Those who can’t do, teach! Just very poorly
Many people have been quoted as saying versions of this, but Maya Angelou is probably the most recognizable person to have said “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”
She said it in 2003 which was only a handful of years after University of Toronto researcher, Dr. Wendy Levinson, published her study about why some doctors get sued for malpractice far more often than others.[1] What made the study particularly interesting is that doctors who had never been sued didn’t give higher quality information, didn’t make significantly less mistakes nor did they give more information about the medication they were prescribing. But the ones who had never been sued did these four things differently:
- They spent an average of three minutes longer with patients (18.3 minutes against 15 minutes)
- They gave “orientating” instructions so patients would know that after the examination they would have the chance to ask questions or talk about their problem
- They practiced active listening and encouraged deeper explanations from the patient about their problem
- They were more likely to laugh and have a sense of humour during the visit
A Gallup poll[2] on workplace engagement found the impact of a manager who was empathetic – not having above average empathy, but just regular old empathy – found employees were less likely to call in sick and more likely to stay at their job longer. Which is big business considering, according to the study, employee turnover can cost $25,000 to $100,000 and absenteeism can cost upwards of $9,000 per employee per year.
Kevin Durant is one of the greatest players in the NBA today and despite his sometimes snarly attitude in the press, other professional basketball players clamour to play with him? It makes you wonder why that could be.
In the 2013/2014 season, Kevin Durant, then a member of the Oklahoma Thunder won the league MVP. The award was given to him during an off-day during the first round of the playoffs and even though there was no game that day, fans packed the arena. What made the day special was who he chose to thank and what he said when thanking them. The average NBA MVP recipient thanks six people during their acceptance speech[3]. Kevin Durant thanked 42 people and took almost 20 minutes to let them know how he appreciated them and understood the pressure they were under being part of an NBA franchise.
Empathy. It keeps you from getting sued, it helps the bottom line and it draws the best of the best to you.
Unfortunately Edwin Friedman, in his book A Failure of Nerve, thinks empathy is standing in the way of great leadership.
It’s somewhat forgivable as A Failure of Nerve was published in 2007. Friedman passed away in 2006 but if he had lived through the COVID-19 pandemic, would he dedicate a chapter to the fallacy of empathy? Maybe he still would because his argument that empathy has no place in leadership is based on it existing in hostile environments[4] and uses single cell organisms as an example of for how thriving must take place. Appreciating that it is an analogy, it’s a stretch to compare the dynamics of a workplace and the effectiveness of leadership to that of a malignant cell.
Friedman suggests the great myth is that empathy prevents others from growing themselves because it takes responsibility from them [5] and in particular he cannot understand parents who cannot make consistent stands against a misbehaving child[6]. Ah, spoken like someone who themselves has no capacity for empathy.
Those who can’t do, teach! I suppose.
Curious to what studies or research he had done to base this claim on I went to the back of the book for a bibliography. There is none. Surely he must have cited a few scholars or other leaders after noting the word empathy only came into the English lexicon in the past 100 years where as sympathy and compassion have been around for over 400 and millennia respectively. But no. There is nothing other than his fairly impressive resume including 25 years as a marriage therapist and having served in the Johnson administration.
Empathy is a disguise for weakness, anxiety and the rationalization of failure, he writes and you cannot have empathy when you should be “promoting responsibility for self in another through challenge.” But it’s simply not true. As Levinson, Gallup and Durant have proven, empathy is a key ingredient to having nerve as a leader.
Questions to ask myself:
- This book is well reviewed online and has had several editions published, did I miss the mark on something here? Did I get it wrong?
- Do I overextend or am I going too “all-in” on empathy and its importance?
- Do I want to be someone who, when in a situation believes empathy is called for, opts not to practice it?
- If so, am I actually failing of nerve?
- Is Bené Brown actually a big, stinking liar who leverages our emotions to sell a few books?
