Beyond Empathy

Why we need more than empathy to design meaningful experiences

Working with service design and user research for the past 7 years, I have been a strong advocate for empathy. Human-centric design and user research frame empathy as an essential tool and mindset to create value-creating service offerings. But something doesn’t feel quite right. It has taken me some time to reflect on why. If you are reading this, I hope these thoughts will give you something to think about on the subject as well.

The growing trend of embedding empathy is now exposing a serious problem. The idea of empathy has become so bloated and hyped that it is often used as a quality-stamp keyword to suggest user-centricity and insight-driven experiences. Whether it is a service concept, a new digital experience, or an organizational culture we are developing, it is about understanding why and how we can make a positive impact. Relying on empathy alone to guide us is misleading, and we risk continuing being complacent in our outdated practices.

The word empathy has now been infused with a wide range of definitions. But it is not the secret sauce that guarantees a positive impact and changes we need for our world. According to both the English language and scientific definition of empathy, it is the ability to resonate and experience another’s feelings. When it comes to designing with empathy, walking in another person’s shoes can help us develop a deep respect for their experiences, culture, and challenges. So what is missing when we talk about empathy?

1. Empathy is biased.

Humans are tribalists. We navigate within the boundaries of contexts which share familiarity with our own. We flock towards those who share similar backgrounds, cultural inclinations, social status and economic standing. Our perceptions are largely shaped by our values and experiences. It is much easier for us to empathise with another that shares similarities with ourselves. When attempting to be empathetic, we are indirectly projecting our biases and assumptions into the subjects and the scenarios. Imagine this, when conducting research and participant interviews, one subject is well-mannered, articulate and attractive, while another is put-off, defensive and reluctant to share. Suddenly, the inclination to relate will be much more significant for one than for the other, and the findings from these sessions will suffer greatly from subconscious bias.

2. Empathy does not address systemic problems.

When we empathise with others, we empathize with individuals and not groups. We use ways such as interviews and observations to relate to the individual. It is much more difficult to relate to cultures and systems. But our designs and concepts are nearly always for groups of people, a specific culture or specific social demographics.

When we look at the general rise of xenophobic politicians, their messages emphasize the plight of specific people to appeal to their supporters’ empathy. As supporters raise an outcry stemming from frustrations of injustice and the need to avenge, they do not question about the downside of instigating division and hatred. An empathetic act has suddenly created blindspots for contexts and ethics.

3. Empathy can lead to neglect of unheard voices

Empathy suggests one’s understanding is sufficient to represent another’s voice. This does not warrant actively seeking out those impacted to be given the chance to share. Instead, we highlight what we presume to be valid without allowing those to speak for themselves. We may empathize with an idea that is not true, and our presumptions can lead to exclusion and prejudice.

When we design experiences or create solutions, inclusion and representation can often get in the way of keeping with the timeline or budget. It’s not always possible to get the right people at the table. We sometimes result in reaching only what is accessible and settle for our empathetic lens to detect the likely path to do the rest. But designing experiences require more than listening to them or simulating their lives. It takes interpreting the world through the lens of their culture, values, traditions and identity to connect with their perspectives.

To be cliche and quote a familiar phrase- “times are changing”. We are living in a world that no longer has the same parameters and circumstances as before. In order to survive (and thrive) as a global community, we need to collectively transform how we do things. Being human-centric has led us to prioritise people, but neglecting the world in which we live in. If we see being empathetic as the one requirement to fulfil for good design, we are not considering the context in which the design will need to thrive in.

Across the world, we have developed complex systems and infrastructure prioritising human needs and lifestyles. Our exploitation of our resources and environments have focused on short-term materialistic benefits without considering the long-lasting consequences. We cannot afford to only think about human needs anymore. It is more vital than ever to learn about the impact of our actions on the entirety of our ecosystems, and not just how it relates to our target customers. We need to look beyond a user-centric mindset and work towards a more holistic planet-centric practice.

We regularly assume empathetic people are kind and caring because of their ability to relate to others’ emotional or mental state. As much as a person is able to imagine how another person feels, it does not suggest the need to act, to make a change.

Empathy is powerful. I am not against empathy itself, but I do think empathy can be shortsighted and misused. We need to step back and zoom out for contextual guidance, make the effort of understanding ourselves just as well as including those in question. What I hope for anyone reading this to take away is this: Know the limitations of using empathy alone in designing solutions and experiences so we can be mindful about our approaches. Design is about making decisions. Let’s start by recognising the need to change our attitude and reshape our mental models.

Special thanks to Emilie Bang Jensen, Maria Knutsson, Amy Lam and many others for their input and perspectives.

Related posts:

You may have heard the recent news about Facebook’s privacy breach and Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to testify in congress. Basically, Facebook has been accused of collecting and sharing the data of…

James Lukezic has over 20 years of experience as a retirement consultant and financial analyst for large corporations. Some of the companies James Lukezic has worked for include Merrill Lynch…

Threat actors continue to adapt to the latest technologies, practices, and even data privacy laws. Four cybercrime predictions for 2023. With the increased use of smartphones and computers in the…