Problem-solving through design thinking is fundamentally an exercise in change: You begin by defining where you are now, you envision a future state, and you ideate, prototype, and test incremental changes along the way.
But here’s the thing: Those changes are almost certainly reliant on other people. And you can’t change people who don’t agree with you about the problem. So how can we figure out what “problem” our constituents are having?
Empathy… and, ideally, through conversations with the constituents themselves.
In cultural organizations, we often suffer from what I’ll call “mission blindness”: We are so passionate about our mission-driven work that it’s hard to imagine why people aren’t similarly inspired. Surely everyone cares about our cause, wants to participate in our programs, feels compelled to become a member… and we’re often surprised when they don’t.
We are not our audience. We already care, we already see the relevance, we’re already committed. And, because we’re human, complete with a boatload of cognitive biases, we can’t necessarily rely on our own perceptions and judgement to tell us the “truth.”
Empathy opens your mind to the possibility certainty that other people might have different motivations, fears, and beliefs than you. And when you can free your mind from those constraints, the solution space suddenly becomes much wider.
Having empathetic conversations requires curiosity, humility, and a suspension of judgment. It takes practice, and it’s going to be easier to do with some people than with others. It’s tempting when you encounter someone who is resistant to change to write them off as ignorant or wrong. Why wouldn’t they want to learn, to improve, to create a better future? But I’ve found that most people have very good and rational reasons for believing what they do. It’s helpful then to ask yourself:
- What do they see that you don’t see?
- What do they believe that you don’t believe?
- What do they want that you don’t want?
- What do they fear that you don’t fear?
This can be a difficult (even painful) exercise, because you’re going to necessarily cause yourself some cognitive dissonance. But it’s important to understand that even people on “the other side” have rational reasons for adhering to their beliefs. It isn’t about agreeing with the other person, it’s understanding that they have reasons for thinking / believing what they do.
I’m going to take issue here with Daniel Pink and say that empathy isn’t not about understanding your audience so that you can “convert” or persuade them… it’s about finding ways to engage in productive, meaningful conversations from a common starting point. Your job is not to counteract the other person’s worldview but to truly understand where they’re coming from.
Empathy allows us to frame the problem in a way that is truly meaningful and, if we’re lucky, remove our “mission blinders.”