ExperienceCurve

is there an optimal mix of power and empathy for a long term sustainable business?

I think it has to be balanced, power is obviously something that can help sustain a business by controlling resources etc. but I think the most sustainable business and I mean long lived as opposed to green, will be balanced by empathy driven disciplines like sociology, anthropology, ethnography. I’d say Apple has a pretty good balance of empathy and power.

Interesting to build thought on these silos. Caution to the wind for any organization using empathy as a ploy to gain power (market share) and control (identify susceptibilities and induce fear). As social market dynamics demand greater authenticity and transparency from the marketeers and profiteers, power business will need to stress test their “empathy.” Or risk losing customers on hollow promises or irrelevant product development. Customer loyalty is directly proportionate to where a company moves the needle where it matters to their base. Products and services that evolve and reflect emphatic customer engagements will achieve a newly-defined business success that benefits the many versus the select few.

Thought-provoking ideas. It seems to me that consumers adore businesses in direct proportion to the level of empathy they experience from businesses–with one caveat: companies must maintain/exercise enough power to serve customer needs. The same applies to designers. Whether we’re designing tools/experiences or companies, to succeed we must serve customer *needs* rather than what they think they want.

[...] on theme, there’s a great post over on The Social Capitalist by Karl Long entitled “The Medium of Business is Behaviour” that explores the [...]

Definitely intriguing, Karl.

I referenced you on my blog, and added that while consumers “listen” to business based on a blend of power and empathy, businesses must listen to a consumer message that’s almost completely devoid of empathy.

The connection between business and consumer is certainly different depending on which side of the equation you’re looking at. Consumers rely on transparency in order to connect with a brand, whereas businesses have a lot of deciphering to do in order to figure out how to successfully influence their behaviour.

Interesting thought experiment. Quick question: can design ever be about control? Or do users revolt immediately? Or can the application of the Paradox of Choice be a useful design mechanism in guiding users in complicated decisions/processes? Maybe I’m thinking about the design of medical devices which tend to be functional, as opposed to empathetic. Unless the empathy is ease of use for doctors.

I’m torn. There are a lot of ‘exceptions’ I could pull out of this theory. I think you’re on a great track. It’s just that when we’re going to ‘lob grenades’ they need to hit meaningful targets.

Sure Design Thinking can add empathetic dimensions to an approach, but to not start with empathy toward employees is a HUGE mistake. That’s why I’ve floated away from a ‘customer’ focus: there are FAR too many issues for customers that start with processes that prevent employees from getting things done better FOR customers.

Also the ‘power’ thing just doesn’t do anything for me. Seriously, when you swim upstream far enough you often find that the issues aren’t about ‘power’ — they’re about ambivalence and cluelessness (or lack of ‘impact’ on one’s budget).

I’m just not convinced that this is a focused, compelling argument that’s worth championing.

@Marc Vermut Good question. I think there are several design disciplines that seek to control. Game design is one (obviously with pretty good intentions generally), maybe the other is drug design, maybe food design?

@Rotkapchen you are dead right that empathy has to start with the employees, the idea that we need to ‘design business’ is the idea that we need to employ our design disciplines to create more sustainable organizations.

@Karl/@Marc: It seems to me that any design discipline that seeks to deliver an experience, in the sense that Pine & Gilmore define experience in their book _The Experience Economy_, must exert control in order to deliver the experience, in much the same way a writer or filmmaker controls where the story goes to deliver a satisfying experience. We accept that because the design is little more than a delivery medium for the experience, which is what we seek.

Here again Karl’s hypothesis is borne out: how users respond to having their experience controlled tracks very strongly with their experience of empathy: where the company/designer providing the experience gives the user/customer the sense that he is just a mouse following a prescribed maze, the way certain entertainment conglomerates do, self-aware users/customers respond with cynical disengagement.But experience play that limits options for the sake of presenting a coherent and well-presented experience while allowing the user what freedom is possible within the construct has the opposite effect.

@Barbara Great point about controlling the experience like a filmmaker, that is design. I think that film/narrative/storytelling is one of the most empathetic activities to perform because you are really enabling someone to experience something. Stories are often the mechanism by which we transmit and share culture and of course the foundation to a lot of spiritual practices.

Totally agree that a lot of companies are missing in this regard, people are getting very smart at detecting disingenuous manipulative actions, when companies are trying to exert or project power without the right level of empathy.

Barbara: That’s one of the reasons I so vehemently disagree with Pine. His model is optimized for ‘new’, not ‘refirb’.

@Rotkapchen At the risk of getting off-topic, why does the fact that his method is optimized for ‘new’ make you disagree with him? Or is this issue not off-topic?

