Evaluating Your Empathy Effectiveness

Operating with empathy brings many benefits. However, benefits are inherently lagging indicators. It can take a long time to observe their effects, especially if we are in a relationship where there is an existing empathy deficit.?

If we want our empathy efforts to be effective, we need to look at leading indicators, too. When we understand what empathy looks like in practice, we can dynamically adjust our behavior in response to changing conditions. We can be deliberate as we make a conscious effort to deploy empathy, whether that’s a face-to-face conversation, conducting a code review, or making updates to a data model.

For the past several years, I've been researching how to apply empathy on a software team as part of my forthcoming book, Empathy-Driven Software Development . What I've learned is that empathy isn’t a monolith [1]. Empathy is the result of several different domains being activated, often simultaneously .[2]

1. Resonating - emotional connection

2. Reasoning - critical thinking

3. Reflecting - accurate understanding

4. Responding - genuine support

5. Resourcing - systems thinking

It’s important to note that assessing these domains is not a personality test. Empathy effectiveness appears to be more influenced by motivation [3], context [4], goals [5], and capacity [6] than it is with innate ability or trait characteristics.[7] Our ability to operate within these domains shifts dynamically [8] based on a wide variety of variables. Who we are interacting with, how we feel physically, our experiences growing up — these are just some of the factors that influence our ability to empathize in a given situation[9].

Recognizing the importance of these domains isn’t about trying to get any one individual to conform to a stereotypical empathy ideal .[10] Rather, it’s recognizing that individuals may express empathy differently from ourselves .[11] When we notice ourselves struggling in any one domain, we can be better advocates for change. We can invest in learning [12] and grow our skills over time .[13] When a domain feels challenging, we can learn to build mutual support with people who think differently than we do. Empathy works best when we approach these domains with humility, curiosity, and a recognition that there are many ways to understand ourselves and others.??

Resonating: Forming an Emotional Connection

Emotions are powerful signals our bodies use to help us navigate our environment .[14] They're individual experiences and learning to work with them instead of suppressing or fighting against them is a key aspect of empathy.?

Resonance often begins very broadly. It’s common to experience an internal sensation that feels positive or negative and intense or calm. The way we categorize and communicate these feeling states appears to be a separate process.[15] Empathy becomes easier and more effective when we can use precise language to describe what we are feeling and why we are feeling it.[16]

The technical terms are affective empathy or emotional empathy. Consciously instantiating warm feelings to direct towards yourself or others is called loving-kindness.

Here are some ways this shows up on a team:?

• Being fully present and engaged
• Recognizing how emotions are important drivers of decisions
• Being willing to explore and engage with emotions, both positive and negative
• Paying attention to subtle signals that aid in communication
• Relating to each other as humans instead of roles or titles
• Using precise language to describe emotions
• Building trust so people feel comfortable being vulnerable with each other?

Reasoning: Applying Critical Thinking

Logical and analytical thinking is just as important to empathy as emotion and intuition. When we apply critical thinking to our empathy efforts, integrating ethical frameworks is easier .[17] Critical thinking helps us rationally consider other perspectives without getting swept away in another person’s experience .[18] We explore the world like a scientist ,[19] gathering data and seeking new insights. The technical term for reasoned perspective-taking is cognitive empathy. The practice of noticing is called mindfulness.

Here’s how this shows up on a team:

• Structuring work so there is time to interact?and deepen relationships
• Considering how work affects others, such as customers, co-workers, and communities
• Learning about which cognitive biases are used to make quick decisions and respectfully holding each other accountable when a bias appears present
• Recognizing individual differences as a strength and regularly seeking out different perspectives to make decisions
• Empowering each other to experiment and try new things, even if the outcome isn’t always as successful as was hoped

Reflecting: Seeking Accurate Understanding

Empathy works best when we actively work to gather evidence about whether or not our inferences are correct. To do this, we need to be humble enough to recognize that our assumptions are regularly wrong.

On average, when we predict another person’s thoughts and feelings, we are wrong about 80% of the time .[20] It is rare for an individual to be correct more than 50% of the time. Empathic failures are normal ,[21] and inferences are not fact.?

If we want to seek understanding, it’s important for us to regulate our emotions so we can be present and listen. When we approach empathy with humility and curiosity, we are more open to learning from mistakes and surprises. The technical term of accurately reflecting back another person’s feeling and perspective is empathic accuracy.?

