The Two Faces of Empathy
Understanding takes many forms.
This past Sunday I was fortunate enough to have my first OpEd published in the New York Times. It sparked a lot of spirited feedback—some of it challenging, all of it thought-provoking. The article centers on a core idea: that empathy, once widely celebrated as a virtue, is now being weaponized by some of the most influential figures in business and culture. Yes, empathy can still be a bridge for connection, healing, and trust—but it can also be a tool for manipulation, control, and performance without accountability.
Since the article published, one of the biggest questions I’ve heard is: Can it still be called empathy if it’s being used to exploit rather than uplift? Some argue yes—it’s still a form of understanding, just deployed differently. Others insist that real empathy must be rooted in care or altruism. Clinicians have weighed in, noting that sociopaths and narcissists often demonstrate a type of cognitive empathy—they understand emotions, even if they don’t feel them. And that understanding, untethered from ethics, can become dangerous.
For those of us in leadership, marketing, communications, and brand-building roles, this hits close to home. Our work often hinges on understanding human behavior—what people want, need, fear, aspire to. But to what end? When does insight become exploitation? When does influence become manipulation? In a world where we have more access to data and psychological tools than ever before, our ethical compass needs to be even sharper.
Empathy, in its best form, is us practicing our humanity with altruism. And it's a powerful leadership skill. But it’s not enough to simply try to understand someone—we have to decide what we do with that understanding once we've found it.
You can read the piece here, and I’d love to hear what it stirs in you. For me, I hope it invites all of us to consider how understanding is cultivated, and what we do to support each other (even when we might not fully understand each other) with newfound perspective.
Take good care,
MV
Interesting opinion. I read most of the NYT comments and boy, that opinion definitely rattled many. It's interesting to consider that empathy is multi-faceted. In relation to Musk, he's also on the spectrum, which is known to affect one's "empathy" or social interactions with others. I think that affects his overall ability to consider the affective empathic side of his business decisions. He's also a known Ketamine user and possibly other drugs, affecting his overall behavior, there's more at play than just affect of cognitive empathy. Unless, you're saying that those factors can also play a part of either side of empathy. Definite valid points on how "empathy" can be used for control, that's unfortunate and I wonder how we can hold leaders accountable, as stated in your NYT article? Do we tell them to stop? Do we ignore them? Is there an antidote? the billon dollar question I suppose. Great, thought provoking article.
Thanks Michael as always for your views on life, I benefit from your work to articulate what to me is our humanity. I have spent the better part of the last 35 years focused on learning and sharing with/teaching others my views on communication. The one element I have always emphasized is the need to know our intent which I believe is always present at all times if we're willing to slow down and look. Not that our intent is singular, but in the perhaps multiple intentions there is a hierarchy of importance which is imperative to know if we're going to communicate effectively. I hadn't thought of empathy being used in the way you've described, with an intent to hurt, suppress, or dominate others in some way. Of course it is absolutely true. For me the most important question any of us can wrestle with is whether we think there is a "shared humanity" or not and if so, what is that? For true communication to happen, by my definition (comm - uni - cation - action towards oneness) we must see that common ground and intend to shine a light on it.