Abstract
Does empathy merely take place in leaders’ minds? How does it help us better understand and practice leadership? In the past, entitative relational leadership studies have mainly drawn on a mind-based understanding of empathy and focused on the association between individual empathy traits and leader emergence and effectiveness. Such an approach overlooks leadership practice of empathy as a constructive process. By integrating emerging research from diverse disciplines from philosophy to communication, the article first offers a constructionist view of empathy, based on which empathic leadership practice is conceptualized. The article explicates how leadership practice of empathy construction is rooted in relational ethics and takes place in both synchronic dyadic interaction through conversation as well as diachronic narrative practice with a collective other. By conceptualizing empathic leadership practice through a social constructionist approach to empathy, the article makes significant contributions to our understanding of relational leadership.
Keywords
As an overarching framework, relational leadership theory encompasses both entitative and constructionist perspectives (Ospina and Uhl-Bien, 2012; Uhl-Bien, 2006). From the entitative perspective, researchers point to empathy as an essential ingredient to positive leadership outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Kellett et al., 2006; Sadri et al., 2011; Watkins et al., 2019) and to the makeup of authentic (Mortier et al., 2016) and transformational leaders (Choi, 2006; Humphrey, 2002). In spite of their significant contributions, the entitative studies fall short in offering an adequate account of the constitutive role of communication and discourse in constructing empathy as leadership practice. Moreover, the leader-centered approach of the entitative studies places leaders in the position of empathizers and fails to appreciate the reciprocal dynamic of empathy among leadership actors. Also, past studies that connect empathy and relational leadership have given very limited suggestions on concrete practical guidance on leading through relating or doing relational leadership.
I argue that the constructionist approach to relational leadership now has the opportunity to address these limitations. In the past, constructionist leadership scholars have merely suggested empathy as a form of relational practice from which leadership emerges (e.g. Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011). However, how empathy works as relational leadership practice remains undertheorized. In this article, I argue that empathy is essential to understanding practices in the space between (Bradbury and Lichtenstein, 2000) leadership actors and that research on empathy from communication studies (e.g. Ford et al., 2019; Herlin and Visapää, 2016), philosophy (e.g. Taipale, 2015; Walsh, 2014; Zahavi, 2011, 2014), literary studies (Keen, 2007), and counseling (Clark, 2010; Rogers, 1975), has laid the groundwork to address the above limitations of the entitative approach and to extend the constructionist perspective of relational leadership.
Thus, in this article I intend to first offer an alternative understanding of empathy that is social constructionist in nature. In contrast to the predominant mind-based understanding of empathy (e.g. Iacoboni, 2011; Zaki and Ochsner, 2012), which is widely adopted by the entitative studies of leadership (Cropanzano et al., 2017; König et al., 2020; Watkins et al., 2019), the constructionist perspective can deepen our understanding of empathy as the practice of relating. Second, drawing on theories of relational ethics of generosity (Diprose, 2002), care (Nodding, 2013), and responsibility (Levinas, 1969, 1998), I articulate the ethical grounding of empathy construction as leadership practice (Carroll et al., 2008; Crevani et al., 2010; Raelin, 2016). Finally, I conceptualize empathic leadership practice as an extension to the constructionist relational leadership theory (Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011; Ospina and Uhl-Bien, 2012). Such an extension not only opens up opportunities for future empirical investigations but also presents leadership actors with concrete practical guidance.
Relational leadership
According to Uhl-Bien (2006), relational leadership theory is a framework that consists of two contrasting but complementary lenses: the entitative and constructionist relational leadership perspectives, which rest on quite different theoretical assumptions and inspire distinct research questions and theoretical insights into relational leadership (Ospina and Uhl-Bien, 2012; Uhl-Bien, 2006). First, assuming an individual-based ontology, the entitative perspective takes leadership as a social object already formed in reality and conceptualizes social relations as individual-based perceptual or cognitive variables that help explain, control, or predict leader behavior and relational outcomes (Uhl-Bien, 2006). An example of entitative relational leadership theory is the leader–member exchange theory (LMX) (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Dulebohn et al., 2012; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Relational effectiveness or quality in LMX takes the form of individual perceptions predicted by individual and group attributes and behaviors via a series of exchanges of resources between leader and member (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). The actual practice of relating is glossed over and reduced to a statistical process based on input of individual leader and member attributes that are physical, affective, cognitive, and/or behavioral.
By contrast, the constructionist perspective is based on a relational ontology of being, which assumes individuals as born out of relationships (Benjamin, 2015; Gergen, 2009; Uhl-Bien, 2006). The perspective conceptualizes leadership as constituted in communicative actions and collective meaning making in interdependent contexts (Barge and Fairhurst, 2008; Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011; Dachler, 1992; Endres and Weibler, 2017; Liu, 2017; Uhl-Bien, 2006), instead of existing in individual perception or cognition. Unlike the entitative approach that relegates relating to the statistical process, the constructionist perspective attempts to foreground and unpack relating in contexts, and views leadership as fundamentally intersubjective (Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011). Thus, the constructionist relational leadership theory can be located under the broader theoretical umbrella of collective leadership (Ospina et al., 2020). Unlike other collective leadership approaches (Ospina et al., 2020), relational leadership from the constructionist perspective is defined as a theoretical lens that directs attention to the relational processes and joint practices, which could be material, embodied, and discursive, among social actors to construct and transform social order (Carroll et al., 2008; Crevani and Endrissat, 2016; Crevani et al., 2010; Dachler and Hosking, 1995; Hosking and Morley, 1988; Uhl-Bien, 2006).
Although appearing in both entitative and constructionist studies, empathy has received different and uneven treatment. Based on a mind-based approach to empathy, the entitative leadership studies have developed a substantial line of research that examines the role of empathy as an affective trait or ability in leader emergence (e.g. Kellett et al., 2002, 2006), leader effectiveness (Antonakis et al., 2009; König et al., 2020; Sadri et al., 2011), and LMX (Cropanzano et al., 2017). However, in the constructionist studies of relational leadership, other than being briefly mentioned (e.g. Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011; Nicholson and Kurucz, 2019; Orr and Bennett, 2017), empathy has not received any in-depth treatment, in part because the predominant mind-based understanding in both scholarly and popular discourse has obscured the emerging evidence of empathy as relational practice subject to social construction. I argue that unpacking the meaning and process of empathy from its phenomenological and communicative provenance holds the key to furthering our understanding of relating in the leadership process. To do that, it is necessary to first review and critique the mind-based understanding of empathy vis-a-vis entitative studies of relational leadership (see Table 1), which is the topic I turn to next.
