A succinct, progressive outlook on empathy & its impact in units housed within the United States Army.

1. INTEGRATION OF EMPATHIC
BEHAVIOR WITHIN ARMY
UNITS
A Data Driven Approach to Behaviorally Reupholster the
Modern Army Unit for the Inclusion of Empathic Behavior
SGT Joseph Trsek, MSIO, BA

2. A Brief History
■ The etiology of empathy as a concept in of itself is tangled between cultural representations,
perceived linguistic meaning, and an opaque history. Further, Edwards (2013) notes that the
conceptual history describes and explains changes to the empathy concept between the 18th
century, when Einfühlung [feel one’s way into] appeared in German scholarship, and 1948,
when empathy (a personal quality) appeared in U.S. psychology.
■ Gladstein (1984), Hunsdahl (1967), and Jahoda (2005) describe a common core of events in
empathy’s history, beginning with German aesthetics philosopher Robert Vischer coining
Einfühlung in 1873.
■ Theodor Lipps adapted the concept to his work on perception, and in 1909 U.S. psychologist
Edward Titchener translated Lipps’s Einfühlung into English as “empathy.”

3. Empathic Conceptualization
Fostering a Definition
■ In comparison to sympathy, defined as an affective response that often stems from
empathy but can derive solely (or partly) from perspective taking or other cognitive
processing—including the retrieval of relevant information from memory (Eisenberg,
Eggum, & Di Giunta, 2010)—empathy encapsulates the transference of affect from one
emotive state to the subject’s own, shedding the weight of circumstantial properties that
may delimit what comprises empathy without the integration of experiential memory per
se.
■ Therefore, an empathic response is an appropriate reaction to another’s emotive
state given the perceived emotional state of another that need not be isomorphic to
the observer’s emotional state.

4. Emotional & Empathic Contagion
Interpersonal Ubiquity
■ Emotional contagion is the primary affective component of empathy and it refers to the
resonance of emotion and physiology between individuals (White, 2016) that is
influenced by multiple channels of information as well as multiple neurobiological
processes (Hatfield et al., 2007) and will hence forth be interchangeably referenced as
empathic contagion (any ‘emotional’ contagion has the minute potential to trigger an
empathic response).
■ Since our social reality bleeds fluidity and shifts constantly, environmental stimuli
comprised of emotional or empathic contagion are constantly integrated as information
against our will—courtesy of our social brain.

5. Cognitive Empathy
Behavioral Derivatives
■ Empathic contagion coerce our mental faculties into an object-directed response, whether this
response is accurate or not; whether this response is explicit or implicit. These responses are at the
mercy of learnt emotional, contextually-based perceptive tools.
■ These neutrally enriched resources allow differing states of empathic response. In many cases,
empathic contagion elicits the response of cognitive empathy.
■ According to Eisenberg, Eggum, & Di Giunta (2010), cognitive empathy is typically used to refer
to the ability to understand others’ emotions and/or perspectives—not to feeling others’ emotions or
feeling concern—in recent discussions in social and developmental psychology.
■ In other words, cognitive empathy is utilized as means to garnish the understanding of the object’s
motivation to behave or emote in a certain way, to identify with their perspective on an aspect of
reality, and to comprehend their representations of their social reality.

6. Affective Empathy
Emotive Derivatives
■ When considering the affective component of empathy, emphasis is typically placed on
experiencing the emotional states of others consciously, which implies a self-other
distinction, as well as an understanding of where the emotional experience originates
from (Bernhardt and Singer, 2012; Decety and Jackson, 2004).
■ Whereby cognitive empathy centralizes on the object’s state of mind or perspective,
affective empathy blankets the dimension of emotive responding and is defined as an
observer’s emotional response to another person’s emotional state (Morrow, 2019).
■ Affective features include the arousal, resonation, and congruence with another’s
emotional state (Blair, 2005; Hoffman, 1977; Singer & Lamm, 2009) as is inferred by
the subject’s visual display of felt emotions.

