What’s [Empathy], But a Second-Hand Emotion?
Edwin Friedman’s work A Failure of Nerve offers a paradigm shift in the approach to healthy leadership. Responding to the cultural inflation of empathy, Friedman suggest that healthy systems are cultivated by self-differentiated leaders who value maturity over data, instinct over technique and individual responsibility over empathy. Undifferentiated leaders perpetuate systems of anxiety, reactivity, and triangulated homogeneous togetherness – ultimately these systems appeal to the “squeaky wheel,” rarely develop their potential, and eventually meltdown. Near the end of the book, Friedman writes on emotional triangles, which bring stability and substance to systems enduring a leadership vacuum. He suggests that leaders, “[…] use their symptoms (desires, heightened drives, imbalanced impulses) as early warning signals that they are in an emotional triangle […]” (223). These emotional triangles are an indicator that the system is not orbiting an ethos of differentiation, but enmeshment parading as empathy.
I agree with Friedman’s assessment of empathy broadly speaking. In different words he writes that differentiated leadership can seem authoritarian to a system whose highest value is empathy. Yet he distinguishes differentiation from. Friedman uses the term self the way Jungian psychoanalysis use the term ego. A well differentiated ego promotes systemic health and makes room for others, which is the opposite of an undifferentiated egotistical narcissist who obliterates others in order to compensate for his weak center. I am curious what Friedman would say about the role of community and accountability in the ongoing work of differentiation for leaders. It seems differentiation is not a point one reaches, but a way one commits oneself to in the context of vulnerable, challenging, and relatively safe community. However, if a leader approaches differentiation as an arrival point, curiosity dies and the system regresses into an unevolved anxious-togetherness. This is a common archetypal pattern where the grassroots charismatic leader rises to the level of demigod and outgrows self-reflection, collective critique, and becomes over differentiated. It seems over-differentiation in leadership results in indifference toward the needs of its members. Perhaps this is at the root of Westerners collective skepticism of leadership.
I am drawn particularly toward Friedman’s work around the role of empathy in systems. It seems Friedman associates the heightened need for empathy with the collective masses, and that leaders must resist the temptation to employ empathy where a call toward responsibility and challenge is needed. This is valid in many cases, but my experiences has often been that leaders, particularly white, male, Christian leaders, use empathy as a “power tool” to manipulate underlings toward stasis, maintain power, and avoid change. Friedman writes, “[…] empathy may be a luxury afforded only to those who do not have to make tough decisions. For “touch decisions” are decisions the consequences of which will be painful to others” (137). I agree in theory, but many leaders and decision makers in systems built around persona-restoring Christian values (values that are culturally accepted as “Christian” but are not substantiated by scripture, reason, or healthy sociology) have the luxury of avoiding conflict thereby dispersing anxiety toward their members. When this is done, leaders are able to lead with a feigned empathy that perpetuates the anxious system and gaslights those who feel alternative decisiveness is needed.
I know of one such leader who cries each time he has to make a hard decision. Reflection from former underlings collaborates that tears, coming from such a place of authority, manipulate the situation in such a way that those receiving hard feedback are made to choose between caretaking or responding coldly to their supervisor. Leaders who cultivate this kind of organization typically create workflows and reporting structures that keep them oblivious to the cultural anxiety by deflecting it back down the reporting chain. Friedman speak extensively of saboteurs who seek to dismantle and discredit leadership, and even goes as far as to say that these attempts are a sign of the differentiation process is working. However, I’ve also seen this as a sign of indifference toward injustice, birthed out of a desire to maintain the status quo, stay in the womb of togetherness and avoid curiosity, imagination and the possibility of “new land.”