Entitative versus constructionist perspectives of empathy and relational leadership.
Empathy vis-a-vis entitative research of relational leadership
The predominant understanding of empathy, known as the “theory of mind” (Zahavi, 2010), defines empathy as mental processes taking place inside an observer (Goldman, 2006). These mental processes are conceptualized as taking the form of projection, meaning that an empathizer engages in cognitive inferential processes to project or predict the internal mental state of others (Blair and Blair, 2009: 139), or simulation, meaning that the observer uses his/her own mental state as a model to simulate what is happening in the minds of others (Coplan, 2011; Goldman, 2006). Considered as a multi-dimensional construct (Hoffman, 2001), perspective taking or knowing another person’s state of mind through projection or simulation is considered cognitive empathy, whereas feeling how others feel emotionally is known as emotional or affective empathy. The former requires an intellectual process that involves cognitive understanding of another’s point of view, whereas the generation of emotional response is considered taking place in an automatic mirroring process or mimicry that may not rise to consciousness (Iacoboni, 2011; Shamay-Tsoory, 2009). Emotional contagion has been proposed as one of the important mechanisms underlying the emotional dimension of empathy (Iacoboni, 2011). It refers to ‘the tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize facial expressions, vocalizations, postures, and movements with those of another person and, consequently, to converge emotionally’ (Hatfield et al., 2009: 19). Neuroscience research suggests a process of neural resonance to describe the workings of mirror neurons of certain brain circuits that allow the execution of such mimicry and emotional feedback (Zaki and Ochsner, 2012).
Whether considered as cognitive projection, simulation, or automatic emotional mimicry and contagion, empathy within this mind-based tradition shares the entitative ontological assumption, which locates cognition and emotions inside the mind of individuals hidden from view (Walsh, 2014; Zahavi, 2010, 2011). It attracted the attention of scholars who pursued an entitative approach to leadership studies. In particular, such research focuses on the affective empathy of a leader as his or her ‘ability to comprehend another’s feelings and to re-experience them oneself’ (Salovey and Mayer, 1990: 194) and a malleable affective trait within a leader’s emotional intelligence (EI) profile (Goleman, 1995; Goleman et al., 2002). The predominant question raised in entitative leadership studies is whether empathy as an emotional trait or display of such a trait makes a difference in leadership outcomes (Gentry et al., 2015; Kellett et al., 2002, 2006; König et al., 2020; Sadri et al., 2011). For example, empathy as a leader trait was found to temper abusive supervision (Watkins et al., 2019). Several studies drew direct connection between empathy and key leader behavioral styles, such as authentic leadership (Mortier et al., 2016), transformational leadership (e.g. Clarke, 2010), charismatic leadership (Choi, 2006), and servant leadership (Mittal and Dorfman, 2012).
Overall, entitative leadership studies tend to support a positive relationship between leaders’ empathy traits or empathy displays with leaders’ relational outcomes. However, the review above has exposed several limitations in this body of literature. First, following the mind-based approach to empathy, entitative studies (e.g. Cropanzano et al., 2017; Gentry et al., 2015; König et al., 2020) tend to treat empathy as something fully formed in leaders’ minds or as a trait of individual leaders, that is, a cognitive or emotional response or an expression of leaders’ internally constituted thoughts and feelings to his/her members. However, growing phenomenological and communicative approaches to empathy point to the constitutive role of intentionality, communication, and interaction in the empathic process (Meneses and Larkin, 2012; Walsh, 2014; Zahavi, 2010, 2014), which is to be discussed later in this article.
Second, it is clear that existing studies on empathy and leadership is constrained by a unidirectional approach, which places leaders as the empathizer and members the empathized. Such an approach misses the more complex role of empathy in the relational dynamic between leaders and their associates (Tse et al., 2018). Placing members in a passive role reinforces the romanticized, heroic view of leadership (Meindl, 1995; Shamir, 2007). This unidirectional approach fails to consider the possibility of leaders being the empathized and the effects of the mutual construction and reciprocal flow of empathy among leadership actors.
Third, entitative leadership studies have mostly treated empathy only dyadically, that is, empathy toward another individual. However, what is yet to be developed is to consider empathy that goes beyond immediate, co-present context, that is, empathy toward a common outside party or collective other (Muller et al., 2014), which could be a rival or competing group, community, or even hostile counterparts (e.g. enemy in a military conflict). Empathy directed toward a collective other is important because organizations often rely on members to make local decisions and execute tasks that impact a collective other with whom they do not routinely interact in an immediate relational context.
The social construction of empathy
In light of the above limitations of the mind-based understanding of empathy vis-a-vis entitative leadership studies, I now introduce a social constructionist approach to empathy, which is the coalescence of emerging research from diverse disciplines in humanities and social sciences. This approach finds its root in phenomenological inquiries of empathy nearly a century ago (Schutz, 1967; Stein, 1989). A revival of this philosophical interest has started in the last decade or so (Zahavi, 2010, 2014). In the meantime, research in disciplines such as communication and counseling presents growing empirical evidence of empathy construction in communicative processes. Integrating this emerging scholarship reveals social construction of empathy in two broad relational contexts: the synchronic and diachronic. 1 The former refers to the social construction of empathy in co-present dyadic interaction through conversation, whereas the latter refers to the social construction of empathy toward a collective other across time and space through narrative. The following presents these two lines of development.