Here’s how this shows up on a team:

• Considering how to make information clear to people outside of the team
• Holding each other accountable with clear expectations and consequences
• Assessing intentions by listening to individual perspectives instead of making assumptions
• Sharing dissenting points of view and critiquing each other’s work in ways that foster creativity and connection
• Resolving tension in relationships directly and promptly
• Recognizing and valuing important contributions that are not immediately obvious

Responding: Providing Genuine Support

Empathy doesn't stop with understanding. We are also present, open-minded, humble, curious, and have a sincere desire to help in a meaningful way.[22] We take care of ourselves so that have energy to be there for others.[23] We set boundaries .[24] Our actions aren’t driven by our egos .[25] When we are engaged with empathy we have a heartfelt concern for well-being.?

The technical term for the automatic heartfelt response to suffering is empathic concern. When empathic concern is coupled with passive intention, it is sympathy. When empathic concern is accompanied by an active desire to assist, it’s compassion. When compassion is engaged and action is taken, it is prosocial behavior. Compassion-based, holistic empathy helps us respond in ways that promote mental and physical well-being .[26] It helps us help more and harm less.?

Here are some ways this shows up on a team:?

• Recognizing that even when people make mistakes, they are doing their personal best
• Taking care of physical and emotional well-being
• Supporting and motivating each other when facing challenges
• Regularly discussing ways to manage work in a way that is equitable and fair
• Making it clear that people care about each other, even when they struggle to get along
• Encouraging others to be compassionate to both themselves and others

Resourcing: Optimizing the System

Our ability to empathize is more likely to be a result of the situation than our disposition .[27] Our capacity to empathize is reduced when we are tired, sick, hungry, stressed, distracted ,[28] or in an environment that doesn’t support our efforts .[29] Successful empathy means looking beyond ourselves, recognizing how interconnected we are to others, and making changes to the system in which we are operating so that it supports our individual empathy efforts .[30]?

Here’s how this can show up on a team:?

• Collaborating with people outside of the team
• Adapting methodologies instead of rigidly adhering to systems that don’t work
• Using shared goals and explicit expectations as clear touchpoints for decision-making
• Providing access to resources that enable effective collaboration
• Prioritizing time for calm reflection and decision making
• Encouraging team members to pursue hobbies and interests outside of work

When we align our actions so that these five domains are relatively balanced, we are able to use empathy deliberatively to drive our decisions and behavior. If we find a domain consistently challenging, we can collaborate with others as a team. When decisions based on this type of empathy occur regularly, the positive benefits compound so that we can collaborate with each other to cultivate healthy software and social systems.?

REFERENCES

[1] Decety, Jean. “Dissecting the Neural Mechanisms Mediating Empathy.” Emotion Review 3, no. 1 (January 2011): 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910374662.

[2] Depow, Gregory John, Zo? Francis, and Michael Inzlicht. “The Experience of Empathy in Everyday Life.” Psychological Science 32, no. 8 (August 1, 2021): 1198–1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797621995202.

[3] Lockwood, Patricia L., Yuen-Siang Ang, Masud Husain, and Molly J. Crockett. “Individual Differences in Empathy Are Associated with Apathy-Motivation.” Scientific Reports 7, no. 1 (December 11, 2017): 17293. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17415-w.

[4] Weisz, Erika, Desmond C. Ong, Ryan W. Carlson, and Jamil Zaki. “Building Empathy through Motivation-Based Interventions.” Emotion 21 (2021): 990–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000929.

[5] Ickes, William. “Everyday Mind Reading Is Driven by Motives and Goals.” Psychological Inquiry 22 (2011): 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.561133.

[6] Tremblay, Marie-Pier B., Audrey Marcoux, Valérie Turcotte, Jamie Woods, Camille Rouleau, Frédéric Grondin, and Philip L. Jackson. “I Can But I Shall Not Always Be Empathic.” Psychological Reports 124, no. 4 (August 1, 2021): 1634–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120945180.

[7] Heyes, Cecilia. “Empathy Is Not in Our Genes.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 95 (December 1, 2018): 499–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.11.001.

[8] Goldenberg, Amit, David Garcia, Eran Halperin, Jamil Zaki, Danyang Kong, Golijeh Golarai, and James J Gross. “Beyond Emotional Similarity: The Role of Situation-Specific Motives.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 149, no. 1 (June 13, 2019): 138–59. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000625.

[9] Decety, Jean, and Claire Holvoet. “The Emergence of Empathy: A Developmental Neuroscience Perspective.” Developmental Review 62 (December 2021): 100999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2021.100999.

[10] Zaki, Jamil. “Moving beyond Stereotypes of Empathy.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21 (2017): 59–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.12.004.