Friedman’s work informs and substantiates my work around the need for shadow integration and the archetype of initiation. At a high level he confirms the need for wholistic formation among leaders. Talent acquisition within Christian circles is often bias toward charisma, technique and empathy, values which perpetuate anxious systems. Those promoted to places of leadership with such systems have the rocket busters to achieve thrust, but rarely do they have the presence to lead for the long-haul. Leaders who learned to play the game of capitalism must return to their unpopular shadows and integrate them – what the ego has segregated must be reintegrated for the purpose of differentiation. Those who have been promoted due to their harmonious nature must learn to have healthy conflict, and those who have been rewarded for their tears must learn to make hard decisions and live with the consequences. Jungians call this individuation – the state of being fully differentiated yet fully present to one’s world.
About the Author
Michael Simmons
- Tennessee --> Oregon - Father to David and Bina, Partner to Liz - Portland Seminary Admissions Counselor - Spiritual Director - Companioning Center Leadership Team - Deep Water Board Member - Ordained Elder, FMC - Aspiring Jungian Theologian16 responses to “What’s [Empathy], But a Second-Hand Emotion?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A well written review Michael and this round you get the award for having the best title. I was also drawn to his development of empathy. I’ve read a lot of books on leadership and management, but none of them talk about empathy in the way Friedman does. It caused me to stop and think about my personality and style of leadership.
Troy, I gladly accept this award! My favorite thing about blogging is creating the title 🙂
I work on a team that is highly empathetic. It’s exhausting. It’s like there’s no edge because everyone is feeling what others are feeling and highly undifferentiated. Empathy has to be like a faucet that can turn on and off or it floods a community.
“Those who have been promoted due to their harmonious nature must learn to have healthy conflict, and those who have been rewarded for their tears must learn to make hard decisions and live with the consequences.” I think one of the most significant obstacles for congregations is avoiding conflict or making difficult decisions.
I served a congregation that wrung their hands for nine months with an employee that time and time again failed to work the expected hours and responsibilities, undetermined the staff’s development, sabotaged the pastor, and undercut the weekly worship experience. But the congregation was more concerned with what it would look like to the community than what indecision was doing to the church, staff, and pastor.
Also, I’d love to hear more on this: “…but my experiences has often been that leaders, particularly white, male, Christian leaders, use empathy as a “power tool” to manipulate underlings toward stasis, maintain power, and avoid change.”
Image seems to be a huge motivator for a church unconscious of its capitalistic DNA. Because capitalism is the assumed economic structure in the West, a church has to work against this assumed in order to be mirror it. The failure of nerve I see is one that makes decisions based on branding image, and investor satisfaction. Of course this mentality is wrapped in a few layers of spiritual language so it’s not questioned, but the whole system wreaks of anxiety.
One of my senior pastors always said his top strength was harmony. It most surely presented as his greatest weakness, as one staff person manipulated him time and again. He could not confront this staff person, until so many people came forward or left. When he did confront her, her cancerous ways were so ingrained that she took a number of families with her. His harmony appeased this staff person, but wounded so many others. Ultimately it was his unconscious way of avoiding conflict and choosing himself over others. A judgement that seems unthinkable because of how harmonious he seemed.
Michael, great thoughts. It would be fun to sit over a beer and have this conversation. There is a lot to unpack here, and I am particularly interested to learn more from your perspective.
I also loved this comment: “Leaders who learned to play the game of capitalism must return to their unpopular shadows and integrate them – what the ego has segregated must be reintegrated for the purpose of differentiation.” I really believe you are spot on. Sadly, this seems to be a missing reality among many leaders. And truth be told, I’m not sure those following these leaders want to even admit that they have some shadows.
Eric! I would love that man. Yeah I feel there can be a real unholy marriage between pastor and parishioner when the parishioner projects their imago dei onto the pastor and the pastor, unconscious of their projection, receives the Christ-likeness as his own. It never leads to any real transformation, and always ends poorly.
Michael, I always feel like I learn something new when I read your posts. The parallels you make between Freidman and Jung are very interesting. I was struck by “However, if a leader approaches differentiation as an arrival point, curiosity dies and the system regresses into an unevolved anxious-togetherness.” Such a great insight into what the end destination is when it comes to Friedman’s view on leadership. Thanks for another thought-provoking post.
