Empathy and Humility

Here is a thought-provoking article by David Brooks on "The Limits of Empathy."

The article brought up a few thoughts.

The first thought was work-related.  I work for a firm that consults in many areas of need: global health, education, philanthropy.  The clients we work with are oftentimes quite passionate about what they do.  They have a code by which they live and that code brought them to their current job.  Consulting for these organizations requires that we have a great deal of empathy for the client.  Because they are mission-driven, we have to speak their language, and to a certain degree feel why their mission is important.  (At the Corporate Executive Board, I could talk to clients with a matter-of-fact tone.  There was more of a "it's just business" attitude that was less personal than with our FSG clients)  But I wonder, is it possible for me to actually walk in my client's shoes?  How much more effective would I (we) be if I were able to be sympathetic, not just empathetic?  What are the tactics I can employ in order to be as empathetic as possible with the client?

Thus far at my job, I find the client work intellectually stimulating.  I also find it inspiring in that I know - factually - that our clients have the potential to make a very large impact, and we help them make that impact.  Yet, I still feel want to feel more of what my clients feel.  Without having had much experience in areas like global health, etc., I need to be deliberate about how I develop this empathy so that it is genuine and durable.  Having this feeling is very important for me, and I'm working on ways to develop it.

One note - I can definitely sympathize with our education clients, though.  Education has always been what I've understood and felt intrinsically, and it is a codified part of my moral code.  Anyway, I wonder what Brooks would say about my desire to empathize more heavily with my other clients.

My second thought relates to the code that Brooks talks about:

Think of anybody you admire. They probably have some talent for fellow-feeling, but it is overshadowed by their sense of obligation to some religious, military, social or philosophic code. They would feel a sense of shame or guilt if they didn’t live up to the code. The code tells them when they deserve public admiration or dishonor. The code helps them evaluate other people’s feelings, not just share them. The code tells them that an adulterer or a drug dealer may feel ecstatic, but the proper response is still contempt.

In our Ethics class last year, we did a similar exercise: think of 5 leaders you admire.  Now, do these individuals have a relative or absolute moral code?  My examples all had absolute moral codes... it wasn't even close.  Moral absolutists might not always be the most politically correct or diplomatic, but they do create change.  In the end, they're respected for their beliefs, however controversial they were at the time (with some obvious exceptions, of course).

The point is that it's important to have a code.  At Fuqua, I learned that it's not only important to have a code, but to actively define it: where it comes from, how it manifests itself, how it has changed.  By defining your code - your identity - you begin to live more consistently and with stronger intent.  Your actions reflect your core values, and you (hopefully) become a stronger version of yourself.  This was one of the most important things that I learned at Fuqua, without a doubt.  As Brooks says...

The code isn’t just a set of rules. It’s a source of identity. It’s pursued with joy. It arouses the strongest emotions and attachments. Empathy is a sideshow. If you want to make the world a better place, help people debate, understand, reform, revere and enact their codes. Accept that codes conflict.

On a somewhat unrelated note, here's an interview in the Wall Street Journal with the Dean of Harvard Business School talking about the need to teach leadership, ethics, and entrepreneurship (all of which I strongly agree with).