7. Neurophysiology: Mirror Neurons
A Brief Overview
■ Postulation of neural correlates in regards to the underlying mechanisms of empathy can be traced back for
decades and is typically associated with mirror neurons.
■ The study of mirror neurons is an exciting new area in the cognitive neurosciences. Mirror neurons are a
system of cells in the prefrontal cortex of the brain that allows us to understand the minds of others
(Sonkin, 2013).
■ They communicate sensory information to the brain or transmit motor commands from the brain. Mirror
neurons combine these functions: an individual observes goal directed behavior being performed by a
second individual; the motor activation pattern in the observer's brain mirrors (matches) the pattern in the
performer's brain; the process is not conscious and the motor behavior is not performed (Young, 2012).
■ What’s more, mirror neurons are multimodal: they respond to visual stimuli, auditory stimuli, imagined
events, and texts containing action verbs (Fadiga et al.,1996; Fogassi et al., 2002 and 2005; Kohler et al.,
2002; Rizzolatti & Arbib, 1998; Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004; and Tettamanti et al., 2005).
■ Therefore, observing a cornerback guarding a wide receiver on a lush football field may in fact activate
mirror neurons that sequence this motor-behavioral pattern of the cornerback within the observer’s brain

8. Neurophysiology: Cognitive v. Affective
A Keystone Empathic Dichotomy
■ A dimensional measure of individual differences in affective empathy relative to cognitive empathy
captures this interaction and may reveal brain–behavior relationships beyond those detectable with
affective empathy and cognitive empathy separately (Cox, Uddin, Di Martino, Castellanos, Milham,
& Kelly, 2012).
■ Furthermore, Cox et al (2012) went on to reveal that using resting-state fMRI and measures of
empathy in healthy adults, that relative empathic ability (REA) is reflected in the brain’s intrinsic
functional dynamics.
■ Dominance of affective empathy was associated with stronger functional connectivity among
social–emotional regions of the brain such as the ventral anterior insula & orbitofrontal cortex.
■ Dominance of cognitive empathy was related to stronger connectivity among areas implicated in
interoception, autonomic monitoring and social–cognitive processing such as the brainstem &
superior temporal sulcus.
■ This goes to show that empathy is rooted in neurophysiological patterns & what’s more, exhibits a
dichotomy between affective & cognitive empathy.

9. Categorical Overview
Top-down Cliff-notes
■ Thus far, key concepts have been defined in regards to empathy & empathic responses. From the
roots of empathy, to its contemporary definition, the entire concept is integral to our social
realities.
■ Moreover, a necessary distinction between cognitive & affective empathy with a derivation from
empathic contagion.
■ Finally, neurological data provided an origin in which empathy is born. Empathic tendencies are
nearly ubiquitous amongst every human being & are social byproducts of neural networks doing
their job.

10. AN EMPATHIC
MILITARY
INTEGRATION OF EMPATHY INTO LEADERSHIP THEORY

11. The Colonel Kail Methodology
■ “People decide just how much they will allow you to lead them. Sure, if you are in charge, people will
most likely do as you say. But how well they carry out your commands and for how long is their
decision, not yours.
■ Interestingly, the followers decide how empathetic a leader really is, and this is how the most powerful
and effective leaders receive their influence. Leadership, after all, is a relationship. We cannot expect
others to go very far with us in a relationship until we reveal who we are and in turn learn who they are
in a meaningful manner.
■ Powerful leaders value their followers as individuals. They are also tolerant, willing to investigate the
perceptions and positions of others objectively. Empathetic leaders leverage diversity because of
individual differences, not in spite of them. Each person brings unique perceptions, experiences,
strengths and challenges to a team. Allowing everyone to contribute to a goal in a meaningful way is far
better than marginalizing someone for the sake of an imagined better outcome.
■ In this way, empathy is far more critical to good leadership than any technical knowledge, skill or
ability. You can learn to be more empathetic–but not the way you would memorize answers for a test,
rather the way you would internalize knowledge for a lifetime of application. We can all tell when
someone is pretending to be interested in us, and others can sense it just as easily when we do the
same.”

12. Army Leadership
Empathic Derivatives
■ One of the most, if not the most frequented, paradigm of Army Leadership is housed within FM
6-22. However, like other social bias’, the information in this doctrine is often cherry-picked or
left astray given the circumstances.
■ A perfect example of the latter is the junction of Army Leadership & empathy.
■ Within FM 6-22, empathy is defined as the ability to share and understand someone else’s
feelings. The capacity for empathy is an important attribute for leaders to possess. Empathy can
allow leaders to understand how their actions will make others feel and react.
■ Empathy can help leaders to understand those that they deal with including other Soldiers, Army
Civilians, local populace, and even enemy forces. Being able to see from another’s viewpoint
enables a leader to understand those around them better.