Synchronic social construction of empathy
Empathy as intentional act and experience
Whereas the mind-based theories posit that empathy results from mental processes such as mirroring (Iacoboni, 2011), phenomenologists argue that the mind-based explanations account for ‘mere simulacra of empathy’ (Meneses and Larkin, 2012: 158), the explanatory focus of which is on the self, instead of the other or the relationship with the other. Rather than self-relating-to-the-self, phenomenologists contend, empathy as self relating to the other takes place intersubjectively through direct experience (Englander, 2014). The direct experience of embodied interaction with the other within a social context allows our direct primordial access to others’ emotion, be it joy, sadness, or anger (Zahavi, 2010), because these emotions are relationally formed in the first place (Gergen, 2009). Empathy is conceptualized as an intentional act of knowing or understanding (Stein, 1989), which is intersubjective in nature (Meneses and Larkin, 2012).
This intersubjectivity is based on a relational ontology of thought and emotion. Merleau-Ponty (1964: 52–53; also cited in Daly, 2014) states that emotions are not ‘inner realities’ or ‘psychic facts hidden at the bottom of another’s consciousness: they are types of behavior or styles of conduct which are visible from the outside.’ Within the relational ontology, the mind and its associated ‘psychic facts’ are intersubjectively formed, acquired, reproduced, and recognized in social contexts. Thus, Zahavi (2010: 291) argues, ‘we can and do experience others’ (emphasis in the original).
Based on the relational ontology, phenomenologists offer intriguing accounts in which empathy unfolds intersubjectively. First, as the intentional grasp of the other’s consciousness, empathy follows a temporal flow (Taipale, 2015). Arising from the self–other interactional experience, empathy has a ‘mutually perceived synchronized rhythm’ (Taipale, 2015: 465). Taipale (2015: 469) likens empathic experience to the appreciation of a melody, in which understanding of the other does not come from the independent notes in an instant but a resonance of the non-independent notes as a whole with ‘a temporal extension.’
Second, empathy is a reciprocal process (Walsh, 2014; Zahavi, 2014). Reciprocity here does not refer to the exchange of resources in a utilitarian sense but the mutual shaping of a context. Reciprocity differentiates the experience of empathy with another person from the experience with an object. As Zahavi (2014: 137) writes: . . . as soon as the other appears on the scene, my relation to the world will change since the other will always be given to me in a situation or meaningful context that points back to the other as a new center of reference. The meaning the world has for the other affects the meaning it has for me.
Third, empathy is a productive experience, not simply a matter of emotional sharing or simulation of self-emotion (Zahavi, 2010, 2014). Drawing on Stein (1989), Zahavi (2010: 294) states, ‘when I empathize with another, the empathized experience is located in the other and not in myself.’ This observation is important because it differentiates the ‘subject of empathic experience’ from the ‘subject of the empathized experience’ (Zahavi, 2010: 294), thus directing attention to the other and allowing room for the emergence of new experience and understanding instead of a reproduction or simulation of oneself’s experience. It is further argued that our empathic grasp of the other is incomplete (Overgaard, 2005). Such incompleteness preserves otherness and, therefore, solicits further response and demands communication (Levinas, 1969; Overgaard, 2005), a point to which we will return later in the article when we explore the ethical foundation of empathic leadership practice.
Finally, the direct experience of the other is made possible because mind and body together form expressive phenomena (Overgaard, 2005; Walsh, 2014; Zahavi, 2010, 2014), the interpretation of which relies on socially constructed meaning systems situated in specific social contexts. It is worth clarifying that expression here does not refer to the Cartesian sense of the outer bodily presentation of the inner mental states, which underlies the mind-based approach to empathy. Rather, expression, being facial, behavioral, or verbal, constitutes the mental life. The meaning of an expression is grasped not only in its temporal flow and physical movement but also in its relationship to other non-independent elements in a transcendent totality (Taipale, 2015; Walsh, 2014). More specifically, Walsh (2014: 224) writes, ‘empathy is a matter of coming to understand movements as expressive, where “expressive” means “affording various forms of interaction.”’ ‘A continuous, complex, and rich history of interaction with one’s environment’ helps shape the meaning of the expressive movements (Walsh, 2014: 224).
The conversation process of empathy construction
Extending the phenomenological account from philosophical debates and reflection into empirical analyses and clinical investigations is research in counseling (Clark, 2010; Rogers, 1975) and communication in diverse settings (Ford et al., 2019; Frankel, 2009; Hepburn and Potter, 2007; Herlin and Visapää, 2016; Kupetz, 2014; Prior, 2017; Pudlinski, 2005; Ruusuvuori, 2005, 2007; Voutilainen et al., 2019). First, relying on conversation and discourse analyses, this body of literature offers ample evidence to show that empathy is an interactional achievement through sequential communicative processes. For example, in healthcare settings, research shows that empathy unfolds sequentially in talk-in-interaction between doctors and patients, starting from empathic opportunity presented by patients, followed by recognition and empathic response by doctors, and ended by patients’ acknowledgement (Frankel, 2009; Ruusuvuori, 2005; Suchman et al., 1997). The punctuation of a response also matters in the interactional organization (Suchman et al., 1997), because it involves both interactants to create and recognize an empathic opportunity. In counseling, Rogers (1975: 4) was one of the first to propose the processual, intersubjective nature of empathy by describing it as ‘a complex, demanding, strong yet subtle and gentle way of being’ between a counselor and client through moment-by-moment listening for, sensing, and reflecting the feeling and meaning that unfolds in interaction. Moreover, through conversation analysis of qualitative interviews, Prior (2017) shows that the achievement of empathy during the course of an in-depth interview does not happen in one single sequence of conversation but consists of numerous empathic moments, which he speculates could have an accumulative effect.
Second, the construction of empathy entails various conversational resources and discursive acts. Bisagni (2013: 623) argues that, ‘words . . . are always experienced as forces, able to create closeness and distance and regulate the rhythm of the ongoing interplay between individuals’, and that words are action and resources taken to achieve empathy. Empirically, Kupetz (2014) identified the sequential orderly employment of various conversational resources by participants—for example, facial expressions, mental verbs, follow-up questions, and second stories and analogies—in constructing empathy. In addition, the literature revealed a wide array of discursive acts that help construct empathy, including but not limited to response cries (Prior, 2017) or response tokens (Pudlinksi, 2005), formulation (Beach and Dixson, 2001; Hepburn and Potter, 2007; Pudlinski, 2005; Satomi and Natsuho, 2016), reformulation (Prior, 2017), sharing stories (Heritage and Lindstrom, 1998), naming feelings (Hepburn and Potter, 2007; Pudlinski, 2005), affiliative turns (Ruusuvuori, 2005, 2007), and reflecting (Pudlinski, 2005; Rogers, 1975).