[...] To Be Sustainable Organizations, Must Balance Empathy and Power {Article} April 9, 2009 Filed under: enlightenment, management, sustainability — Mario Vellandi @ 5:19 am // To Be Sustainable Organizations Must Balance Empathy and Power [...]

[...] on theme, there’s a great post over on The Social Capitalist by Karl Long entitled “The Medium of Business is Behaviour” that explores the [...]

Why do you compare oil companies to a slave based business? Are people who work for oil companies “enslaved” in some way?

I agree with the general tone of your post, but that one line struck me as completely out of place in an otherwise thoughtful post.

I’ll second Phil’s point.

I’m not writing this to defend oil companies, but you are providing an analysis of corporate structure and its interaction with its outside stakeholders.

According to your analysis, what makes oil companies evoke “negative empathy”? Because they produce a product they we currently so desperately need, but very likely causes harm to the environment?

My problem is that, with Enron, the leadership committed financial crimes. Slavery is an abomination.

How do organizations such as Enron and Wal Mart evoke “negative empathy”. Simply because they are large and seemingly then, evil?

This is important because it goes to the heart of your argument. Theoretically, practically any large corporation could be put in that category.

@phil & @Jonathan ahh, maybe you misinterpreted my diagrams. Neither walmart, enron, or the oil companies have ‘negative’ empathy, they just have proportionally more ability to ‘influence behavior’ through power than with empathy. The only example I gave of negative empathy, ie. the empathy bar falls below the x-axis, is slavery.

Believe it or not i’m not saying that walmart, enron, or even wall st are bad businesses, they are, by our definition very good businesses. The problem in my mind is that any strategy to sustain self determination is based upon limiting another entities self determination it is not sustainable.

When you say, “have proportionally more ability to ‘influence behavior’ through power than with empathy” – it doesn’t make sense to me. If you are a powerful company, especially a worldwide company, don’t you have the ability to influence behavior either way?

The other logic problem I have is when you say, “limiting another entities self determination”. No company or individual can limit MY self-determination, only I can. I can choose to let others make me feel as if I’m limited, but really, then it is me limiting myself.

Barbara: “New” is a focus where you assume far less ‘constraints’ in your designs. “Existing” requires that you honor a LOT of stuff already in place. The latter is far more difficult. As such, Pine has outrightly indicated that he does not consider the latter to even be part of his definition. I consider that a rather ‘convenient’ distinction.

Phil: I think what Karl is rightfully bringing out here is the inherent tenancies of companies. Let me just say, after being at this for 3 decades the ‘idealism’ we believe to be possible in terms of companies is HIGHLY dependent on a LOT of variables that are often in conflict with one another within organizations. Wal-Mart is a classic example of these dichotomies. This is a symptom of the cost of ‘good’ vs. the pressures of ‘competition’ (where someone is willing to beat you at the market by shortcutting good behaviors and threaten the very essence of your survival).

In the end, survival is required.

@Rotkapchen exactly, organizations that don’t understand responsibility over the very long term are playing the wrong game IMHO. True responsibility is often not understood by organizations which is why the flame out when they only measure growth. Wall st, ponzie schemes, Enron etc. are just cancer, uncontrolled growth without understanding their impact on the ecosystem they are part of.

[...] via To Be Sustainable Organizations Must Balance Empathy and Power. [...]

Karl, great post! I would be interested to read more about your thoughts on how this balance would look like? Surely differentiated by organizations, but might there be trends?

As you rightly point out in your comment to my post (http://sustainableteams.org/2009/04/13/balancing-empathy-and-power/) you get long-term if you reward long-term.

Empathy being the better tool to deal with “long-term” (do you agree?), we should expect more Patagonias and Threadless’s if we believe that long-term objectives will become more and more important for customers and employees alike.

@stephan that is certainly the way I see it, in the future I can only conceive of organizations that operate in the world in sustainable ways, that are actually stewards of the technology and power that they have.

Beautiful thought – and it will be interesting to see HOW. I stand on your shoulders, quoted you in my latest preso: http://tinyurl.com/o6l5a2

Let me know if ok with you. Tried to dm u on twitter, but not connected.

Sustainable is so key in business…

[...] it must be properly balanced with power in order for long-lasting, sustainability to be achieved.  Karl Long wrote a wonderful piece discussing this balance.  Leaders must find a way to appeal to those that they lead and simultaneously command the respect [...]

Why do you liken oil company to a business on the basis of the slave? Work for oil company people of nslavedin some way?

we should expect more Patagonias and Threadless’s if we believe that long-term objectives will become more and more important for customers and employees alike.