We hear more and more about transformative change in business- moving away from the traditional shareholder and ‘profit-first’ culture, and moving toward a culture that values stakeholders and higher purpose. Fundamental to the transformation is ‘compassion’ or the ‘compassionate workplace.’ As businesses are increasingly embracing a more ‘conscious’ culture, we hear, and we read about more business leaders incorporating ‘mindfulness’ or ‘contemplative practice’ into their leadership development.
There is an ever-increasing body of evidence that mindfulness or contemplative practice among leaders and embedded in company culture is good for organizational health and consequently, good for the bottom line. The advocates for mindful and conscious business culture convincingly make the case that these practices increase compassion and empathy in leadership, and in doing so, make us more effective as leaders. In many of the readings I’ve done- or presentations I’ve attended, compassion and empathy are often linked together, or used interchangeably. However, they are not the same.
The distinction between compassion and empathy is essential. There is risk with empathy that conscious leaders should be aware of and should attempt to manage. In December of 2016, Dr. Paul Bloom, Professor of Psychology at Yale University, wrote an essay in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Perils of Empathy.” Dr. Bloom points out the importance of using rational deliberation to override the “pull” of empathy. In understanding the difference between empathy and compassion, Dr. Bloom references the work of Neuroscientists Tania Singer and Olga Klimecki- that compassion is feeling ‘for’ the other, empathy is feeling ‘with’ the other. Another way to think of the difference is to think of ‘compassion’ as “a higher-level emotion which adds wisdom to empathy, and in doing so prevents the individual from being overwhelmed by another person’s feelings” (EOC Institute). It is this being overwhelmed by another person’s feelings that creates the risk in transforming to a more conscious culture. If we fail to use rational deliberation or wisdom as we become more empathetic through our contemplative practice, then we are at an increased risk of making poor decisions that limit our business’ potential.
Conscious leadership will produce a ‘conscious culture,’ and a ‘conscious culture’ will transition a company from a shareholder orientation to a stakeholder orientation. If moving to a stakeholder orientation is a byproduct of increased empathy, then doing so could also create more risk for poor business decisions. The same risks are not present for the role of compassion.
An example of an empathy risk in a stakeholder orientation may be to overcompensate or overpromote an employee and, in doing so, to violate the perception of pay equity that is essential to engagement and morale. Or it may be to retain the employment of an individual that is destructive to the organization. In this way, empathy can preclude the greater good. Managing this risk is where compassion – rational deliberation added to ’empathy’ is so essential. Emotional ’empathy’ can take us to a stakeholder orientation, but at the same time, can corrupt this orientation and neutralize its original rationale and benefit. Compassion can also bring us to a stakeholder orientation, but without the same risks. In this sense, empathy instructs the ‘what’ – changing away from a productive course of either action or non-action and subordinating the outcome to the individual. Conversely, compassion instructs the ‘how’ – retaining a productive course of action or non-action and subordinating the individual to the outcome, but doing so in the least hurtful way possible.
As we engage in mindful or contemplative practice and become more conscious as leaders, we will benefit from understanding this difference.