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/414233
[2] https://www.gallup.com/workplace/351545/great-resignation-really-great-discontent.aspx
[3] https://leadingwithnice.com/the-significance-of-kevin-durants-mvp-award-acceptance-speech/
[4] A Failure of Nerve, page 147
[5] page 143
[6] page 152
About the Author
Mathieu Yuill
While raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens may be a few of Julia Andrews' favourite things, here are a few of mine: Talking to strangers, Learning about what you do for fun, Conversation over coffee. I own a marketing and communications company in Toronto, Canada called Leading With Nice. There are a lot of names I could have given the company but a trusted friend encouraged me to name it that because I really value the humanness in us all. Bah - this is starting to sound like a horrible LinkedIn post. So whatever, let's have coffee. I'd love to hear about what you do for fun!19 responses to “Those who can’t do, teach! Just very poorly”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Matthew, it was fun reading your well written commentary.
I suppose that Jason Clark selected this book because of the critical stir that this would cause.
Yesterday in our group interview some of our cohort saw it as the best book so far. They admitted that some of the methods, taken to extreme, would be detrimental. However, they focused on Friedman’s call to be a “differential leader.”
Apparently, in several Christian organizations, consensus building is taken to an unproductive extreme. Making decisions, apparently, is lacking.
Upon reviewing the book, I determined that it was important to state up front that one had to “agree to disagree.”
Friedman apparently likes to poke people in the eye when he said that empathy is a power tool in the hands of the weak against the strong. I actually laughed out loud. He wants a reaction and I presume that such inflammatory statements, to his family therapy clients, gives him a reaction that he uses to dig deeper to come to the “family” issues.
Abrasive, but perhaps, since he has such a following, he is effective. His comments strike a cord in many who need to be less empathatic and more decisive.
But what do I know, apparently I am the only person on earth who never heard of Bené Brown”
You know Russell, that could be exactly it, that is is an agent provocateur. But if that’s the case then I’ve discovered I am simply not inspired by his method of motivation and inspiration.
He does indeed have quite the following. He is also known, apparently, for his one line “zingers,” that can be found on almost every page of the 10th anniversary edition of the book I have. It was included to pay homage for his knack for a perfectly timed one-liner, the editor wrote in the forward.
Bené Brown has some really great research around empathy which is why I think she was mentioned so much this week. You should check out her TED talk, it has some really great clarity on what empathy is and when it’s appropriate.
This is what I love about this program in general, and this blogging/replying format, specifically. My blog this week addressed a couple aspects, one of which was the empathy topic that Friedman highlighted. I took his side on it – to a degree. I admitted that I’m not a Brene Brown fan (I know, heresy!).
My take away from his position is that empathy has been given an “outsized” place in leadership circles. Perhaps the key here is in what you referred to as “just regular old empathy.” In a similar fashion, I wonder if a number of things have gotten “outsized” in our current culture (ie: cancelling, wokeness, inclusion, etc). I’m not advocating one way or another for these, but rather just mentioning some “hot topics” that I believe have a kernel of value and truth, but have been elevated to an outsized status.
Just thinking out loud.
Good work Mathieu. I love your critical thinking!
I agree with all I have read here, so far. And, I love the post, Matt!
Russell also said in our time yesterday that he believed that Friedman to be “intentionally provocative…” an idea which I think has some merit. It reminds me of another leadership guru who I know personally that seems to capitalize on shock factor. That being said, I do see there being a truth tucked away in his abrasive approach, and I wonder if you would all agree: can you have too much empathy? Is there a point with empathy switches to codependency?
Also, I have two Brenee Brown books that were gifted to me which I have not opened. Both are “Dare to Lead;” perhaps the gifters were also offering me a hint? Russell, they are yours if you want one.
I’m fairly confident you received Bené Brown books as a gift because while her message and teachings are great, they are also like sugar: they make us feel great in the moment. So it’s more likely someone heard her message and is wanting to share that high with people and not that you are an unaware, low emotional-intelligence muppet.
I too agree there is a small morsel of truth buried in Friedman’s message but wow, what a horrible delivery method. A friend of mine was at the dentist having a root canal. The dentist noticed an odd growth on his skin and suggested he have it checked out as it might be serious. It was, he addressed it and now he’s fine.
So like my friend who was able to address his skin condition but had to get a root canal to do it, Friedman makes us read his tripe to get a message that could have been delivered in much more pleasing way.
