This is the second last blog on the series on the psychology and science behind how teams and groups work.
You can read the full series here.
Episode 5: Recap
We concluded the last episode by looking at how to bring two groups together using Allport’s principles to reduce prejudice as a guide. The four principles are (Pettigrew, 1998):
Equal status of the groups in the situation
Common goals for the groups to work on
Institutional support, such as having the support of the organisation executive
Intergroup cooperation, which means the removal of competition.
These principles have been tested extensively across different areas, including workplaces, and the more you can include these principles when breaking down barriers between groups, the more successful the unification will be (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006).
Political polarisation is a world wide problem
Currently the world seems to be at odds with each other, divided by political affiliation, particularly when it comes to discussing issues of significance (e.g. climate change). Such is the influence of groups on individual behaviour, people will take on the identity of their group and consequently the attitudes and beliefs of the group. We think we’re objective and independent but generally we aren’t when we have strong affiliations with groups or work teams.
The US Congress, or Parliament, is a good example of how groups are ideologically drifting apart. Pew Research Center data finds that “Republicans and Democrats are farther apart ideologically today (report was written in March 2022) than at any time in the past fifty years”. And as happens when two opposing groups drift apart, each group becomes more cohesive within. They band together and support each other more. In the past there was always the political centre where the moderates of each party aligned themselves. Pew Research have found that the political center barely exists any more as each party drifts towards the extremes. As of 2022, the Democrats and Republicans had about two dozen moderates between them, in 1971-72 there were 160 (DeSilver, 2022).
Does the division between the two sides spill over to party members and the general public? Unfortunately it does. Republicans and Democrats are less likely than in the past to have friends from the opposite sides of the political fence and don’t even consider a romantic relationship with someone from the other side of politics (Santos et. al. 2022).
But that’s just the US isn't it? It doesn’t extend across the world, does it? According to research conducted by Assistant Professor Noam Gidron from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem the US was only 13th in political division behind countries such as Switzerland, Ireland and Australia. This was based on the opinion of voters from the largest left-wing party towards voters from the largest right-wing party, and vice-versa (Gidron et. al., 2019). The data was collected from 1996 to 2015, so was pre-COVID and prior to the US elections of 2016 and 2020, therefore the rankings may have changed, but the point is, polarisation is another group process that extends across countries and cultures.
Empathy for the other group (not just yours) can help
We previously discussed how to bring groups together in Episode 5 of this series and another successful approach to bridging gaps between groups, and individuals, is the use of empathy. Empathy defined as understanding another person's mental state and demonstrating that we understand what the other person is feeling (Clark et. al., 2018). Sometimes we feel the feelings of others (we cry along with them or feel sad when they feel sad) or we understand their circumstances and how that must feel, without necessarily feeling it (Cuff et. al. 2014). Empathy can be felt towards a group as much as an individual.
Higher levels of empathy have been shown to improve the quality of interpersonal relationships (Clark et. al., 2018) but the critical thing is that the subject of the empathy has to feel and observe the empathy. It’s not enough that the giver of the empathy, considers themselves as empathic, we have to confirm this with who we're talking to (e.g. by saying “Have I understood the situation correctly?”) (Clark et. al, 2018).
We all have different abilities to display empathy and some days we are better at it than others (Clark et. al., 2018). So you will know some people in the office who feel everyone's pain and you’ll have days where someone tells you their troubles and you have difficulty feeling anything for them (although you can still display empathy). All this is natural as our empathy levels go up and down depending on our mood and the context of the situation.
A word of caution on empathy though, if it is directed mostly towards those in our group it can cause ‘parochial empathy’ (Bruneau, 2017). Parochial empathy is the difference between the empathy we feel for our group and another group. The late social cognitive neuroscientist, Emile Bruneau, showed that the problem with this is that when this gap gets big enough we feel more helpful towards our people and less helpful towards the other group. This can occur to the point where research subjects condone harm on the other group, by supporting the withholding of financial aid, with the understanding that this decision could cost lives (Bruneau, 2017).
Empathy helps support who we are
Empathy expressed by someone, particularly a leader, gives us a sense that our work and social identity is understood and respected and will be preserved. When we are part of a group or work team it will have an identity (e.g “we’re a high performing team”), and the individual identity is linked to the group identity. Any challenge to this identity can be seen as a threat, hence we dig in. This includes situations where teams are challenged about their performance or priorities (“But we see ourselves as a high performing team.”) and when teams are divided up in a restructure (“this is wrong, we have specialist skills that won’t be utilised in the new structure”). Empathy can be a powerful way to seek understanding and allow others to feel their identity is protected, which leads to more support for any organisational change or initiative.
How do we encourage others to be empathic? Stories!
When it comes to sensitive topics the use of a non-judgemetal story can be effective. One study (Kalla et. al., 2020) tested the use of stories and their ability to build empathy within a discussion. The aim of the experiment was to see what method shifted people’s opinions in respect to the contentious topic of unauthorised immigrants. Canvassers went door to door for a pre-arranged meeting and told a story about themselves (if they were an immigrant) or an immigrant they knew. The individual they discussed it with was encouraged to ask questions and was reassured their opinions would not be judged and the researchers were honestly curious about their opinions.