[11] Maibom, Heidi L. “The Many Faces of Empathy and Their Relation to Prosocial Action and Aggression Inhibition.” WIREs Cognitive Science 3, no. 2 (2012): 253–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1165.

[12] Riess, Helen. “Empathy Can Be Taught and Learned with Evidence-Based Education.” Emergency Medicine Journal 39, no. 6 (June 1, 2022): 418–19. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-212078.

[13] Weisz, Erika, and Jamil Zaki. “Empathy-Building Interventions: A Review of Existing Work and Suggestions for Future Directions.” Oxford Handbook of Compassion Science, 2017, 14.

[14] Barrett, Lisa Feldman. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.

[15] Dreisbach, Gesine. “Using the Theory of Constructed Emotion to Inform the Study of Cognition-Emotion Interactions.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, September 9, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02176-z.

[16] Wilson-Mendenhall, Christine D., and John D. Dunne. “Cultivating Emotional Granularity.” Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.703658.

[17] Decety, Jean, and Jason M. Cowell. “The Complex Relation between Morality and Empathy.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18, no. 7 (July 1, 2014): 337–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.008.

[18] Krol, Sonia A., and Jennifer A. Bartz. “The Self and Empathy: Lacking a Clear and Stable Sense of Self Undermines Empathy and Helping Behavior.” Emotion 22, no. 7 (October 2022): 1554–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000943.

[19] Grant, Adam M. Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know. New York, New York: Viking, 2021.

[20] Atias, Doron, and Hillel Aviezer. “Empathic Accuracy: Lessons from the Perception of Contextualized Real-Life Emotional Expressions.” In The Neural Basis of Mentalizing, edited by Michael Gilead and Kevin N. Ochsner, 171–88. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51890-5_9.

[21] Hinnekens, Céline, William Ickes, Liesbet Berlamont, and Lesley Verhofstadt. “Empathic Accuracy: Empirical Overview and Clinical Applications.” In The Neural Basis of Mentalizing, edited by Michael Gilead and Kevin N. Ochsner, 149–70. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51890-5_8.

[22] Nguyen, Thi Nguyet Que, Liem Viet Ngo, and Jiraporn Surachartkumtonkun. “When Do-Good Meets Empathy and Mindfulness.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 50 (September 1, 2019): 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.020.

[23] Scheffer, Julian A., C. Daryl Cameron, and Michael Inzlicht. “Caring Is Costly: People Avoid the Cognitive Work of Compassion.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 151 (2022): 172–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001073.

[24] Kaufman, Scott Barry, and Emanuel Jauk. “Healthy Selfishness and Pathological Altruism: Measuring Two Paradoxical Forms of Selfishness.” Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020): 1006. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01006.

[25] Besser, Lorraine, and Michael Slote, eds. “Testing the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis against Egoistic Alternatives.” In The Routledge Companion to Virtue Ethics, 0 ed., 409–24. Routledge, 2015. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203071755-37.

[26] Lee, Ellen E., Tushara Govind, Marina Ramsey, Tsung Chin Wu, Rebecca Daly, Jinyuan Liu, Xin M. Tu, Martin P. Paulus, Michael L. Thomas, and Dilip V. Jeste. “Compassion toward Others and Self-Compassion Predict Mental and Physical Well-Being: A 5-Year Longitudinal Study of 1090 Community-Dwelling Adults across the Lifespan.” Translational Psychiatry 11, no. 1 (December 2021): 397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-021-01491-8.

[27] Fabi, Sarah, Lydia Anna Weber, and Hartmut Leuthold. “Empathic Concern and Personal Distress Depend on Situational but Not Dispositional Factors.” PLoS ONE 14, no. 11 (November 14, 2019): e0225102. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225102.

[28] Goodhew, Stephanie C., and Mark Edwards. “The Relationship between Cognitive Failures and Empathy.” Personality and Individual Differences 186 (February 1, 2022): 111384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111384.

[29] Gill, Lesley, Marjolein Schaddelee, Phil L. Ramsey, Sam Turner, and Tom Naylor. “When Empathy Works: Towards Finding Effective Ways of Sustaining Empathy Flow.” APMBA (Asia Pacific Management and Business Application) 6, no. 3 (April 29, 2018): 115–36. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.apmba.2018.006.03.1.

[30] Davis, Adam C., Wendy Leppanen, Kimberly P. Mularczyk, Theresia Bedard, and Mirella L. Stroink. “Systems Thinkers Express an Elevated Capacity for the Allocentric Components of Cognitive and Affective Empathy: Systems Thinking and Empathy.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 35, no. 2 (March 2018): 216–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2475.