There are various contributory factors at work:

• Some personality types are less likely than others to be detail focused or specific in their language. For example, research suggests that introverted types tend to be more specific in their communication than extraverts, who tend to be more vague.
• We may be busy
• We may assume that what was meant was obvious

and so on. Our clear understanding of what we mean makes it difficult for us to assess the gaps or areas of possible ambiguity or misinterpretation for others.

Accepting vague or unclear directions or objectives is similarly common, and for similar reasons. In addition, if we have a personality that is keen to please, we may be more likely to accede to a request and to quickly get stuck in. If we are low in assertiveness we may be reluctant to ask for clarification or to admit we are unclear. Usually though, we make similar assumptions and assume we know what is meant.

So how can we overcome these assumptions and avoid the problems that result? What behaviours can we change?

1. When you are giving a direction or setting an objective, be as clear as possible – ideally use SMART* goals to shape your request.
2. Once given, check that the other person has fully understood what has been requested. Ask them to describe what they have been asked to do (in practice, this step often reveals gaps in understanding).
3. Encourage your staff and colleagues to challenge you for clarification of objectives and requests.
4. When you are being given an objective or direction, check with the person that you have fully understood what they mean. Repeat back what you understand has been communicated. Have them confirm or correct the request. If the person is vague use the SMART mnemonic to remind you of what you need to know.
5. If the person has a habit of changing the goal posts, follow up the last step with an email confirming what has been agreed – it will probably help them too to become clearer in their communication.

* SMART goals are those which are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound.