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.

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.