I feel an important lens is missing in viewing relationships between (displayed) empathy and power. The type of work we want leaders to be involved in is not simple problem -solving. If we are pushing problems down to the people closer to service user to fix, then what is left for leaders to debate are often the tricky 'wicked' problems where there are no right or wrong answers but choices to be made. Some of these choices, in the starkest, simplest terms, is determining which groups 'win' and which groups 'lose'. I wonder if a lack of displayed empathy is a protective behaviour to help people live with the consequences of choosing a favourite child? Interestingly, I've seen similar behaviours occur in organisational cultures of independent regulators. The 'if no one is happy, we must be doing our job right' is a perverse way of justifying not getting close to those accessing services for (false) fear of clouded judgement, being seen as cozying up, etc. But exemplary service and regulatory frameworks are not binary, rather they are polarities that require both --I've seen the shift of bringing in a service oriented culture where understanding needs of 'customers' increases participation of those involved in complaints or conflict- which, in turn, increased the empathy of those working in the organisation. Thanks for a really interesting article, certainly provoked some thoughts!
lovely exploration. working "with" power is an important direction to discuss.
I feel an important lens is missing in viewing relationships between (displayed) empathy and power. The type of work we want leaders to be involved in is not simple problem -solving. If we are pushing problems down to the people closer to service user to fix, then what is left for leaders to debate are often the tricky 'wicked' problems where there are no right or wrong answers but choices to be made. Some of these choices, in the starkest, simplest terms, is determining which groups 'win' and which groups 'lose'. I wonder if a lack of displayed empathy is a protective behaviour to help people live with the consequences of choosing a favourite child? Interestingly, I've seen similar behaviours occur in organisational cultures of independent regulators. The 'if no one is happy, we must be doing our job right' is a perverse way of justifying not getting close to those accessing services for (false) fear of clouded judgement, being seen as cozying up, etc. But exemplary service and regulatory frameworks are not binary, rather they are polarities that require both --I've seen the shift of bringing in a service oriented culture where understanding needs of 'customers' increases participation of those involved in complaints or conflict- which, in turn, increased the empathy of those working in the organisation. Thanks for a really interesting article, certainly provoked some thoughts!