In summary, emerging from research in philosophy, communication, linguistics, and counseling is a social constructionist view of empathy as an intersubjective experience and conversational practice in a synchronic relational context with the other. In institutional settings, research (Ford et al., 2019; Pudlinski, 2005) has also shown that the process of empathic construction is conducive to the achievement of institutional goals, for example, bridging the gap between doctor’s biomedical perspective and patient perspective of lived experience (Ford et al., 2019).
Diachronic social construction of empathy
In addition to the synchronic relational context, research has also emerged that addresses empathy toward a collective other (e.g. a social group) in a diachronic relational context, as members of organizations and groups often make decisions that impact other social groups or organizations distanciated from the decision-makers’ immediate interactional context. Although still at a very early stage, research on empathy in a diachronic, collective relational context has examined the role of collective emotion (Muller et al., 2014; Szanto, 2015) and narrative (Clair et al., 2016; Keen, 2007). From a social psychological perspective, Muller et al. (2014) suggest that empathy toward a collective other is facilitated by collective emotion the self develops and shares with his or her own group. In Muller et al.’s (2014) account, external events that impacted a collective other create individual emotional responses, which then converge to form collective emotion and that the convergence is facilitated by such factors as a collective’s emotional norms and strength of group identification; thus, within the social psychological account, an individual’s empathic emotions toward a collective other arise within a collective context in which the self is a part. Although addressing the affective convergence within a collective, Muller et al.’s (2014) social psychological account is limited in establishing how an understanding of a collective other is grasped and converges, that is, what is happening in the space between (Bradbury and Lichtenstein, 2000). Similar to the limitations to the mind-based approach to empathy in the synchronic context, which we discussed earlier, Muller et al.’s (2014) account focuses more on the collective emotion of the self than on the ‘relating’ to the collective other.
What helps bridge this gap is the concept narrative empathy (Keen, 2007) and its extension by communication scholars (Clair et al., 2016). Drawing on studies both literary and social scientific, Keen (2007: xv) proposed narrative empathy as “an affective transaction accomplished through the writing and reading of fiction”. She argues that authors strategically employ stories to create empathy with the purpose of cultivating understanding by one social group of another. The story Untouchable by Indian novelist Mulk Raj Anand (1935) is such an example (Keen, 2007), which strategically invoked empathy of its readers toward the life of the ‘outcasts’ in the Indian society at the time. Complementing Muller et al.’s social psychological theory, narrative empathy furnishes the discursive means that relates one social group’s plight to another, stimulates affective responses, and galvanizes individual empathy toward a collective other.
Extending from fictional narratives into people’s lived experience as narrative, Clair et al. (2016: 475) presented an extended narrative empathy (ENE) theory, which ‘views life as a living body of stories that compose knowledge of self and other.’ Narrative in the form of real-life stories takes the center stage with an epistemological role in constructing intersubjectivity among people from diverse cultural and historical backgrounds. ENE is consistent with the relational ontology in that ‘narrative has a fore presence in that people are born into stories’ (Clair et al., 2016: 475), which constitute an interpretive cultural system that gives meaning to the self and other and their relationship (Bruner, 1990). ENE is also consistent with the phenomenological stance discussed earlier in that empathic understanding is focused on the other’s experience (Clair et al., 2016) rather than a projection or simulation of the mind of the self. Through gathering multiple narratives and reflexive reading/listening and interpretation, empathy arises and allows the emergence of multiple viewpoints, which would be inaccessible otherwise. Empathy toward a collective other is constructed through the convergence of meanings and affects carried as well as produced in individual stories weaving together into a collective narrative of the other, the impact of which goes beyond a particular time and space.
So far, by reviewing and integrating empathy research from diverse disciplines, I have presented a social constructionist perspective of empathy as experienced and achieved in both synchronic and diachronic relational contexts. Building on this understanding, I propose empathic leadership practice in the following section in order to extend the constructionist theory of relational leadership.
Empathic leadership practice
Whereas the mind-based approach to empathy draws attention to the emotional trait of leaders or the expression of that trait, a social constructionist perspective of empathy directs our focus to leadership practice. In the rest of this section, I first articulate the ethics that motivates empathic leadership practice. I then situate the construction of empathy in the growing literature of leadership practice and explicate empathic leadership practice in synchronic and diachronic contexts.
The ethics of empathic leadership practice
Conceptualizing empathy as social practice necessitates the discussion of ethics. Three ethical concepts in particular undergird and motivate empathic leadership practice: (1) generosity (Diprose, 2002), (2) care (Nodding, 2013), and (3) responsibility (Levinas, 1969, 1998). All three concepts are rooted in the assumptions that human interaction and relationship are fundamental to human existence and that ethics only finds its value and meaning in practice within concrete relational context, instead of abstract deliberation of individual characters or universal principles. In the following, I briefly explain each in turn.
First, I draw on Diprose’s (2002) concept of generosity in her corporeal ethics, which has been taken up in organization studies in recent years (Hancock, 2008; Liu, 2017; Pullen and Rhodes, 2014). Generosity does not refer to an individual virtue or character, as in the Aristotelian virtual ethics, but ‘an openness to others . . . not the expenditure of one’s possessions but the dispossession of oneself, the being—given to others that undercuts any self-contained ego, that undercuts self-possession’ (Diprose, 2002: 4). Unlike the Aristotelian magnanimity, which is the result of reflective rational deliberation, generosity is pre-reflective, embodied, and ‘fundamental to human existence, sociality, and social formation’ (Diprose, 2002: 2). Diprose’s generosity, thus, resonates with the phenomenological understanding of empathy (Stein, 1989) in its primordial nature discussed earlier in this article. Generosity also denotes a prioritization of recognizing the other, with the assumption that the subjectivity is ‘never somehow finished or complete, but one which maintains both, at one and the same time, the integrity of self as well as an openness towards and responsibility for the enriching potentiality of the other’ (Hancock, 2008: 1365). Moreover, drawing on Derrida’s concept différance, Diprose (2002: 7) argues that generosity, although not intended for reciprocity, ‘puts the circle of exchange in motion’ in the continuous intersubjective definition of self-identity and difference because ‘if self-present identity is claimed in being given to the other, a debt to the other is incurred.’ Hence, generosity as the openness to the other forms an ethical condition for empathic leadership practice.
