• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
New Perspectives on Empathy and Leadership: An Empirical Study
 

New Perspectives on Empathy and Leadership: An Empirical Study

on

  • 2,758 views

A presentation by Joan Marques, Svetlana Holt, and Jenny Hu at the Woodbury University Colloquium series.

A presentation by Joan Marques, Svetlana Holt, and Jenny Hu at the Woodbury University Colloquium series.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,758
Views on SlideShare
579
Embed Views
2,179

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

3 Embeds 2,179

http://www.scoop.it 2175
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 3
http://plus.url.google.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    New Perspectives on Empathy and Leadership: An Empirical Study New Perspectives on Empathy and Leadership: An Empirical Study Presentation Transcript

    • New Perspectives on Empathy and Leadership: An Empirical Study
    • Background: A Striking observation • Growing interest in the leadership vs. management topic • Classroom dialogues on what makes an effective leader • Longitudinal survey of essential leadership qualities: Whom would you follow? • A striking finding through the survey of undergraduate respondents
    • Background, cont.: Empathy is the last thing leaders need to be effective 9/30/2013 3
    • Background, Cont.: Literature review • Business leaders – are encouraged to be narcissistic (innovation, charisma, vision) – often lean toward psychopathic behavior • superficially charming, grandiose, deceitful, remorseless, antisocial, irresponsible, impulsive, void of empathy, lacking goals, and poor in behavioral controls. • Business students – are more focused on self-interest than students in other disciplines – of all business areas, finance students are least empathetic and most narcissistic – cheat more (50% higher rate of cheating than any other major) – are less cooperative – are more likely to conceal instructors’ mistakes – are less willing to yield /more likely to defect in bargaining games. • Business schools – still focus too much on academic and social skill sets toward a competitive world – Focus too little on inter-human, or “softer”, skills. 9/30/2013 4
    • Background, cont.: more literature review • Importance of empathy in leadership – Large number of scholars confirm the need for empathy and ethical behavior in leaders • Empathy can be developed – 2006 study from the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience – Eriksen (2009): Self awareness exercises in class – Izenberg (2007): empathy, optimism and resilience can be taught in the classroom – Devay (2010): religious and spiritual practices, such as meditation – Mahsud, Yukl, and Prussia (2009): management development programs and executive coaching
    • Background, cont.: JBE article • Empathy in leadership article 9/30/2013 Joan and Svetlana's Research 6
    • Data Analysis • SAS: Business Analysis & Business Intelligence • 2008-2013 – Mean – Standard Deviation – Range – Coefficient of Variation – Trends – Spearman Correlation
    • The Overview 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 Empathy Service Intelligence Competence Charisma Courage Integrity Vision Passion Responsibility 2008-2013 Averages 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
    • Basic Descriptive Statistics 2008-2013 Mean St. Dev. C.V. Min Max Empathy 7.90 1.90 24.07% 1 10 Service 8.21 1.76 21.41% 1 10 Intelligence 8.26 1.41 17.12% 4 10 Competence 8.39 1.42 16.88% 3 10 Charisma 8.48 1.55 18.29% 3 10 Courage 8.73 1.44 16.48% 2 10 Integrity 8.90 1.50 16.87% 2 10 Vision 8.97 1.37 15.32% 5 10 Passion 9.32 1.06 11.40% 3 10 Responsibility 9.36 0.99 10.53% 4 10
    • The Lower Five 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Empathy Service Intelligence Competence Charisma
    • The Upper Five 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Courage Integrity Vision Passion Responsibility
    • Spearman Correlation Intelligence Charisma Responsibility Vision Integrity Passion Courage Empathy Competence Service Intelligence 1.0000 Charisma 0.3141 1.0000 < 0.0001 Responsibility 0.3078 0.1909 1.0000 < 0.0001 0.0173 Vision 0.2922 0.2562 0.3171 1.0000 0.0002 0.0013 < 0.0001 Integrity 0.4317 0.356 0.3485 0.3419 1.0000 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Passion 0.2485 0.3276 0.3302 0.3387 0.3211 1.0000 0.0018 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Courage 0.2967 0.3108 0.2602 0.3809 0.2956 0.5006 1.0000 0.0002 < 0.0001 0.0011 < 0.0001 0.0002 < 0.0001 Empathy 0.4587 0.4079 0.3057 0.4027 0.4531 0.3811 0.3805 1.0000 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Competence 0.4301 0.3851 0.2801 0.2076 0.3590 0.1750 0.1970 0.4217 1.0000 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0004 0.0095 < 0.0001 0.0295 0.014 < 0.0001 Service 0.3894 0.2383 0.3354 0.2942 0.3283 0.3659 0.4197 0.5674 0.3588 1.0000 < 0.0001 0.0028 < 0.0001 0.0002 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
    • 3rd lowest ranked leadership value: INTELLIGENCE: – Students consider intelligence one of the lesser important values for leaders. Why? – Possible answers: • People like to relate to their leaders. Intelligence may not be the trademark of an average person. • Intelligences may pertain to multiple fields: intellectual, emotional (interpersonal, intrapersonal), etc. • Other thoughts? 2nd lowest ranked leadership value: SERVICE: – Why would service be considered of so little importance to leadership? – Possible answers: • Service is multi-interpretable: may pertain to the “service industry”, the acts of “supporting”, “facilitating,” or “helping”, or to “servant leadership”. • Other thoughts? The low ranks “Empathy, Service and Intelligence have been ranked lower than most other categories, with Empathy often being the lowest” (Hu, 2013).
    • Lowest ranked leadership value: EMPATHY: Why has empathy been (almost) consistently ranked lowest of all leadership values? – “The following eight codes, or reasons why empathy may not be considered important in leaders, were identified: 1. Empathy interferes with (rational and ethical) decision making 2. Empathy may be perceived as a sign of weakness 3. Too little life/work experience to recognize empathy as a powerful leadership tool in action 4. Respondents (wrongly) tend to disassociate business from the human component 5. Misunderstanding the meaning of empathy for ‘‘pity’’, which is dehumanizing 6. Empathy is fleeting/situational, while other qualities are stable 7. Historical lack of references/illustrations/visibility and discussion of empathy 8. Respondents lack empathy themselves These codes were further consolidated in the following two major themes: 1. Respondents believe that empathy is inappropriate in business settings (codes 1, 2, 4). 2. Respondents have a lack of familiarity with empathy (codes 3, 5, 6, 7, 8)”. (Holt & Marques, 2012, p. 100). The low ranks
    • Interesting correlations “The strongest correlations are found between: (1) Empathy and Service (2) Passion and Courage (3) Integrity and Empathy (4) Intelligence and Empathy” (Hu, 2013).
    • Curricular influence? • 2nd lowest ranked leadership value: SERVICE: – Decreased after 2011 (MGMT 461 -core BBA course…!) – Increased again after 2012 (MGMT 350 – prereq) • Lowest ranked leadership value: EMPATHY: – Decreased after 2011 (MGMT 461 -core BBA course…!) – Increased again after 2012 (MGMT 350 – prereq) • Overall trends after 2011 (when MGMT 461 became a core BBA course) – Empathy, service, integrity, courage and vision went down. – Competence increased. • Overall trends after 2012 (when we started enforcing MGMT 350 (Ethics) as a prerequisite to the course) – Empathy, service, integrity, and vision went up again. – Between 2009 and 2011, Responsibility was very high (no. 1).