CHAPTER 2

Empathizing

What’s the Big Idea?

It looked like being a truly miserable overnight flight home. I found myself in economy class sitting next to an agitated young child with a teenager behind me banging her legs against my seat back. I felt tired and frustrated. I looked in vain for an alternative seat, but it was a full flight. Just before resigning myself to seven uncomfortable hours I decided to visit the galley and ask a steward if I could be moved. My expectation was to receive a polite “Sorry sir, but no. . . .” Instead, she listened carefully to what I was saying, seemed to understand my frustration, and said to my surprise, “There is a spare seat in Economy Plus you can have. Please follow me.”

This is a very small example of empathy followed by action in a service context. Although trivial, it illustrates how empathizing can lead to a radically different experience for the customer.

But is this everyone’s experience of the same airline? Have a brief look at the customer reviews websites, and you will discover the answer is a definite no. For organizational leaders’ questions about the possibility of “designing-in” empathetic ways of thinking and acting come to the surface. What do we mean by empathy? What if everyone’s experience of encountering the organization could be shaped by empathy? How would that look and what might be the consequences? This chapter starts to open up these questions and considers how empathy and empathizing need to sit at the heart of our practice of co-designing services in complex systems.

The Idea

Defining what we mean by empathizing is not as straightforward as we might hope. One reason is that empathy is an umbrella term that encapsulates at least three distinct but overlapping types of empathetic response. The first is the idea that we can, in our minds, put ourselves in the position of someone else. We can try to see the world from their perspective. Sometimes we talk about this as though we can step into someone else’s shoes. We are cognitively engaged. A second different but related type of empathy is when we think we can experience the very same emotions as someone else in a specific context. We think of ourselves so in tune with a person that we feel we are literally experiencing their feelings. There is some evidence emerging from the field of social neuroscience that the brain can on occasions mirror the emotions of another person (e.g., Singer et al. 2004). The third type is when we recognize another person’s emotional state. It does not become our state, but we can sense why they might be feeling the way they are. This is our affective or feeling response.

Separating out these three “types” of empathy looks quite neat and tidy on the surface, although some researchers would argue that we have slightly oversimplified the picture (Baron-Cohen and Wheelright 2004). In reality, experiencing empathy can be a combination of all of them or just one.

Taking a broader perspective, empathy can be argued to be the “glue” that creates and sustains social relationships at a fundamental level. Without empathy, in any form, we can find ourselves fragmenting into individualism that ultimately can begin to see others as competitors in our fight for survival. Empathy recognizes that for us to flourish, as individuals, mutual social relationships based on understanding offer the potential for collaboration and success. It is possible that we don’t actually talk or think that much about empathizing because it is so hardwired into our thinking and practice as people. At the most basic level, we need to have some element of empathy to relate.

One idea often linked to empathy is that of compassion. The two are different but of course linked. Compassion in an organizational context can be broadly viewed as a culture of trust between individuals where people feel inclined to offer and receive help. Empathizing is clearly part of the process whereby compassion is enacted. So, for example, as we try to empathize with a recently bereaved colleague, it is not until we offer something to the person, like additional time off work, that compassion is expressed. Arguably, of course, we can also view the feelings of empathy as compassion in themselves.

In the context of co-design, it is the processes involved in empathizing that are of interest to us. Begin by considering a traditional design process. Here user-experience researchers have become the experts to help us learn about users. They claim this power through a set of research methods — journey maps, interviews, and personas — which help us to discover user needs. The danger with this way of thinking is that it creates a pseudoscience to replace empathy: There is a “right” way and a “wrong” way to learn about users.

Empathy is different to learning about users through a prescribed research method. Rather than attempting to objectify users, to map out their cognitive or emotional experience, empathy flows more readily when designers learn with people who find themselves acting in the role of a user or customers. Empathy is an intrinsic aspect of a relationship that conveys meaning and care — it is more relational than transactional. And this kind of relationship can be quite time-inefficient, given the need to invest time in listening and being with people in their context.

Empathy is important because it awakens our senses as designers. User research has the danger of reducing the complexity of people to a few words on a sticky note. Empathy, in contrast, seeks to enrich and deepen the experience through human sensation.

Our aim becomes the creation of an empathic environment where people acting in the role of designer and service user can share their experiences and think imaginatively together.

We think this view challenges the way that many designers think — that we need to put effort into understanding the world “as it is” before we attempt to change it. This is a call to move away from an objectivist way of thinking and to reject the formulaic toolkit of “personas” and “journey maps” replacing these artificial representations of reality with active, lively relationships between those involved in co-designing services.