The second ethical perspective that motivates empathic leadership practice is the ethics of care (Gilligan, 1982; Mayeroff, 1971; Nodding, 2013), which articulates a caring attitude that is basic to the sustenance of relations and to the well-being of the one caring and the one cared for. Examples of its application in organization research can be found in the studies of corporate culture and decision-making (Hawk, 2011) and relational leadership for sustainability (Nicholson and Kurucz, 2019). According to Nodding (2013), morality has its basis in two sentiments: one is the ‘natural caring’ upon which we all depend to some degree and is ‘the natural state that we inevitably identify as “good”’ (chap. 2, p. 19); the second sentiment is one ‘in response to a remembrance of [natural caring]’ and ‘this memory of our own best moments of caring and being cared for sweeps over us as a feeling—as an “I must”—in response to the plight of the other and our conflicting desire to serve our own interests’ (chap. 4, p. 2). Thus, ethical caring builds on our natural caring and our memory of caring and being cared for (Nodding, 2013: chap. 4, p. 15). However, Nodding (2013) cautions that the attitude of ethical caring shall not be interpreted as a universal principle in an abstract sense, but has to be interpreted in each concrete relational context. The ‘I must’ is not a moral imperative but ‘a “must” born of desire . . . to be and to remain related’ (Nodding, 2013: chap. 4, pp. 4–5) with a specific other.
Furthermore, ethical caring as a relational concept involves both the one caring and the one cared for (Mayeroff, 1971) and for caring to be complete requires the fulfillment in both (Nodding, 2013: chap. 3, p. 10). In the context of empathy, to care for someone motivates one to empathize, while the feeling of being empathized is the feeling of being cared for. According to Nodding (2013: chap. 4, p. 16), such ‘completion in the other—the sense of being cared for’ has the potentiality of leading to ‘the renewed commitment of the cared-for to turn about to act as one-caring in the circles and chains within which he is defined.’ Thus, the ethics of care offers persuasive moral arguments that motivate empathic leadership practice, which could achieve a cascading and cyclical effect on both the empathizer (one caring) and empathized (one cared for).
Finally, Levinas’ (1998) responsibility for the other also motivates empathic leadership practice. The relational turn in leadership studies has already drawn growing attention to Levinas’ relational ethics (Grandy and Sliwa, 2017; Jones, 2014; Knight and O’Leary, 2006; Liu, 2017; Rhodes, 2012; Rhodes and Badham, 2018). Emanating from the phenomenological encounter with the other, the ethic of responsibility rests on a recognition of the infinite value of the other, whose consciousness cannot be reduced to, or totalized by, the self’s definition or knowledge (Jones, 2014; Levinas, 1969, 1998). The face of the other demands a unique response and obligation by the self, and each encounter shapes the identity of the self and transcends his or her relationship with the other (Jones, 2014; Levinas, 1969, 1998). According to Levinas (1985: 95), ‘the very node of the subjective is knotted in ethics understood as responsibility.’
To enact leadership as an ethical relationship defined by the responsibility for the other, social actors granted with authority in a bureaucracy are faced with the dilemma, however, between infinite ethical responsibility demanded in each encounter and ‘finite rationality that must make decisions about relative responsibilities to many others located in a complex and inegalitarian set of social relations’ (Rhodes and Badham, 2018: 79). To grapple with this dilemma, Rhodes and Badham (2018: 82) propose ethical irony that ‘recognizes incongruity and contradiction in human affairs, without allowing that incongruity to paralyze action’ and ‘enables incompatible ideas to be held simultaneously without demanding that one be sacrificed in the name of the others.’ I argue that empathic leadership practice has to precede and enables successful ironic performance because viewing leadership as infinite responsibility for the other in the context of many other others motivates empathic leadership practice as the means to understand the needs and wants in each one of the others and to create the right context in which an ironic performance (Rhodes and Badham, 2018) could take place, be appreciated by others as intended, and enable collective action.
Empathy construction as leadership practice
Founded on relational ethics, empathy construction is understood as leadership practice (Carroll et al., 2008; Crevani and Endrissat, 2016; Crevani et al., 2010; Raelin, 2016), for a few reasons. First, leadership is understood as the co-construction of organizational actors (Crevani and Endrissat, 2016). Empathic leadership practice involves interaction between leadership actors. Empathic meaning is emergent from co-construction or trans-action (Dewey and Bentley, 1960/1975; Simpson, 2016) fundamental to the realization of leadership agency as ‘ongoing coordinated accomplishment of work’ (Simpson, 2016: 173). Second, leadership is assumed to be processual, ‘not mechanically reversible and controllable’ (Crevani et al., 2010). Empathic leadership practice discussed below, hence is not intended to be a prescription of rote behavior but heuristic device or signpost in a conversational travel (Ramsey, 2016) to guide situated judgment on what to do in a continuous flow of interaction among leadership actors. Third, because of the incessant streams of conversation and narrative-making and interpretation that constitute the content of the lived experience of leadership (Barge and Fairhurst, 2008; Fairhurst, 2007; Jian, 2019), discursive practice is central to the development of empathic leadership practice.
Thus, building on the social constructionist approach to empathy and guided by relational ethics and a practice orientation toward leadership, I conceptualize empathic leadership practice in synchronic and diachronic contexts, respectively (see Table 2). In the synchronic context, empathic leadership practice refers to embodied conversational practice by which co-present leadership actors achieve an understanding of the other’s perspective and emotional state. In the diachronic context, it refers to narrative practice across time and space by which leadership actors facilitate the understanding of members of one social group toward a collective other’s perspective and emotional state. In the following, I explicate each in turn.
Empathic leadership practice.