13. Army Empathic Competence
Standards & Structure
■ The Army standard within FM 6-22 is idealistically met when a Soldier:
– Demonstrates an understanding of another person’s point of view.
– Identifies with others’feelings and emotions.
– And displays a desire to care for Soldiers, Army Civilians, and others.
■ FM 6-22 goes on to state that empathic competence is displayed when one:
– Reads others’emotional cues.
– Considers other points of view in decision-making.
– Reacts appropriately to others’emotional states.
– Shows compassion when others’are distressed.
– Predicts how others will react to certain events.
– Demonstrates ability to establish good rapport

14. Army Empathic Incompetence
A Common Theme
■ FM 6-22 goes on to state that empathic incompetence is displayed when one:
– Shows a lack of concern for others’emotional distress.
– Displays an inability to take another’s perspective.
– Maintains an egocentric viewpoint in decision-making process.
– Dehumanizes enemy combatants or local populace.
■ AND directs the underlying causes as:
– Problems with or inability to take others’perspectives.
– Focuses solely on own needs without considering needs of others.
– Insensitive to emotional cues of others.
– Failure to identify with other individuals.
– Overly results focused.

15. Empathy within Army Organizations
Reinforcing Prosocial Behavior
■ Transposing the immense value of empathy onto an Army organization is paramount; empathy is an
important component of social cognition that contributes to our ability to understand and respond
adaptively to others’ emotions, succeed in emotional communication, and promote prosocial behavior
(Spreng, McKinnon, Mar, & Levine, 2009).
■ What’s more, prosocial behavior is comprised of several subsets and is described as a superordinate
category that includes helping, sharing, and comforting, as well as behaviors enacted for diverse
reasons.
■ Prosocial behavior can be potentiated by a host of factors (but is consistently and explicably
associated with the empathic process) including:
– egoistic concerns (e.g., the desire for reciprocity, a concrete reward, or social approval, or the
desire to alleviate one’s own aversive emotional arousal),
– practical concerns (e.g., the desire to prevent waste of goods),
– other-oriented concern (e.g., sympathy),
– or moral values (e.g., the desire to uphold internalized moral values such as those related to the
worth or equality of all people or a responsibility for others) (Biggio & Cortese, 2013).

16. Prosocial & Citizenship Behavior
Reinforcing Self-driven Soldiers
■ Therefore, Army organizational behavior consists of—at its most superficial level—prosocial
behaviors and associated citizenship behaviors.
■ In its most comprehensive meaning, organizational citizenship behavior refers to workers’
performing behaviors and attitudes that are not transmitted as a chain of command but that are of
advantage for the company on a self-driven and voluntariness basis (Altıntaş, 2006).
■ In short, organizational citizenship behavior is synonymous to voluntary behaviors by the
organizational workers via their own will-to-do-so and sincere, authentic motives.

17. Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The Army-focused Soldier
■ Ikinci (2014) goes on to suggest that when the literature is reviewed, it is understood that Army
organizational citizenship behavior contributes to reinforcing social and psychological structure and
supporting work performance in an Army organization.
■ In other words, a high level of organizational citizenship behavior is stated to contribute into less
discontinuity in an Army organization, decrease the turnover rate, and increase the commitment and
satisfaction of the Soldier.
■ Other contributions of Army organizational citizenship behavior include an increase in the productivity
of the NCO’s, Officers & Soldiers in an Army organization, a correct way of using Army organizational
sources for productive purposes, enabling coordination between the team members and considering
Army organizational environment as satisfactory for the workers.
■ From this perspective, it is also emphasized that Army organizational citizenship behavior is also
stated to have an influence in attracting creative and productive Soldiers to the Army organization
and making them permanent in the Army organization.

18. The Army’s Soft Edge
A Realization of Interdependence
■ Therefore, Army organizational behavior (to include prosocial and citizenship
behaviors) constitutes the majority of the return on interest of Soldier-behavior given the
consistent investment into the Soldiers’ wellbeing.
■ In short, constant and recurring investments into the wellbeing of an Army organizations
Soldiers by those charged with managing the latter personnel (NCO’s, Officers) will
more often than not result in the desired Army organizational behaviors previously
mentioned.
■ To emphasize this point, Di Nuovo and Zanchi (2008) note that Soldier participation in
the Army organization’s mission, positive emotions, emotional climate, and the sense of
belonging within the Army organization are interdependent, thus dependent on one
another.

