On Performative Empathy
Part three of five in a series co-written with DiMitri Higginbotham.
Empathy has become a business buzzword, which is more than likely the fault of Design Thinking’s success. Organizations looking to be innovative tout that they are using empathy to connect with their customers, clients, and users. We question if that empathy is really happening.
Empathy is foundational to the success of Design Thinking, as it drives moments of elation or “ah-ha’s”. We believe that empathy: a) requires a more objective definition, b) is often subject to hand-waving, and c) is rarely applied to our peers.
To truly empathize is to understand someone else's viewpoint, thoughts, and feelings. To put yourselves “in their shoes”. Empathy sounds and feels good, as though by using a magic word, we establish a meaningful connection. The actual intent and practice of empathy is more complex than most think.
More often than not, we have observed performative empathy. Feeling sorry for those you design for, or even worse, reinforcing stereotypes. Performative empathy can lead to savior complexes and solving the wrong problems (more on that later). As we’ve talked about before, “words matter”, and the way we use the term empathy is crucial for understanding the value design can provide.
Just as Design Thinking is not a workshop, authentic empathy is not a survey. There are no shortcuts
Definitions
A better framework for what is actually happening is what we call the S.E.C., or Sympathy-Empathy-Compassion, scaffold. Each of these words has a slightly different definition, and we believe that an understanding of these definitions connect practitioners to their students, clients, and colleagues. We refer to Merriam-Webster's dictionary to provide some context
Sympathy is a feeling of sincere concern for someone who is experiencing something difficult or painful.
Empathy involves actively sharing in the person’s emotional experience…
Compassion adds to the emotional experience of sympathy with an urgent desire to alleviate the person’s distress. (Miriam-Webster 2024)
Merriam-Webster can only take us so far. We provide further clarification with an anecdote about a sick pet.
Sympathy: I’m sorry your cat is sick.
Empathy: I’m sorry your cat is sick. You must feel awful. I once had a sick puppy, and I understand you might be feeling distraught.
Compassion: I’m sorry your cat is sick. You must feel awful. I once had a sick puppy, and I understand you might be feeling distraught. Would you like a ride to a vet that I highly recommend?
Think of S.E.C. as a build-up of understanding. The ultimate goal of sympathy and empathy for design thinking should be to get to a place of compassion. Combining sympathy and empathy drives thoughtful solutions and a pathway to actionable change. When design thinking practitioners use research as a way to build SEC, they will be able to deliver without developing a design savior complex. When design thinking practitioners use design thinking. Play-pump is an excellent example of a design savior complex.
PlayPump
PlayPump failed because proper consideration wasn’t given to the culture served. Children from Mozambique had no historical reference (or inclination) to push or jump onto a spinning wheel or hold on until the momentum stopped. Additionally, using child’s play as a means of manual labor raised ethical questions. Consequently, fixtures went unused, and in many cases, villagers removed the PlayPumps in favor of the original water pumps that had been replaced.
This is a clear example of how design thinking—even driven by the best intentions—can and will fail in the absence of critical thinking and empathy that considers all facets (cultural, environmental, and more) and asks pertinent questions from concept to delivery. Just as Design Thinking is not a workshop, authentic empathy is not a survey.
In Practice
Authentic empathy is a remarkable thing, yet it is difficult to pin down. Authentic empathy impacts decision-making by requiring practitioners to ask the right questions of the right people at the right times. Just as Design Thinking is not a workshop, Authentic Empathy is not a survey. The tactics are not the frameworks or the outcomes.
Performative empathy can manifest in a few ways, many of which you have likely witnessed. Eye-rolling and hand-waving are physical displays. On Zoom/WebEx/Meet/Teams/ you can feel it when someone is checked out, and if you look closely enough we can all spot multitasking. Performative focus is a close sibling to performative empathy; sometimes they work together.
Effective facilitators of a meeting, activity, or workshop can detect performative empathy. Lack of engagement is a sign, but not the sign, as some people are better than others at faking genuine engagement.
Performative Empathy can result in a great Design Thinking project falling flat. What we have observed is that Design can overpower the conversation, resulting in a compelling future vision that won’t go beyond a Figma prototype. A Design Thinking workshop can lack an outcome or next steps due to a lack of authentic empathy for other non-designers.
In Context
Data Scientists, Designers, Developers, Engineers, Marketers, Product Managers, and Salespeople…we could all apply true empathy a bit better on a daily basis. When we ask people to do things with us or for us. We need to keep in mind the needs, behaviors, and goals of others. We aren’t suggesting spinning up an Empathy Map for everyone you work with or Stakeholder Maps for everyone you work for. We are, however, suggesting that being empathic about others makes you a better collaborator.
Design Thinking does not ignore constraints, and challenges often require collaboration. Desirability, feasibility, and viability are a framing lens for a reason. If we break things down further, desirability is about UI, UX, and Value Proposition–does it solve a problem for users and look good while doing its job? Feasibility and viability are related as if something can be done (feasible) is important, but scaling a solution (viable) is entirely different. Yet empathy is required for all three framings.
Practitioners and participants in Design Thinking can make the mistake that empathy is so basic, and so foundational it can’t be argued. However, applying empathy too narrowly limits its impact. We need empathy for more than just users to ensure that a solution goes beyond being desirable and meets stakeholders’ needs.
In Summary
Performative empathy is dangerous. Design Thinking requires authentic empathy to achieve its stated goals. Sympathy is useful but isn’t a substitute for empathy or compassion. If empathy isn’t established in the context of a Design Thinking effort, especially a workshop, shifting the approach is advisable vs. making compromised progress. Applying empathy to people that we work with will consistently drive better outcomes. Compassion is empathy in action and is a natural apex to true empathy.
In previous articles, we addressed Design Thinking Dogma and the topic of Bias to action, which led us to write about performative empathy. In our next article, we will be writing about the nature of Design Thinking outcomes. We will address why solutions don’t need to be disruptive to be effective.