Synchronic leadership practice of empathy
Synchronic leadership practice of empathy centers on the present moment of leadership. According to Jian (2019), a communicative view of leadership rests on an understanding of the present moment. In Greek terms, the present moment is known as kairos, which is ‘not simply a passing instant or a thin slice of time in the chronological order of events . . .’ but ‘the qualitative time, an opportune moment that demands the right action, particularly, the right time to communicate’ and ‘a moment pregnant with meaning to be recognized, captured, and interpreted’ (Jian, 2019: 94). In the unfolding present moment, I propose a sequence of communicative actions aimed at leading and relating through initiating an empathic cycle (Prior, 2017) and creating conditions of relating and connection (Fletcher, 2012) so that understanding and new experience can emerge through mutually constructed empathy. This sequence of actions includes: Attention → Question → Invitation → Connection (AQIC).
Empathy starts from attention so that leadership actors can recognize an empathic opportunity. Unlike such contexts as medical interviews (Beach and Dixon, 2001; Frankel, 2009) and counseling sessions (Rogers, 1975), where trouble talk is expected and where individual and institutional goals are relatively clear, the interactional contexts of organizational settings are often characterized by diverse, layered, and, sometimes, conflicting individual and organizational goals, and empathic opportunities may not be readily discernable. Attention by leadership actors should be motivated by an ethic of generosity to dispossess oneself (Diprose, 2002). To attend not only refers to a psychological cognitive orientation toward the other in the present moment, but, more importantly, an embodied communicative act through body posture, breathing, eye contact, and facial expression with an implicit message of ‘I care’ and ‘I want to know how you feel and to understand what you say and experience.’ Power as a relational force may obscure and unwittingly alter the view of the other into an object with utility value. In a hierarchical relational context, the self with more power has more influence in shaping the relational path and, thus, more responsibility for the powerless other. Thus, in that very interactional moment, relational leadership means to attend with generosity and care through intentional communicative actions of actively attending to the other so as to open a meaningful relational path with the other.
Following attention is question, which refers to the act of questioning oneself to achieve a heightened sense of awareness of, and orientation toward, the other and the social context. With self-reflexivity (Barge, 2004) at its center, questioning is sensitive to both the interpersonal and organizational contexts, the self’s contribution to the contexts, and one’s bodily experience. One’s attention to the present moment should raise such questions as, ‘What is going on at this moment?’ ‘What is the relational task at hand?’ ‘How is he/she feeling?’ ‘Will my relation of power with the other affect his/her feeling and response?’ By raising these questions, one is consciously drawing one’s own attention further to the contexts as well as the affective states of the other, and to appreciate the space between (Bradbury and Lichtenstein, 2000) in feeling, understanding, and power positions between oneself and the other. Doing so prevents reflex response or self-focused role taking, which tends to lead to egoistic concerns or what Hoffman (2001: 56) calls ‘egoistic drift.’
Fletcher (2012) argues that in relations with unequal power, the powerless is very sensitive to the wants and needs of the more powerful. It can be deduced that the powerless are more likely to recognize empathic opportunities when they arise. However, the disadvantaged power position may prevent the powerless from pursuing an empathic opportunity for fear of misinterpretation by the more powerful. Thus, it is crucial for the more powerful in a relationship to attend and to question in order to receive and be ‘engrossed in the other’ (Nodding, 2013: chap. 2, p. 4) and to recognize and pursue empathic opportunities.
Invitation means to invite the other into the space between (Bradbury and Lichtenstein, 2000), where mutual empathy could arise. According to Nodding (2013), a caring relationship involves both the one caring and the one cared for, while the one caring is also in the position of the one cared for. To invite is a leadership act because it exerts relational influence by actively positioning oneself in the role of caring as empathizer (one caring). To pursue an empathic opportunity as one caring, an invitation can be motivated by a sentiment of ‘I want’ (i.e. a state of natural caring) and/or ‘I must’ (i.e. an ethical ideal of self) (Nodding, 2013). One’s obligation to care cannot be decided by universal moral principles but has to be assessed in every concrete situation and with the value we place on maintaining one’s relatedness to the other (Nodding, 2013). As Rhodes and Badham (2018: 74) point out, in leadership contexts, the infinite demands of the other has to be balanced with the self’s ‘finite practice.’ Furthermore, to invite could also mean to invite empathy from the other by positioning the self as the one cared for. In a hierarchical organizational setting, to invite empathy by the more powerful empowers the powerless other and embodies openness to the other—the kind of generosity that begets reciprocity, although reciprocity is not expected (Diprose, 2002).
To invite is akin to Barge’s (2004: 84) invitational reflexivity, which is ‘associated with a shift from top-down monologic forms of communication to bottom-up and horizontal dialogic ways of talking.’ As empathizer (one caring), invitation can take the form of open-ended questions, for example, ‘please tell me how you are feeling’ or ‘please describe the situation for me from your point of view.’ Invitation can also take the form of conversational moves, such as vocal continuers and nods, demonstrating affiliation and alignment (Voutilainen et al., 2019). As the one being empathized (one cared for), invitation can start with sharing one’s own plight or dilemma and followed by an invitation to explore joint meaning making with the other.
In organizational settings, as mentioned earlier, power differentials as the result of administrative rank, seniority, or gendered positions may prevent the powerless party from accepting such an invitation, especially in situations of direct conflict. In such situations, empathic leadership practice may also involve inviting a trusted third party to mediate the empathic exchange, creating what Broome (2009) calls relational empathy so that an empathic tie is developed between the trusted third party and those in conflict.
Finally, the practice of connection follows invitation and refers to the communicative actions that involve listening to and sharing with the other by connecting words, emotion, and the situation, and arriving at an intersubjective understanding. At this stage, leadership as a concept may lose its potency because in an ideal space between, the influence on the meaning construction is mutual and reciprocal. However, in reality, hierarchical power relationship can distort communication (Deetz, 1992). In such situations, leadership takes the form of embodied conversational practices that help prevent or limit the distortion of communication and allow intersubjective meaning making to take place. An example of such a practice is formulation previously shown to be useful when applied in the context of medical settings (Beach and Dixson, 2001). Formulation refers to one party of the conversation acknowledging and re-presenting the content and meaning shared by the other in the preceding conversational turn, while displaying ‘non-judgmental sensitivity’ to the other’s concerns (Beach and Dixon, 2001: 38).
