Empathy has become one of the most appreciated and universal ingredients of work-related potential. Leadership books praise it. CEOs display it on LinkedIn. HR departments measure it, train it, benchmark it, and occasionally weaponize it. In the modern organization, empathy is no longer a “nice to have,” but widely treated as the hallmark of modern leadership.
To be fair, there are actually good reasons for this.
Empathy, broadly defined, is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Psychologists usually distinguish between cognitive empathy, understanding what someone else feels, and affective empathy, actually feeling some version of it yourself. Both obviously matter at work (and beyond). Most notably, leaders who can read emotional dynamics tend to build stronger relationships, create more cohesive teams, and manage conflict more effectively. Meta-analytic evidence consistently shows that leaders rated high on interpersonal sensitivity and emotional intelligence (of which empathy is typically a subset) tend to have more engaged teams and better-performing direct reports.
{“blockType”:”mv-promo-block”,”data”:{“imageDesktopUrl”:”https://images.fastcompany.com/image/upload/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit/wp-cms-2/2025/10/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg”,”imageMobileUrl”:”https://images.fastcompany.com/image/upload/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit/wp-cms-2/2025/10/tcp-photo-syndey-1×1-2.jpg”,”eyebrow”:””,”headline”:”Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic”,”dek”:”Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. “,”subhed”:””,”description”:””,”ctaText”:”Learn More”,”ctaUrl”:”https://drtomas.com/intro/”,”theme”:{“bg”:”#2b2d30″,”text”:”#ffffff”,”eyebrow”:”#9aa2aa”,”subhed”:”#ffffff”,”buttonBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonHoverBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonText”:”#ffffff”},”imageDesktopId”:91424798,”imageMobileId”:91424800,”shareable”:false,”slug”:””,”wpCssClasses”:””}}
This makes intuitive sense. Leadership is, at its core, a social influence process. You cannot motivate people if you do not understand them, unless you motivate them by accident but that doesn’t scale or replicate in the long run. In other words, you cannot persuade them if you cannot anticipate their reactions.
The AI age only amplifies empathy’s perceived importance. As machines become increasingly competent at analytical and technical tasks, human skills that involve emotional nuance rise in relative value. AI can summarize a performance review, draft a termination email, and perhaps even simulate concern for your burnout. But it cannot actually care. ChatGPT may tell you “that sounds difficult,” but it cannot experience compassion any more than your toaster experiences solidarity with bread. This has led many experts to conclude that empathy will become the defining leadership skill of the future.
Does empathy need to be genuine?
But there is another, more uncomfortable possibility: maybe leaders do not always need genuine empathy. Maybe they simply need to act empathetically. This distinction matters more than most people realize.
For starters, empathy is normally distributed. Some people are naturally warm, caring, and emotionally attuned. Others are not. Unfortunately, organizations do not consistently select leaders for empathy. They often select them for ambition, competitiveness, resilience, political skill, confidence, and the ability to outperform rivals. In moderation, these traits are useful. In excess, they produce executives who treat collaboration as a blood sport and interpersonal sensitivity as an avoidable distraction, so genuine empathy becomes highly unlikely.
This creates a predictable tension. The very traits that help people rise to leadership positions are not always the same traits that help them become beloved bosses once they arrive there. Indeed, many successful leaders are comparatively low in agreeableness, the Big Five personality trait most associated with empathy, altruism, and concern for others. Research on executive populations routinely finds elevated levels of competitiveness, emotional detachment, and narcissistic tendencies relative to the general population. Put differently: organizations often promote people who are very good at getting ahead, not necessarily very good at getting along.
Yet employees still want (and arguably need) empathetic leadership. So what happens? Simple. Leaders learn to perform empathy.
At this point, moral panic usually sets in. The word “fake” sounds sinister, manipulative, almost sociopathic. But this is where things become interesting. Because what actually matters in organizational life is not primarily what leaders feel. It is how they behave.
The limits of empathy
Paul Bloom’s excellent book Against Empathy makes precisely this argument. Bloom distinguishes between emotional empathy, literally feeling another person’s pain, and rational compassion, the willingness to behave towards others in a thoughtful, measured, and constructive way, particularly when you don’t naturally feel connected to them. As he compellingly argues, raw or pure emotional empathy is often biased, exhausting, and irrational, and it fuels a tendency to prefer some people to others, since we are naturally prewired to empathize with those who are basically like us. Indeed, humans naturally empathize more with those who they find attractive (which tends to mean people who are culturally or genetically closer to us), similar people, nearby people, and familiar people. This explains why people will generally donate more money to save one photogenic child than to address structural poverty affecting millions.
Empathy, in other words, is emotionally compelling but quite incompatible with inclusivity, for it nudges us to prefer or prioritize some people to others. Rational compassion is different. It allows leaders to behave in caring and prosocial ways without becoming emotionally consumed by every interpersonal fluctuation around them. A surgeon who sobbed uncontrollably during operations would not inspire confidence. Nor would a CEO who became emotionally paralyzed every time layoffs became necessary. Bloom’s deeper point is that ethical behavior does not require emotional contagion. You do not need to literally feel everyone’s suffering in order to act decently toward them.
Lessons for leadership
Employees rarely experience their leaders “internally”. Rather, they experience them behaviorally. Did the boss listen? Did they show concern? Did they communicate thoughtfully? Did they acknowledge uncertainty? Did they treat people respectfully? Most workers cannot directly observe whether their manager genuinely “feels” empathy. They infer empathy from signals, and regardless of whether their inferences are correct, what they care about most is their manager’s behavior, not how they really or truly feel “deep down.”