Kayli, Thanks for picking that one out. There is such an emphasis on arrival in many understandings of sanctification, OR a deemphasis on formation in general. I feel for Christian leaders who have to exclude so much of themselves because cultural theology values destination over pilgrimage.
Michael this is such an excellent analysis of Friedman. I especially like your observation that “… differentiation is not a point one reaches, but a way one commits oneself to in the context of vulnerable, challenging, and relatively safe community.” I think that agrees with Paul’s comments in Philippians 3 that, regardless of his spiritual maturity and vast ministry experience, he has not yet “arrived.” Hopefully we all will adopt that stance and make ourselves accountable to a loving, caring, wise, courageous and sincere spiritual community that will journey with us in our leadership.
Henry, that is a great connection with Paul’s words. So much is made of Christ being “truth” but we forget his way and his life. Our post-enlightenment culture has to work extra hard to remain on the pilgrimage of life rather than settling for the ego-narratives of truth.
Michael, I will join the masses in quoting something specific from your great post: “It seems over-differentiation in leadership results in indifference toward the needs of its members. Perhaps this is at the root of Westerners collective skepticism of leadership.” As my project centers on digital natives, I wondered how Friedman’s work would sound to an emerging culture looking for a mentor more than a boss. How would he recommend sharing the hard things with a generation that, generally speaking, has a hard time hearing it? I guess that’s something todays leaders need to do well if we are going to help raise up a new generation of leaders.
Roy, thank you for pulling this quote out. I hadn’t quite found the words that your question gives voice to, so thank you. I think of the role of elders in rites of passage and initiations. I think differentiation is important here, because there is a “ritual wounding” required in that role. Empathy must come second to differentiation. We’ve lost almost all rites of passage in western culture, and elders are either highly detached or overly enmeshed. I think emerging adults need who bridge this gap.
Michael, your statement, “Responding to the cultural inflation of empathy” immediately made me smile because it took me awhile of processing Friedman before I got it!
I understand your critique of white, male use of empathy. It’s funny though, based on your example, I would not say they are employing empathy but attempting to manipulate the empathy of others. It seems Friedman would call those “leaders” non self-differentiated, and using togetherness to illicit others to join together…or that they are a vain glory autocrat.
When I read the Mental Health section starting on page 116 I immediately thought of you and your passion for Jung. I wrote a note asking what Jung would say about this section in relation to the “shadow self”?
It is clear you have a call to love and honor all people. You have a beautiful heart. Would Friedman encourage you to be careful with your empathy? What difference would that make to your own self-differentiation?
Ooo Nicole! Bringing it here 🙂 That’s a really good reframing actually. The leaders I’m thinking of certainly are highly unconscious empaths. By that I mean their empathy controls their actions and the threats to control the actions of others for the purpose survival and self-preservation. Certainly differentiation is needed from leaders like these. I think Friedman seems to avoid the realities of power differential. When a leader employees empathy to manipulate followers a certainly level of agency is negated. The only response that seems to work has been physical space in the form of quitting. Would love to chat through this one more with you!
Michael, you make a number of interesting comparisons of the extremes that can be seen in Friedman’s writing. I hear you saying that the level of self-differentiation we ought to strive toward is one of balance that is found in being present in the process. I too would love to continue this conversation, but over a cup of coffee. I’m not much of a beer drinker.
Michael, thank you for this thought-provoking post, and thank you to our cohort and you for a very interesting conversation regarding different parts of your post and connections with other NPOs.
This point grabbed my attention the most: “I am curious what Friedman would say about the role of community and accountability in the ongoing work of differentiation for leaders. It seems differentiation is not a point one reaches, but a way one commits oneself to in the context of vulnerable, challenging, and relatively safe community.” I’d love to sit-in on that conversation with Friedman. Sharing the journey with trusted others also committed to growing up in their character and leadership practice has been so key for me. I’m curious how this community dynamic is part of the NPO you have in mind?