Overall, the synchronic leadership practice of empathy is about initiating an empathic cycle or establishing an empathic path so that mutual empathy can be achieved. Motivated by relational ethics (Diprose, 2002; Levinas, 1969, 1998; Nodding, 2013), leadership appears as embodied empathic conversational practices that influence the relational path and intersubjective meaning construction in the space between leadership actors. Although AQIC is presented here as a linear process, the actual practice could be iterative because, in an interactional episode, many empathic moments could take place and the roles of empathizer and empathized could switch back and forth. The effect of relating may not be reduced to any one empathic moment but the result of accumulation of multiple moments (Prior, 2017).
Diachronic leadership practice of empathy
Diachronic leadership practice of empathy is a narrative practice based on theories of narrative empathy (Clair et al., 2016; Keen, 2007) introduced earlier. Narrative practice is diachronic because narrative emplots past, present, and future into a meaningful storyline (Ricoeur, 1984) and can be constructed and shared across time and space. People make sense of their lived experience via narrative (Clair et al., 2016). In particular, moral scripts draw causal relationships between harm, distress, egoistic gain, guilt, and empathy (Hoffman, 2001). These scripts are in part narratively formed and deployed to constitute and shape empathy. When co-present interaction is rare or unavailable, the role of narrative is especially salient in the formation of empathy toward a collective other because the meaning and meaningfulness of the collective other’s perspective has no existence other than in the narrative that connects the collective identity of the self with the other. Such narrative helps construct and shape the sociocultural and historical contexts in which moral scripts are embedded that define the identity of the collective other and causally connect feelings like guilt and harm with empathy. Leadership scholars have given increasing attention to the role of leadership in the construction of sociocultural and political contexts (Fairhurst, 2009; Grint, 2005; Liu, 2017; Liu and Baker, 2016). Critical leadership research, such as Liu and Baker (2016), demonstrated the power of narrative among other discursive means in positioning a leader him/herself and collective others with the effect of perpetuating racial and political domination and control. Leadership practice of narrative empathy may create the opportunity to open the space for developing deeper understanding of the collective other, greater self-reflexivity, and change.
For leadership actors, to practice narrative empathy involves a series of actions. First, proactively collect multiple narratives, including counternarratives (Kuhn, 2017). For example, during organizational change, diverse views and emotions regarding change initiatives are often present in storylines (Sonenshein, 2010). Collecting counternarratives is the first step toward empathizing the opposing forces. Sonenshein’s (2010) analysis of organizational change narratives shows that both management and employee narratives are complex, defying the conventional unfreezing–moving–refreezing narrative (Lewin, 1947). For example, employee narratives can consist of both supportive and subversive meanings (Sonenshein, 2010). Thus, empathic leadership practice calls for proactive collection to capture such narrative complexity in order to unlock the narrative logics of the collective other.
Second, achieve understanding through empathic reading of narratives. One strategy that facilitates empathic reading proposed by Clair et al. (2016) is protagonist inversion, which is to take on the role of an antagonist and explore his/her stories. In the context of organizational change, for example, leaders of change often see themselves as the protagonists in their own storyline of change. Empathic leadership practice in this context means that leaders put themselves in the role of antagonist in order to understand the cause–effect and moral endpoint as emplotted in the storylines of counternarratives. Empathic reading helps diagnose points of contention, the narrative logic, and emotions of the opposite side, and therefore, motivates productive dialogue. For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the Executive Committee of the National Security headed by President John F. Kennedy deliberated to achieve an empathic understanding of the Soviet Union and its actions. At various points, members of the committee took on the perspective of the Soviets by exploring the various strands of historical narratives in order to gain their narrative logic (Jian, 2019).
Third, construct narratives that invite empathy. In the context of literary studies, Keen (2007: 68) argued that ‘character identification lies at the heart of readers’ empathy.’ Adapting from the literary context to organizational leadership context, leadership actors’ narrative construction should endeavor to allow members to see their roles and values represented in the narrative. A poignant vignette can be found in Orr and Bennett (2017: 520), who demonstrated how a story by a Chief Executive of a local government in the UK constructed empathic understanding toward ‘service users’ or ‘customers’ as a collective other and inspires action from government workers: I went round the building and said, “What are we going to try and do and why are we trying to do it?” And we talked about how many telephone calls get answered and all the rest, and I just told the story of my Grandmother. For a while, I lived with my Granny. She used to put her rent money behind the curtain on the window sill and the rent man would come in and he would take it, and if my Gran had a problem—if the gate needed fixing or something—she would tell the rent man. My Gran never rang up the council—the rent man was from the council, so why wouldn’t he sort it out? He was the council’s representative in her home. Absolutely right. And I was explaining to staff that I’d like to create the sort of organization where my Granny would be comfortable. Because we’ve all got this image of our grannies as being a little bit vulnerable but people who we cherish—“Just imagine it’s your Granny, think about it, design the service from her point of view.” So shortly after that we had Investors in People inspectors here and afterwards they said to me, “I’m sure you’ll get the accreditation, it looks very good and, by the way, what’s the story with your Granny? So many people have told me about your Granny!” And it’s interesting that folks don’t remember how many telephone calls they’re getting, but they remember the story about the Granny. It reaches, it touches them.
The “my Granny” story demonstrated the power of character identification in inviting understanding toward a collective other.
To invite empathy, character identification can also be achieved through what Jian (2019) called ‘polyphonic emplotment’ in narrative construction. Drawing on Bakhtin’s (1984) concept polyphony, Jian (2019) argues that leadership actors should engage diverse voices of their stakeholders in narrative making. Thus, the leadership role is one of artful orchestration instead of being the sole author of a narrative. Polyphonic emplotment offers a better chance for ‘character identification’ to achieve narrative empathy. Ospina and Foldy (2010: 297) offers an example in which, to enhance awareness of HIV and AIDS in the African American community, the Black AIDS Institute was engaged in leadership practice by ‘explicitly [working] with black journalists and media outlets to cover stories about the AIDS crisis in black communities’ and in so doing shifting the understanding toward AIDS in the African American community ‘from another’s problem to our problem.’
