I have come in late to this discussion and would like to comment on some
of the points raised by different people.
> > >>..." There are plenty of areas that we can help people
> with...which are
> > not measurable, for example how much empathy they try to have for
> someone
> > else"...<<
> >
> >" Can't we solicit feedback from the person's colleagues,
> subordinates and
> > supervisors to determine if the person's behavior has improved? If
> it
> > hasn't improved, does it matter how much empathy he has? Aren't we
> more
> > concerned with behavior than feelings?"
>
> To my mind we can't be concerned with behaviour and neglect feelings
> at the same time. Behavior follows feelings.Now we could say, that we
> are not interested in how a person feels, as long s/he "functions" in
> the way that is required. May be we could devise a measure/training
> that would produce the desired behavior
> despite the feelings that caused the original "wrong" behavior. But we
> can be certain, that after a while that person's behavior will
> "deteriorate" again to the original behaviour; because the feelings
> are still the same.
>
> We mustn't be afraid to work with feelings. They are important
> indicators, especially in an organization. If those feelings produce a
> behaviour that is identified as being "problematic" then we as
> consultants have something to work with (if we are not afraid of
> working with feelings), as that behaviour will almost certainly also
> point at a problem of the organization. And almost always will we find
> that the organization benefits, if the behaviour of one person is seen
> and
> discussed in the context of the groupt/team s/he is in and is not only
> taken as the sole problem of that particular person.
>
To my mind this discussion of "feelings" and "behavior" is missing some
very important viewpoints. First, I think it is irrelevant whether
feelings precede behavior or not. In fact, I could argue that in some
situations some people consciously playacting "being successful" in a
situation can feel successful. In fact, many people who are afraid (of
something or other) playact not feeling afraid and use that method to
overcome their inner barrier.
Secondly, all feelings have behavioral components. We may not be able
to perceive them outright, we may not have the necessary sensitivity,
but their behavioral manifestations are there.
Thirdly, "working with feelings" covers a vast realm of intervention
tactics, many of which might be viewed as inappropriate, insensitive,
... in other words, apparent evidence of the consultant "being afraid of
working with feelings", "avoiding dealing with feelings", and similar
such professional failings. And, yet they may in fact be "the" best way
of dealing with the situation.
In pointing out these paradoxes, or, at least, in arguing that there are
several sides to each of the stated points of view, I want to clear the
road to look at what I consider has been overlooked in the discussion
thus far: namely, what is the goal of the intended intervention? What do
we want to accomplish? And, were we to achieve that goal, what will
that do for the organization?
It seems to me that once we are clear about this, what we should and can
measure becomes clearer. I don't really know if you can measure
"empathy", nor do I know whether collecting anonymous ratings of a
person's "empathy" says much about that person's skill in that regard,
but that is not the question I would even want to ask.
For example, let's assume that a manager's direct reports complain that
he doesn't understand them, that he lacks empathy. I would want to
know, first of all, were that manager in fact "empathic", what
difference would that make in team functioning, morale, etc., in very
specific and concrete terms? Unless I have that information, how can I
choose a useful intervention?
A manager once complained to me about an employee who was negative and
critical about everything and anything. "Morose" doesn't even begin to
cover how he saw her. Despite this style, she was very productive. Her
team mates simply avoided her. The real problem was the manager -- he
couldn't stand her!! The purpose of my intervention had to be helping
him do something. I suggested that every morning for the next two
weeks, he come in to work before she does, sit down next to her desk and
lay out a litany of complaints (either made up or true) he had about
anything and everything. If she tried one-upping him, then he had to
one-up her with an even more drastic a complaint. During the day,
whenever she would begin complaining, he was to sit down by her desk and
one-up her. Soon everyone caught on to the "act" and begain doing the
same. The net result of this "unempathic, cruel, unfeeling"
intervention was that the woman stopped complaining, became more of a
team member, begain to socialize with the others, and would begin
laughing whenever someone would over-complain in response to a complaint
she raised.
My point -- a good part of it all is either in the eyes of the beholder
or in his/her glass.
Bernie
--
Bernard Liebowitz, PhD
Management Consultants to Business and Industry
Chicago, Illinois
website}
www.liebowitzassoc.com
e-mail}
bernie@liebowitzassoc.com
tel} 773/334-2003
fax} 773/334-2004