To summarize, De Lille, Roscam Abbing, and Kleinsmann (2012) observe that

Empathic understanding goes beyond knowledge: when empathizing you do not judge, you relate to (the user) and understand the situations and why certain experiences are meaningful to these people, a relation that involves an emotional connection. . . . Using empathy, the design thinker can identify needs of the different stakeholders and react upon them. Through a complex and iterative process of synthesis and transformation of research data, design thinkers empathize with the stakeholders through revealing future design opportunities. (p. 3)

Why Is Empathizing Important?

Helping the people in the system to develop empathy for and with one another is crucial to successful co-design work. There are many reasons why this is the case:

1. An empathetic approach opens up listening, and listening opens up the possibility for new thinking and practice. Listening to sound, tone, emotion, and body language will provide vital insight into what is happening at many points in the system. Empathy, by its very nature, invites people to stop and pay attention. For the developers and systems leaders, building a capacity to listen well ensures that as the system changes it will move in the direction that makes apparent new possibilities and takes people with it. In a co-design context, the encouragement is for everyone to practice. It is not simply about listening to customers but also customers listening to those working with them in the design process.

   In our Western culture, listening in this way tends to be countercultural, and so the need for role models, conversational and listening opportunities, and new habits becomes important. The aim is for listening to become routinized.

2. Empathizing allows movement and engagement within the system that can be pleasurable and productive for people. As we empathize so it becomes possible for us to make small behavioral and attitudinal changes that make collaboration possible and pleasurable. People find it humane and comfortable within a network of relationships. They feel trusted and able to contribute without defensiveness. It also becomes possible to acknowledge weakness and frailty and to ask for help. Such a system environment brings out the best in people’s creativity.
3. With an empathetic approach, it becomes more likely that a diverse range of people and perspectives will be included in co-design activities. Such diversity helps create a fertile environment in which new ideas and perspectives can develop and grow. Instead of hearing the same old ideas, new ones can find a place to be explored.
4. Co-design involves a degree of caring. This is care about the nature of what is being designed—that it serves the intended purpose and that it is humane and evokes a sense of valuing people. Empathizing communicates a message of care and caring and, in so doing, contributes to the value of the process and the intrinsic value of the people involved in the work. This in turn secures greater commitment to the process and, in so doing, builds energy. Such energy is necessary to maintain the momentum of co-design.
5. Empathy offers the potential for cohesion to develop within a complex system. With many different networks and cultures being connected, it is possible that “difference” becomes a focus for distrust and potential discord. Empathizing enables the difference to be accepted by people and seen by them as a strength and contributor to the work of co-design.
6. Given that much co-design takes place in the context of teams, the ability to empathize is likely to help enable diverse teams to function optimally and particularly to relate well with teams in other parts of the system. Being able and willing to see each other’s views offers the possibility of a more productive environment being co-created.
7. While a diverse system can never, by definition, fully own a common set of values, the propensity to empathize enables the development of an understanding about what values are shaping the way the system is working. People hear and reflect on perspectives and worldviews that they perhaps have not been exposed to before. With an empathetic stance, it is possible for such values to shape the way the system behaves.

We have argued that empathizing is a key practice for co-designers in complex systems. However, it also has the potential to help shape the approach to leading and leadership within a system. This is important because leaders often have responsibility for enabling connections and purposing between quite disparate groups of people. By adopting an empathetic approach, this vital work of growing systems can be accomplished in a more nuanced and ordered manner, and so, securing ongoing commitment. In a nutshell, empathizing is a practice for all of us engaged in human organizing!

What Are the Implications for Practice?

It may be helpful to start with a few questions for reflection:

• Think about a time when you empathized with another person. What happened and why do you think the context aroused empathy in you?
• Have you sensed someone else empathizing with you recently? How did that make you feel? How did you respond?

In thinking about developing our empathetic practice, it is worth spending time reflecting on past experiences to see what we can learn from them. Engaging in such reflexivity, where we not only remember but also explore our experiences, is basic to professional development in relation to any aspect of practice. This is also the case for the practice of listening. To be empathetic means that we have heard someone. Not only have we heard, and seen, the circumstances of another person but we have also listened to our own internal voice engaging with the experience of another. The practice prompt here for us is to consider how we might further practice empathetic listening. Maybe we find ourselves distracted so we need to find ways of focusing our attention. Each of us will have strategies for doing this, but often, speaking personally, we can fall back into old habits of not attending to others as well as we might.

