When empathy in business becomes vulnerability (and how to protect yourself)

Empathy does not mean being good, nor does it mean always saying yes. Daniel Goleman made this very clear: empathy means understanding the other person's point of view, grasping their emotions, temporarily taking on their perspective. But there is an aspect that is less talked about, especially in organisational contexts: empathy is not only understanding the other person, it is also exposure of self.

Being empathic means making signals, priorities, boundaries readable. It means lowering some relational defences. In many business contexts, this exposure is quickly translated into an implicit message: if you are empathetic, you are available. And when availability is not regulated, it risks becoming unlimited.

This is where fear is born. Not from empathy itself, but from the way it is interpreted and utilised. When listening, attention and flexibility are not recognised as skills, but absorbed as free resources, empathy stops being a lever and becomes a perceived vulnerability.

Those who 'take advantage', however, are not necessarily lacking in empathy. Often there is no bad faith. There is a system that does not distinguish between willingness and responsibility. A context in which some people become, almost automatically, the collection point for the tensions of others: those who listen, who understand, who hold together. Not because they are weaker, but because they are more available.

In these contexts, organisational culture plays a decisive role. What model do we disseminate within our organisations? What do we decide to let transpire and what not? In highly affective cultures, for example, people show their feelings openly and emotions are expressed spontaneously. In so-called 'neutral' cultures, people are more reserved and do not openly manifest emotions, as the widespread pattern is one of inappropriate explicitness. When the culture is not clear, the risk is that an asymmetry is generated: some people put forth attention, listening and availability, while others learn to consider them implicitly accessible resources. Without clear boundaries, this asymmetry produces a predictable effect: people learn to protect themselves.

The cost of this dynamic is high, though hardly visible. When empathy becomes risky, people gradually stop practising it. Not out of cynicism, but out of self-protection. Behaviour becomes more rigid, communication becomes more defensive, relationships become more formal. The organisation loses the very thing it says it wants to enhance.

The point, then, is not how to make people more empathetic. But how to create contexts in which it is not dangerous to be so. Empathy should not simply be encouraged: it should be protected, regulated, made a viable choice. Otherwise we will continue to ask people to expose themselves, without wondering what happens when someone decides to take advantage of it.

Let me make one final remark: thank you to those who, despite everything, continue to practise empathy and put it into practice. To those who choose to do so even when it is not guaranteed, protected or reciprocated. It is also thanks to these people that organisations continue to function, often more than they are willing to admit.

*Consultant of Newton Spa