Introduction
Neuroscientists tell us that the pain of being excluded isn’t different from pain caused by a physical injury. Saying that exclusion ‘hurts us’ isn’t metaphorical. So why do humans cause pain to other humans without seeming to care? Any dive into our history will tell us it was ever thus. The question should be ‘why do humans cause pain to those they should care about and care for?’
The key word is ‘should’. Our widely agreed principles that set the desired tone and character of our communities are aspirational. They are not mandatory. In fact, even ‘should’ is a disguised ’must’ and it is better we express our aspirations as a hope. So, we can reframe that sentence as:
The question should be ‘why do humans cause pain to those we hope they might care about and care for?’
While the social model of disability conveys a real need to ensure our communities and infrastructures are accessible and inclusive it is not the entire story. Disability can cause suffering in and of itself – and this often exacerbated by exclusion and inaccessibility. Responding to the social model of disability must be more than obedience to a social justice imperative. It must be a response to real suffering by real people.
It is generally understood that learning doesn’t effectively happen unless our emotions are aroused and engaged. We don’t change how we think or act unless we are motivated. We learn and grow best when our emotions are engaged, and we develop the desire to put in the cognitive effort to evolve how we think and behave.
We are more disposed to be empathic and compassionate when we comprehend that a person who we are aware of, or concerned about, is experiencing pain – physical or emotional. This is especially so if that pain is caused, or exacerbated, by something we have, or have not, done.
A complicating factor is that interpretations of neuroscientific research suggest that people in power positions are less empathic. Indeed, I have read that getting a power position can switch off empathy responses in a way similar to acquiring brain damage can.
An inverse relationship between power and empathy seems natural and makes sense when you think about it. You don’t want generals overly empathic about their troops. They might decide that combat is a WHS hazard they can eliminate by not fighting – wait, maybe this isn’t as good an argument as I first thought.
But it just isn’t helpful at all when leadership in improving inclusion and accessibility is expected from executives and managers. Contemporary ideas of leadership see it more as a personal attribute rather than just a positional responsibility. This suggests that leadership in improving inclusion and accessibility may best come from those who are inherently more empathic and compassionate – and this is a compelling argument for ERGs.
We here must also distinguish between power and influence. Power created by positional authority may trigger non-empathic behaviour, but influence created by effective leadership must be empathic. Our organisations are transitioning from reliance on positional or status-based power and authority to influential leadership. But such an evolution is naturally slow. ERGs must understand where they fit into this evolution and create their best opportunities to achieve their goals.
Activating our natural capacity for empathy and compassion
Our potential for empathy and compassion is strongest when we see people as belonging to our in-group. What that in-group is depends upon many things and can be at any scale – from humanity in general down to a select few intimates. We generally accept that the larger that group is the better – for obvious reasons.
In practical terms the in-group is our wider community (subject to laws and policies at a national or state level), our local community (place-based), our specific cultural/interest community, our family, our friends, and our workplace community. This isn’t intended to be an exhaustive list.
Workplaces have subdivisions which may or may not have associated senses of in-groups – divisions, business areas, work teams, regional or local offices. In-groups can exist among staff at certain grades (executive, managers, non-managerial staff, professional or specialist groups).
Whatever the in-group whether it is empathic and compassionate depends on its culture – and that usually means its leadership. Toxic workplace cultures are not uncommon. It is often said that employees don’t quit organisations, they quit teams (or relevant work group).
There are two important considerations:
- In-groups created by executives and managers can risk keeping their potential for strong empathy and compassion within their own in-group boundaries and not express those qualities as a key aspect of their leadership functions (be reminded above – about how power can reduce empathy).
- Work teams subject to low skill and/or non-empathic management may experience suppression or control of local empathic and compassionate responses. Frustration of efforts to address the inclusion and accessibility needs of team members through a manager’s non-responsiveness or non-compliance with the organisation’s policies is commonly reported.
ERGs are potentially a potent tool for activating and focusing staff’s potential for empathy and compassion. A critical element in realising this potential is engaging with the organisation’s executive leadership to create a positive feedback loop. Sometimes the best initial response from executive leaders is the sanctioning of the establishment of an ERG. The executive can do more, of course – but this is the critical act because it unleashes huge potential – when we understand that it does.
The next phase is the unfolding of the ERG’s potential and its engagement with the executive leadership to complete the circuit through which the potential for empathy and compassion can be activated and generate change through the whole organisation. This requires an ERG to realise its potential as a leader in stimulating empathy and compassion.
Conclusion
What prompted this post was partly a call from a former colleague who told me of their return to work and the lack of empathy and understanding they encountered. It was also partly exploring a theme that arose from a story of poor planning and consultation in relation to several other staff with mobility disabilities.
All the people I spoke with were people for whom I have affection and respect. But then it also struck me that they all had another thing in common. Their disabilities caused them pain and distress regularly, and on bad days even more so. Situations leading to inaccessibility or reduced accessibility added further adversity that reflected in their struggles to work well and to enjoy a personal life that wasn’t dominated by the need to recover because of work-related situations caused by non-empathic decisions. There’s a whole separate story here that I will tackle soon.
Living with a disability that causes pain and psychological distress is bad enough. This reality isn’t spoken of because doing so can seem like complaining – and we mostly prefer people with disability to be heroic. I am writing this just before the 2024 Paralympics start. No medal winning hero is going to say how much pain they experience normally or in the pursuit of their dreams. We witness their passion for excellence with no understanding what must be ensured to achieve it. That’s fine when the pain is self-inflicted in pursuit of a personal goal that is beyond our normal scope of attainment. That’s something many of us know – but not a majority.
Workplaces are meant to be safe and inclusive. Going to work may carry a price of pain and stress because of one’s disability but WHS obligations also require an organisation to minimise hazards at work – physical and psychological. There is a vital distinction between self-inflicted pain and that inflicted or caused by others.
However, awareness of pain imposed won’t happen if staff with disability don’t communicate the human reality of getting to, being at, and returning from the workplace to decision-makers and those they share their workplaces with.
We can’t expect that demands to change or improve a situation will be acceded to on purely rational grounds (abstract and impersonal). We all prioritise how we feel and act on emotional terms. We will usually respond with empathy and compassion when those attributes are activated – and that can’t happen unless we become aware of the true dimension of lived experience of disability (or any other generator of exclusion and inequity).
ERGs have extraordinary potential as situational and role-based leaders to activate and transmit our natural senses of empathy and compassion. This is a natural leadership function. It not about doing what an organisation’s leadership is failing to do but what an ERG’s natural role is. In the evolution of any culture, we cannot focus on perceived failures and assign blame. We must focus on the potential to change through positive action.
ERGs have a natural leadership role of bringing awareness of the authentic human reality of their membership’s workplace experience to decision-makers and peers. Activation of our capacity for empathy and compassion is the first step. The next is guiding their response toward effective action. That’s also another story.