In summary, unlike the synchronic context where the direct experience with the other demands responsibility, the alterity of the collective other in the diachronic context is mediated through narrative. Thus, to achieve empathy, leadership appears in the intentional act and practice of narrative collection, interpretation, and construction.
Conclusion
In this article, I aim to conceptualize empathic leadership practice through a social constructionist approach to empathy as an alternative to the entitative leadership studies that focus on leader empathy traits. This conceptual development deepens our understanding of relational leadership. It also opens up space for future research that can enrich the constructionist view of relational leadership. In the rest of this article, I explain in detail its contributions and implications for research and practice.
First of all, the article makes a significant contribution to the constructionist theory of relational leadership (Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011; Fairhurst and Uhl-Bien, 2012; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Ospina and Uhl-Bien, 2012). Owing to the predominant view of empathy as a mind-based process, existing studies that take a constructionist approach to relational leadership have not given empathy much attention, in spite of its vital role in relating. By integrating empathy research previously strewn across diverse fields from philosophy (e.g. Zahavi, 2010, 2014) to communication and linguistics (e.g. Prior, 2017), the article offers a social constructionist view of empathy as an alternative. This development effectively draws attention away from the leader as the sole agent or owner of empathy, while directing our inquiry toward understanding leadership practice (Raelin, 2016) of empathy construction. Empathic leadership practice acknowledges the potential role of both leaders and members as agents of empathy while emphasizing the co-production of meaning in empathic processes. Unpacking leadership practice of empathy construction advances our understanding of relating in the space between (Bradbury and Lichtenstein, 2000).
Another advancement that this article brings to relational leadership is the broadening of the leadership contexts from relating to another person here and now to relating to a collective other across time and space. Previous research on the constructionist relational leadership perspective (e.g. Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Ospina and Uhl-Bien, 2012) focuses largely on the synchronic interpersonal context within a group or organization and on the lived interactional leadership experience. For example, Cunliffe and Eriksen’s (2011: 1446) case study demonstrated the achievement of relational leadership in ‘the flow of present moments’ of conversations. This article not only deepens our understanding of the leadership practice of empathy in the present moment but also complements it with the diachronic construction of empathy toward a collective other enabled by narrative practice. It can be argued that the diachronic leadership practice of empathy is becoming ever more important in today’s media and political environment, where self-selection of media exposure tends to insulate our existence (Geschke et al., 2019) and the perspective of a collective other is prone to caricaturization or stereotyping (Mastro, 2009). The leadership practice of narrative empathy that I propose in this article aims to provoke self-reflexivity and facilitate greater understanding of the collective other with whom we may not have opportunities to engage interpersonally on a routine basis but upon whom our leadership decision making may profoundly impact.
Third, the article also contributes to leadership practice in two ways. On the one hand, it adds to the growing body of literature on leadership-as-practice (Carroll et al., 2008; Crevani and Endrissat, 2016; Raelin, 2012, 2016). The meaning of practice here refers to the ‘immanent collective action’ and ‘emergent entanglements that tend to extend or transform meaning over time’ (Raelin, 2016: 3). Following this definition, constructing empathy is the very doing of leadership or what Simpson (2016) calls ‘trans-action’ through which new meanings emerge, not solely in a leader’s mind through cognitive projection or emotional simulation but through conversational and narrative practices in the space between self and other. Furthermore, the term practice is also employed here to refer to useful tools that leadership actors can apply to their unique relational contexts (Fletcher, 2012). In this article, the AQIC action sequence provides leadership actors with practical guidance on leading by constructing empathy in the present moment of social interaction, while the diachronic practices could be particularly instrumental when leadership decision making can benefit from the perspective of a collective other outside one’s group or organizational boundaries. Focusing on meaning making, these practical tools go beyond the usual suggestion of enhancing one’s emotional intelligence or controlling one’s emotional expression commonly prescribed by entitative leadership studies of empathy (e.g. Gentry et al., 2015). Moreover, it should be noted that empathic leadership practice is not driven by a utilitarian purpose through controlling or manipulating the individual or collective other but motivated by the ethics of generosity (Diprose, 2002), care (Nodding, 2013), and responsibility (Levinas, 1969, 1998), as I elucidated earlier. The firm grounding in ethics is another contribution this article makes to the existing scholarship of empathy vis-a-vis leadership.
Fourth, this article offers a conceptual base on which future empirical work on empathic leadership practice could be launched. Such empirical inquiries can proceed in three directions. First, studies can center on the synchronic conversational process and examine how empathic opportunities emerge and are recognized, pursued or closed off by leadership actors, how hierarchical power relations function to enable and/or inhibit empathy construction, and how empathy construction affects the relational dynamic and the progression of the task at hand. Second, empirical work can also focus on the diachronic narrative process and examine how empathy of a collective other is achieved through narrative collection, interpretation, and construction by leadership actors and how empathy achieved through narrative work influences decision making with impact on the collective other. Finally, future inquiry should empirically investigate and conceptualize the process that connects the synchronic and diachronic construction of empathy vis-a-vis leadership. In the synchronic context, each conversation constitutes a larger relational narrative that extends across time and space, which in turn provides context for the next conversation (Jian, 2019; Taylor and Van Every, 2000). On the other hand, narrative production and interpretation of a collective other often takes place in conversation among a collective self. Understanding how leadership emerges in the interwoven practices of conversational and narrative construction of empathy may lead us to a richer and more comprehensive theory of relational leadership.
In conclusion, this article advances relational leadership theory by conceptualizing empathic leadership practice founded on a social constructionist approach to empathy and relational ethics. I hope that the conceptual work on empathy construction helps illuminate and deepen our understanding of leadership as ‘a way of being-in-the-world’ (Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011: 1445) characterized by intersubjectivity and responsibility.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to Gail Fairhurst for her feedback on an earlier version of this article. I would also like to extend my thanks to Associate Editor Helena Liu and the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful guidance throughout the review process.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