19. Cultivating an Empathic Army Culture
A Necessity
■ Empathy, thus far, has been shown to be a foundation on which Army organizations
should be constructing their Soldiers & Leaders.
■ The costs of neglecting this paramount, humanistic ability are negatively weighted
against the monumental upside of recognizing and embracing empathy as a routine
component of social interaction.
■ What’s more, empathy has been found to provide unparalleled facilitation of prosocial
and organizationally relevant behavior characteristics; inclusion of empathy within an
Army organization will ultimately lead to more satisfied Soldiers, less adverse behavior
(such as absenteeism), trust between subordinates, peers, and managers, increased work
productivity and quality, a fueled interdependence between the Soldier and their
organization, and an environment laden with efficacy, efficiency, and Soldier
satisfaction.

20. Empathic Army
Environmental
Culture
Citizenship Behavior
Consciously directing behavior
toward the good of the
organization although it isn’t
mandated; prompting altruism
& transformational leadership
Prosocial Behavior
Caring, sharing,
reciprocating altruism,
donating, volunteering, co-
operating, etc.
State of Soldier
Higher Soldier satisfaction, well-
being, sense of belongingness &
intrinsic purpose; increased
efficiency; lower attrition rate;
resilience of mental health
An empathic Army
environment will
statistically foster
prosocial behaviors as well
as organizational
citizenship behaviors. The
matriculation of these
behaviors from a bottom-
up hierarchy results in the
State of the Soldier being
holistically satisfied &
engaged with themselves
& their organization. In
turn, the Soldier will
continue to contribute the
empathic environment &
assist in building a strong,
decisive unit.
Empathic Army Environment
Feedback Loop

21. FROM SOFTWARE INTO
HARDWARE
INTERGRATINGTHETHEORETICALTENETS OF EMPATHY INTOTHE
ARMY LEADER’S STRATEGY

22. Top-down Push for Integration
A Leader’s Challenge
■ The sociocultural reality outside of the Army has been shifting rapidly over the last
decade, thus, the archetypal Solider that has been entering the Army over this period is
vastly contrasted to those of whom joined before these shifts.
■ Newer Soldiers tend to have a higher educative status, greet orders with skepticism,
thrive off of curiosity & are swept up in an age of pervasive information platforms.
■ This creates challenges amongst Army leadership; an empathic environment is
necessary.
■ Cognitive empathy allows leaders to understand the motives behind Soldiers’ behavior,
whereas affective empathy allows leaders to assess emotional characteristics of Soldiers
with heightened accuracy.

23. Top-down Push for Integration
A Leader’s Opportunity
■ The holistic push for an empathic environment will undoubtedly be meant with obstacles from various
factions of the Army (command hesitation, peer resistance, inability to effectively utilize the tenets of
empathy, etc.).
■ But Leaders—NCO’s & Officers alike—should not see this as a closed door, but as a window of
opportunity.
■ Those of whom practice empathy in an attempt to shift the climate will be met with willing subordinates.
What’s more, even if only one NCO in a unit believes in embodying an empathic set of behaviors in
order to influence the environment, junior enlisted Soldiers will follow.
■ The relationships between the latter NCO & their subordinates will be rich & authentic; other junior
enlisted Soldiers will expect that of their own leadership; eventually, the leadership platform will move
toward the genuine nature of an empathic environment due to extrinsic expectations of the Soldiers’ &
the intrinsic pressure to ethically foster a better, transformational climate.
■ This isn’t theoretical; this has been proven a multitude of times in hundreds of organizations across the
world. The Army absolutely needs to catch up.

24. Top-down Push for Integration
Ignorance is Bliss
■ The stark reality of the Army sociocultural situation is bleak.
■ Those charged with first-line leadership duties, NCO’s, are typically uneducated—although at
times, balanced through experience.
■ The problem being, however, is that it is up to the NCO to push for a nurturing, empathic
environment.
■ Being uneducated typically means that the NCO will fail to see the behavioral benefits in
empathic climates; fail to research the dimensions of empathy; fail to see a need to integrate
them; and thereby, fail their Soldiers.
■ Being educated doesn’t require a degree, but a genuine sense of curiosity about them world &
themselves. However, these are not attributes being promoted in the standard Army unit in this
contemporary Military.

25. Top-down Push for Integration
For Us & Them
■ As previously shown & founded on value-driven data, an empathic climate breeds an
enormous amount of positive effects.
■ We MUST self-aware & conscientious as Soldiers, Leaders & individuals, in order to
better ourselves & our organizations.
■ The harvest reaped by these sewn seeds far outweigh the decisive work & effort it will
take to bring about empathic changes to our organizations.
■ But the necessity is present. This is not a project for our own good as Leaders in the
Army, but a project for us—a united, resilient & conscious Army.

26. REFERENCES
For references, contact directly.