And, as you can probably guess, humans are remarkably easy to fool, too. As I illustrated in my latest book, Don’t Be Yourself, the best leaders resemble great method actors. They create a reputation for authenticity while engaging in highly deliberate impression management. The charismatic executive who seems effortlessly warm in town halls often spent years learning how to project confidence, emotional attunement, and relatability. Politicians kiss babies not because they are overcome with affection for infants, but because they understand symbolic signaling. Leadership, to a significant extent, is theater.
The problem is that many people misunderstand this point and assume that impression management is inherently dishonest. In reality, civilization itself depends on socially desirable performances. Most of us routinely fake patience, enthusiasm, restraint, or politeness because the alternative, namely expressing every selfish impulse honestly, would make collective life intolerable. The same applies to empathy. If a leader does not naturally experience deep emotional concern for employees, but nevertheless behaves thoughtfully, respectfully, and supportively, this is still vastly preferable to authentic selfishness. Narcissistic honesty is not morally superior to prosocial performance.
So, if we accept that faking empathy may sometimes be both necessary and beneficial, how should leaders actually do it?
First, learn to listen performatively. This sounds cynical, but it is astonishing how many leaders fail at basic attentiveness. People interpret eye contact, follow-up questions, paraphrasing, and remembering details as signs of care. Dale Carnegie understood this (better and sooner than anyone else) nearly a century ago: most people primarily want to feel seen. A leader who asks thoughtful questions and pays attention already appears dramatically more empathetic than competitors.
Second, slow down your responses. Empathy is often communicated through timing. Leaders who interrupt, rush conversations, or immediately pivot to solutions tend to seem emotionally tone-deaf. As scientific reviews on the power of listening at work show, pausing before responding signals reflection and consideration. Ironically, many executives become more empathetic simply by talking less.
Third, acknowledge emotions before facts. One reason HR professionals often sound robotic is that they rush into procedural language before recognizing emotional reality. “I understand this is frustrating” works not because it solves problems, but because it validates experience. Humans care deeply about emotional acknowledgment, sometimes more than material outcomes . . .
Fourth, master calibrated vulnerability. Employees distrust leaders who appear mechanically perfect. Carefully revealing uncertainty, mistakes, or personal challenges creates perceived authenticity. The key word, however, is carefully. Oversharing is not vulnerability; it is emotional dumping.
Fifth, personalize interactions. Nothing screams “I don’t care about you” quite like generic communication. Remembering names, preferences, family details, or career aspirations creates the illusion, and often the reality, of individualized concern. Again, this is vintage Carnegie: people are most interested in themselves. By the same token, if you fake politeness or being nice to everybody, for example by pretending everybody is special or your best friend, sooner or later people will realize and you will be seen as a fake: empathy is not treating everybody the same, but like they deserve.
Of course, there remains a legitimate question about whether organizations should simply select more naturally empathetic leaders in the first place. Ideally, yes, since selecting on potential results in better performance than trying to change or develop people—and the best predictor of how well people develop and evolve is how much potential they had to begin with!
But here too balance matters. In fact, as the “too much of a good thing” effect suggests, here is such a thing as too much empathy. Overly empathetic leaders often struggle with difficult decisions. They avoid conflict, delay necessary feedback, and experience decision paralysis when choices harm some stakeholders. Excessive emotional attunement can also produce burnout, especially in leadership roles requiring constant exposure to stress and uncertainty. The leader who feels everybody’s pain intensely may eventually become incapable of functioning effectively. In practice, the best leaders combine enough empathy to understand and motivate people with enough emotional distance to make hard decisions rationally. That combination is rarer than corporate rhetoric suggests.
The deeper irony is that even our growing obsession with empathy may itself reflect a broader social reality: modern work has become emotionally exhausting. Employees increasingly want leaders who seem human because organizations increasingly feel mechanical. As AI spreads, this desire will intensify. The more work becomes automated, optimized, and algorithmically managed, the more valuable genuinely human signals will appear. Or at least convincing simulations of them.
In the end, perhaps the real lesson is this: authenticity matters less than people think, and behavior matters more. Employees do not need leaders to feel every emotion deeply. They need leaders who act with enough consideration, dignity, and restraint to make working life tolerable and occasionally even inspiring. And if some of that empathy is carefully rehearsed rather than spontaneously felt, that may not be so much due to hypocrisy, than maturity, emotional adjustment, or professionalism.
{“blockType”:”mv-promo-block”,”data”:{“imageDesktopUrl”:”https://images.fastcompany.com/image/upload/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit/wp-cms-2/2025/10/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg”,”imageMobileUrl”:”https://images.fastcompany.com/image/upload/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit/wp-cms-2/2025/10/tcp-photo-syndey-1×1-2.jpg”,”eyebrow”:””,”headline”:”Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic”,”dek”:”Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. “,”subhed”:””,”description”:””,”ctaText”:”Learn More”,”ctaUrl”:”https://drtomas.com/intro/”,”theme”:{“bg”:”#2b2d30″,”text”:”#ffffff”,”eyebrow”:”#9aa2aa”,”subhed”:”#ffffff”,”buttonBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonHoverBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonText”:”#ffffff”},”imageDesktopId”:91424798,”imageMobileId”:91424800,”shareable”:false,”slug”:””,”wpCssClasses”:””}}
Source link