Changing the other person's mind wasn’t the aim of the research but to:
“encourage individuals to engage in perspective-taking—that is, considering out-group members’ point of view”.
The result was that these non-judgemental discussions, with the inclusion of stories, reduced exclusionary attitudes towards unauthorised immigrants, which was maintained for four months, the point when the study concluded (Kalla et. al., 2020).
This exchange of stories without passing judgement was more effective than presenting an argument about why we should be more inclusive of unauthorised immigrants. In fact the study found presenting arguments lead to no change in attitude at all. Stories provide less desire to counter argue, are seen as less manipulative and are more effective at encouraging the listener to take the other person's perspective (Kalla et. al., 2020).
So if you’re having trouble getting someone else to see your side of things, stop arguing (if you are), get curious and start asking questions. Have some examples that include personal stories to illustrate the point, this is received as more open minded than the ‘facts’.
As people see empathy, or perspective taking, working to create more collaborative and effective discussions they start to use it more. We have a tendency to amp up the emotion that we think works towards us achieving our goal (“I got angry at that waiter, but it worked, so I suppose it was what I had to do” we might justify to ourselves regretfully). (Santos et. al., 2022). Empathy is no different.
Research subjects in one study testing empathy who had to write a persuasive piece of text and believed that empathy would be an effective way to influence people on the other side of politics (e.g. on the topic of gun controls) were 98% more effective in showing empathy and 64% more likely to be seen as persuasive. It turns out they were more persuasive, not because they back tracked on their argument or stance, but because they used more useful language. Language that kept the mind of the reader more open. The writer regularly used terms like “I Understand that…” “We all want…”, “I agree…” and used general terms for the collective group such as “citizens” and "Americans” and collective goals such as “security” and “safety” (Santos et. al., 2022). You can use empathy but you have to believe that it’s going to work and it will encourage more collaborative language by a factor of 2:1 (Santos et. al., 2022).
When you show some empathy to others, by hearing their perspective without judging it, you find common ground and subsequently are more persuasive (Kalla and Broockman, 2020 in Santos et. al., 2022). Staff who are good at ‘perspective taking’ have shown to cause less retaliation and encounter less conflict overall (Gilin Oore et. al., 2015).
In some ways we can’t help feeling what others feel. A number of neuroscientific studies have recorded that when we see someone else in pain, identical neural circuits in our brain are active as well. Although this mirroring response is reduced when we are questioning the intentions of the other person. Experiments that showed the pain recipient having acted unfairly in a simple economic exchange, caused reduced empathy from the person observing them (Vaughn et. al., 2018). So if you’re not feeling empathy for someone ask yourself if it’s because you think they are not genuine or are undeserving.
Summary and what you can do
Empathy protects and acknowledges a team’s identity and reduces threat and defensiveness. If you find yourself arguing over an issue and getting nowhere, start asking questions and reflecting the other person's views. This display of empathy is more likely to be reciprocated than when arguing the facts.
The person receiving the empathy has to genuinely experience the empathy for it be effective. Check that you are successfully paraphrasing or reflecting what the other person is feeling.
Displaying empathy contributes to the successful resolution of conflict and is an effective method of persuasion. If you believe the empathy will work, you’ll use more empathic language when communicating.
Empathic language includes using collective terms such as “we”, “I understand” and “I a gree” and less use of labelling of other groups.
Treat empathy as a skill that can be developed. Encourage empathy building at work. There are practices and exercises that help develop empathy, you can access some ideas here.
Our ability to display empathy varies depending on context and how we are feeling on a particular day, so if you’re not feeling empathy keep working on it
An empathy gap between an ingroup and outgroup can lead to the condoning of harm towards the outgroup.
Stories are an effective way to invoke empathy and encourage others to see the other side of an issue.
References
Bruneau, E. G., Cikara, M., & Saxe, R. (2017). Parochial empathy predicts reduced altruism and the endorsement of passive harm. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(8), 934-942.
Clark, M. A., Robertson, M. M., & Young, S. (2019). “I feel your pain”: A critical review of organizational research on empathy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 166-192.
Cuff, B., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. (2014). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review. Published online http://emr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/12/01/1754073914558466
Desilver, D (2022) The polarization in today’s Congress has roots that go back decades
Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2019). Toward a comparative research agenda on affective polarization in mass publics. APSA Comparative Politics Newsletter, 29, 30-36.
Gilin Oore, D., Leiter, M. P., & LeBlanc, D. E. (2015). Individual and organizational factors promoting successful responses to workplace conflict. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 56(3), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000032
Kalla, Joshua L. and David E. Broockman (2020). Reducing Exclusionary Attitudes Through Interpersonal Conversation: Evidence From Three Field Experiments. American Political Science Review. 114(2), 410-425. DOI:10.1017/S0003055419000923
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 65-85.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(5), 751.
Photo Credit
Photo: By General Artists Corporation-GAC-management. - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.(Original text : eBay itemphoto frontphoto backeBay itemphoto front), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31886764
Comments