Let’s first consider some further practical ways in which co-designers might grow in their empathy in the context of a system:

• Enable people to meet in small groups to tell their service stories. Often these are called focus groups, but we suggest rather than focusing down on an aspect of existing service we facilitate people to tell stories of their lives in relation to services and needs. This is very broad and potentially time-consuming, but without this depth of engaging with one another empathy is likely to be very fleeting. When we talk about people we mean everyone! We each have experiences that will elicit empathy and add value to the design process.
• Facilitate some collaborative research processes. This can be done by asking an intriguing question or two, just as we did at the start of this section. Take time to explore these questions by visiting parts of the service system and discovering the experiences and practices of others.
• Visit different locations and allow yourself to see and listen to others. While there ask yourself what it might be like for another person to experience what you are experiencing. Take time to talk with those who are around. What are they experiencing and how does it make them feel?
• A way of positioning yourself differently in any context is to try “wearing” some of De Bono’s thinking hats (2017). Each “hat” asks you to consider a situation from a different emotional and thought perspective. Practicing each type of “hat” breaks your traditional habitual way of looking at a service. As you practice so you will become more flexible in your perspective and ability to empathize.
• Develop the practice of collecting in-depth stories of people who experience the system. Using a digital recorder will help capture the voice and emotions that will add a richness to your own response to what they are saying. Make a note of your responses and reflect on how well you empathized with the storyteller. Providing permission has been given, share these stories with others and use them to inform co-design workshops. Look specifically for a variety of ages and backgrounds so that you can hear a wide range of perspectives.
• Consider how you can incorporate the language of empathy into your relationships with co-designers. Think about words and phrases that you can use to stimulate both yourself and others toward an empathetic stance. Of course, these are not about being false or unnatural but using consistent language to make a reality of empathy.
• Find ways to demonstrate your empathy. Maybe that is a word, or a gentle nod, or sometimes it maybe that you act to rectify something that is going wrong in a service context. One of the most effective ways is to translate what you have learned through empathizing into your design practice. In this way, empathy becomes seen and ultimately becomes a part of how the system is with itself—it becomes a feature of the system culture.

As with all practices, there are aspects that need some care. Klimecki and Singer (2012) noted that people have different capacities for empathy. One response might be for a person to exhibit symptoms of what they call empathetic distress. This is where they are overcome by other people’s feelings and may go on to experience emotional burnout. Bloom (2017) highlights the risk of empathy bias where we might only be concerned with people like ourselves and ignore others. He also points out the danger of overrelying on our emotional responses and minimizing helpful thought processes alongside the emotions. In situations of work overload, particularly in caring professions, research has shown that there is the possibility of decline in empathy as people are repeatedly “required” to demonstrate that they are empathetic when they themselves are experiencing stress (Hojat et al. 2009).

As we empathize with others what will be our practical response? This is a moral question for each of us. In every context, our decisions will have consequences and implications for a few or for many, some of whom we see and know and others who are out of sight. Space here precludes a discussion about the moral dimensions of empathy, but perhaps you would wish to explore this in your own practice.

Reflect and Act

Reflect

• When and where do you find it easy to empathize?
• When is it most difficult for you?
• Do you think empathy is a strength in your practice or needing further development?
• In what ways do you think you could develop empathy?
• How will empathizing contribute to the co-design of services in your context?

Act

• Look for opportunities to empathize and then notice the impact on others and yourself.
• Have a discussion about empathy with those you work with and how together you might express it.
• Keep notes in your learning log about your ongoing experiences of empathy.
• Use language to empathize that is different from that you would normally use. Reflect on the impact.
• Take time to explore services and locations, seeking to hear and understand the perspectives of those who provide services and those who use them.

References

Baron-Cohen, S., and S. Wheelwright. 2004. “The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 34, no. 2 (2004): 163–175.

Bloom, P. 2017. Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. London, UK: Random House.

De Bono, E. 2017. Six Thinking Hats. London, UK: Penguin.

De Lille, C., E. Roscam Abbing, and M. Kleinsmann. 2012. “A Designerly Approach to Enable Organizations to Deliver Product-service Systems.” In 2012 International Design Management Research Conference, 8–9 August: Boston, MA: DMI.

Hojat, M., M. J. Vergare, K. Maxwell, G. Brainard, S. K. Herrine, G. A. Isenberg, and J. S. Gonnella. 2009. “The Devil is in the Third Year: A Longitudinal Study of Erosion of Empathy in Medical School.” Academic Medicine 84, no. 9, pp. 1182–91.

Klimecki, O., and T. Singer. 2012. “Empathic Distress Fatigue Rather than Compassion Fatigue? Integrating Findings from Empathy Research in Psychology and Social Neuroscience.” Pathological Altruism, pp. 368–83.

Singer, T., B. Seymour, J. O’Doherty, H. Kaube, R. J. Dolan, and C. D. Frith. 2004. “Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not the Sensory Components of Pain.” Science 303, pp. 1157–61.