In the Harvard Business Review, Rita McGrath has written
about the three great ages of management: execution, expertise, and empathy.
The execution era was the one when
the organization was a machine. The expertise
era was the one when executives went from controlling others to coaching them.
McGrath argues that we are now in an era when organizations look “to create
complete and meaningful experiences”—era of empathy.
Empathy extends to customers or consumers but also to
employees. Implicit is the idea that management occurs through networks rather
than through lines of command. What does this mean for human-service
organizations? I propose that it has the following implications.
First, the CEO, president,
or director, whatever the title of the top dog, coordinates and integrates
decision making, rather than takes input and makes a decision. The sham of
participatory decision making, which some CEOs don’t even know to claim, is
that the subalterns participate in providing input but actually don’t
participate in the decision. In integrated decision making, the team
members (e.g., a “leadership” or “management” team) propose decisions and
defend them. As decisions are discussed, (a) the team reaches a consensus, (b) the
president concludes what the majority decision is, or (c) the president decides
which decision is the most evidence based. Unfortunately, still, in many
organizations, none of these factors leads to the decision.
Second, the director is more like an anthropologist than a
director. He or she explores the culture and makes decisions that advance the
service within the context of that culture. In one situation in which I found
myself, the CEO paid attention to one cultural group, the board of directors,
but not to other cultural groups: families (consumers), the community, and the
staff. Self-preservation or COA (covering one’s posterior) is hardly a
commendable trait. Today’s administrator should see what’s good for society,
however large or small that might be, but I’m referring to the organization.
The first priority should be the consumers (children and families), second
should be the staff, and third should be community. The last priority should be
the president and the board, but that takes possibly uncommon ethics, honor,
and confidence. I’m optimistic enough to believe that if decisions are made
from a place of empathy, the results will be good.
Third, the era of empathy suggests that organizations’
leaders should function transparently. A very few topics need to be handled
discreetly, but a common problem is the director confiding in just one person,
amazingly often the finance director. I know the temptation. In an
administrative job I once had, I found myself in alliance with my budget
person, often against my faculty. The budgetary pressures led to this
unfortunate alliance, but I was operating as though we were still in the age of
execution, where the budget person and I knew what was best and we exercised
control over others. In the age of empathy, leaders should think first about
how actions will affect others.
Circular arguments abound in the leadership of nonprofit
organizations, as they do whenever people have to make decisions about what’s
best for someone else. In child custody cases, for example, judges make
decisions about what’s “in the child’s best interest,” as though that were
independent of the parents’ interests. An amazing lack of understanding about
family systems theory. And judges rarely consult good research to help
determine the child’s best interest. In organizations, CEOs and their
sycophantic finance directors justify decisions similarly as being in the “best
interest of the organization.” But when those decisions are made secretly, with
false arguments to the board, and without empathy for consumers, staff, and the
community, it’s difficult to agree they’re in the best interest of the
organization.
Of course the easy argument is an economic one. Let’s cut out the thing that costs the most
or returns the least, economically. Which is why a business mentality
doesn’t work in the nonprofit or academic world. Because that thing might be
the best thing going for the organization in terms of quality, reputation, or
the overall well-being of the organization. If it is costly, then empathetic
leaders (directors, deans, and board members) would realign resources to
support that thing.
How is the theory of an “age of empathy” relevant in a leader’s
feeling threatened by one or more
faculty or staff members? Empathy is probably a convenient word beginning with
e, to match execution and expertise. Those of us who grew up in
the hippie or just-post-hippie era remember Leo Buscaglia, who wrote, “Too
often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening
ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the
potential to turn a life around.” Do they teach this in MBA programs? An
empathetic CEO is not going to be threatened by someone with heart,
intelligence, and drive. Rather, he or she would embrace this person as a
strong ally, would learn from this person (ah, but that takes humility!), and
would seek this person’s counsel.
 | |
| Buenos Aires last week |
In conclusion, the age of empathy might be here but some
organization leaders aren’t. Board members would be well advised to understand
that empathy (genuine, not a histrionic facsimile) is a valuable trait in a
president. Presidents would be well advised to practice empathy, to appreciate
that relinquishing pride, self-interest, and secrecy actually open up the
organization to a state of well-being. Staff would be well advised to determine
whether their leaders operate from a place of empathy and, if not, and if they
can afford it, leave such a situation. Consumers would be well advised to make
the same determination and, if not, make a fuss to the board or whoever
controls the purse strings. The time of empathy in management in human services
has arrived; it probably arrived a long time ago. We should perhaps now be
paying attention to it.