It would be hard to disagree that in some situations empathy has been given more airtime than it should have. I teach part-time (one class a week) and the amount of times through a semester I am asked for reprieve from homework or an assignment because of “mental health considerations,” gives me pause and worry for the state of our future.
However, isn’t excess of anything not good? In 2023, my suspicion is because of the era you and I grew up in with putting in long hours at work and prioritizing fortune over family, the polarity has swung too far towards empathy in leadership. However this does not warrant a full chapter with such decisive language.
I admired the term Outsizing. So true.
Good Leaders strive for balance.
Balance is something that has eluded me for years. Thanks for reminding me.
Shalom…Russ
Thank you for sharing your thinking about Friedman’s idea around the fallacy of empathy. My initial reaction to Friedman’s writings on empathy sided more on the “aghast” side of reacting. Thinking, how can he say that? We must have empathy as leaders! Friedman states, “The kind of “sensitivity” that leaders most require is a sensitivity to the degree of chronic anxiety and the lack of self-differentiation in the system that surrounds them. The development of that ability requires that they self-regulate their own reactive mechanisms and that they muster the stamina to define themselves continually to those who lack such self-regulation” (page 146). . . I wonder if he is not denying that we MUST have empathy as leaders but we must be equally aware of how we engage with that empathy, both in ourselves and others? I know in my own experiences there have been times when I, with empathy and good intentions (not fully realizing to what degree I was taking on their emotion), that I enabled others in a destructive pattern of thinking instead of a way of thinking that led them to self-awareness and growth. One example that comes to mind is when I have engaged in “system bashing” that seemed to go nowhere except heightened the emotion in all involved, leaving all persons feeling more hopeless (confession). How do we listen and have empathy in a way that promotes healing and progress in the person we are empathizing with? What are your thoughts?
Cathy, this is exactly the problem with Friedman’s delivery. You have to wonder if there’s more behind the curtain or if there is a nuance to his message that only the enlightened can decipher.
I’m going to suggest this is a case of Occam’s Razor. Friedman was a crotchety old man who wanted people to behave like he wanted them too. Probably because of his outsized ego (to steal a Jennifer Vernam phrase) and because he had earned notoriety and a following, it gave him license to publish it.
Unfortunately we’re left to untangle the parables of a man not fit to give them.
First, don’t be hatin’ on Brene Brown. (Also, I know you were not hating on her…just asking a question based on some of Friedman’s work on empathy.)
I may butcher this as I am still working on processing Friedman’s claims about empathy but as I understand it he was saying leaders need to “have the nerve” to stand firm in the midst of people’s emotional anxiety and reactivity. This does not mean that leaders don’t feel for someone who is going through something difficult. A “good” leader stays connected to the system (the people being led), perhaps listening well, showing care for, being present to, but does not get emeshed in the emotional anxiety circling through the air. The leader is still able to lead, still able to see the way forward and while acknowledging the pain of others, rise above it enough to move the system forward.
I appreciated the reminder from Friedman that compassion is to “suffer with” which is what I think a leader can do – suffer alongside – but still knowing where the other ends and she begins, not losing herself in the suffering of the other so much that she cannot stand firm in who she is and where she is leading the system.
Now, to be honest – that response was me trying to work out my own words around this so feel free to ignore, critique, wonder with me……
Kally, I think if you twist his message into something palpable then you would arrive at what you have suggested. But he didn’t say what you did.
Fortunately you are very smart and thoughtful so you can interpolate his musings into something valuable for consumption, something a reasonable person would hear and think to themselves, “I’m going to spend some time mulling this preposition over in my head.” But the mental gymnastics the average reader would have to get to in order to come to the same conclusion you did; most of us just aren’t gifted the way you are.
First, Matthew, I really appreciate your clear and critical writing. Thanks for provoking me to thought, even if ultimately we disagree.
I want to build a bit on Kally’s response. I think that Friedman seems to to be advocating for sensitive, caring, personable, compassionate leadership that can feel and suffer with followers, just not empathetic leadership.
I wonder if we’re all defining empathy in different ways.
If empathy is “to project ones own person into the skin of another to better understand their delimma” (145) it seems your example of a doctor who doesn’t get sued and Kevin Durant could both be, in my view, non-empathetic, but otherwise very caring people.
In my leadership it seems the closer I “identify” with the pain of the people I lead the less desire or ability I will have to lead them in hard ways.
Let me turn it around: If you are my leader and I really hate something you are doing as a leader, maybe even something hurtful (but not harmful) for me, but that is ultimately best for the organization or helps me take personal responsibility that causes me growth, but you identify with me so much that you feel my pain the same way I do, I don’t know that you will make the hard decision (because as the one in pain, I might not). It seems the higher the empathy, the less we will have clear, strong, self-differentiated leadership that creates an environment for growth.
If the doctor who has a great bedside manner, listens well and spends more time with me (all good) empathizes too much, I’m concerned she may not do what is necessary, but painful, for my healing.
But maybe I’m wrong. It’s worth the discussion and disagreement for us to discern the way forward here. I think what we are talking about is important.
Tim, you raised some very interesting points in this response and in your post this (which I really enjoyed). In your example of the doctor empathizing too much, you referred to the doctor as “she”. Have you had this experience with a female Physician? Do you see this as being more of a female leadership trait? I am also wondering if you think the empathy and skill can co-exist as traits of an effective leader.
Jonita thanks for asking that.
I don’t think empathy is a female leadership trait… I have made the commitment to defer primarily or first to using “she” when speaking about leaders in the third person because I believe in men and women leaders and feel the language has for too long deferred to men, first. So it’s a small way of expressing a value.
Thanks for your response Tim. Like those before you who want to jump on the Friedman train of condescension, you are forced to explain, put in your own words and ultimately come up with your own hypothesis about what Friendman is saying.
In the end you ask me a question that is not based in the book we read but from your own leadership thinking! I would definitely buy a book written by you that is asking that question. But for now, no. I’m not going to waste more time discussing not Friedman’s book.
However, I do really like your question so definitely in Oxford, we can bend some elbows and wag our jaws discussing your very thoughtful and insightful question.
Mathieu,
I likewise had trouble with Friedman’s use (or misuse) of the term empathy. I generally agree with the vast majority of his book and what he is trying to address in our society. However, he unfortunately creates an unnecessary issue by choosing to let society define the term ’empathy’ (ironic that he lets society determine the definition?). He writes on page 146 that he is more interested in how the term empathy is being used now (in a presumable un-healthy way) than the actual definition itself, and this weakens his book in my view.
I still agree with his overall premise, I just disagree with how he chose to get there. More thoughts on this on my own blog post…
Your thinking parallels what I concluded from his book. But his message is unclear and as others have pointed out, his agent provocateur approach leading us to whatever thinking he would like is ineffective. Proof in the amount of debate about what he was meant to have said versus agreement on what he actually said.
His argument about the brevity empathy has been in the modern English language was laughable to me. It enforced an idea that Friedman lived a life of Western privilege where ideas that enter our lexicon only then have merit. Because the word did not exist before the early 1900s does not mean it did not actually exist. Which is the point I would like to make: one of his pillars was that the word empathy was co-opted from a German phrase that was meant to describe a way we be pulled into understanding art. So therefore, empathy amongst leaders must be a problem.
Oh my.
Empathy can exist with professionalism and skill…I believe that a leader with an empathetic heart can make healthy decisions. I think Friedman misses it with this view of empathy and leadership.
Btw…. I’m #TeamBreneBrown!
Really like the genuine response to this book. Respect the honesty. Although, I did love a lot of this book, I always enjoy some critical analysis and different perspectives. Even thought you weren’t feeling it, especially his content on empathy, I respect the last bit of your posts.
The value for me regarding Edwin’s empathy bits was his emphasis on “displacement”. When empathy causes a person, I’m guilty, to begin making excuses for “toxic” behaviors (I would define “toxic” as something that continually hurts oneself or the community in negatives ways) its been overextended. To push empathy to the side altogether would be a no go for me. Empathy moves me to action to help others.
Appreciate the honesty and willingness to challenge the content.