Writing from Singapore after the CHRO Series conference, where leaders kept returning to one word: empathy. We underestimate how much time organizations lose because people are reluctant to say what's really holding them back. Empathy gets us to that conversation sooner, while there's still time to do something useful with what we hear.
The operational value of understanding people
I think we underestimate how much time organizations lose because people are reluctant to say what's really holding them back. Empathy can help us get to that conversation sooner, while there's still time to do something useful with what we hear. Understanding what people are facing gives us a clearer basis for decisions and helps us anticipate what it will take to carry them out.
I'm writing this in Singapore, with haze from fires in Indonesia hanging over the city. Yesterday, I spoke at the CHRO Series conference, where Culture Partners was a sponsor. The discussion was about the human + AI workforce. I expected the familiar conversations about disruption and opportunity. What made me sit up straighter was how often leaders brought up the word EMPATHY, including leaders outside HR.
I wanted to ask them what they meant. What would more empathy actually change in a bank, on a manufacturing floor, or in an engineering team?
My own session was called The Engagement Paradox. I opened with two numbers: 3 and 14. Singapore ranked third among 69 economies in IMD's 2025 World Digital Competitiveness Ranking. Yet Gallup's 2026 report put employee engagement in Singapore at just 14%, a three-year average ending in 2025.[1] A country can be among the world's best prepared for digital change while so few of its employees feel engaged at work.
Those figures measure different things, and they don't tell us what's happening inside any particular company. But they prompted the question I brought to the room: what happens between having the capability and people using it in everyday work? Hearing the calls for empathy made me think about the conversations we need to have to find out.
Years ago, I took Gallup's StrengthsFinder assessment. My number one strength was Empathy. I wasn't happy about it. I wanted to become a strong leader, and I'd have been much happier with something that sounded strategic or decisive. Empathy didn't fit the picture I had of who I needed to become.
My work today has given me reason to reconsider. I lead a regional team, facilitate workshops, and work with groups of leaders, sometimes hundreds of people. But some of the most consequential work I do happens with "the one." That leader needs enough time and attention to explain what a change means to them, and why they're finding it difficult. These conversations are sacred ground that I walk together with leaders.
It's easy to forget how much a change can ask of someone. We see a new capability for the organization. They may be wondering whether the expertise they've spent a career developing still counts for anything.
Imagine an experienced engineer who's slow to adopt an AI tool. Her manager has explained the benefits. She's attended the training. She's still checking everything manually, and now she's being described as resistant.
What might she be reluctant to say? Perhaps: "I've spent twenty years learning how to get this right. Now I'm being asked to trust something I can't fully check, and my name still goes on the work."
If that's her concern, continuing to talk to her about the productivity benefits is going to miss it. I'd want to stay with what she's just told me. What is she being asked to sign off on? What happens if she finds a mistake? Has anyone made those responsibilities clear?
There's something personal at stake here, too. She's spent years becoming someone people can rely on. I want her to know I've heard that, and that her judgment matters as we work out how to use the tool responsibly.
One way she can know I've heard her is if I can reflect back what I'm understanding from her point of view: "So you feel like you're being asked to change how you work, and you're worried that the judgment you've spent years developing is being brushed aside?" Then I need to give her room to correct me, and stay with what she says.
That has to be genuine. Reflecting someone's words back can become a manipulative technique if I'm only doing it to get them to accept what I want. A leader who's learning to listen this way may feel awkward. That's okay.
Intent counts more than technique.
Am I willing to discover I've misunderstood her, and let what I learn affect how we move forward?
Now we have something to work on together. We can agree which work needs her review and where she can begin using the tool with confidence. We can also discover that part of the rollout needs fixing. Her experience becomes useful to the change.
That's empathy at work. The concern comes into the open, and she has a part in solving it... that's engagement (take that, Gallup)! We can begin trying something instead of continuing a conversation about why she hasn't changed yet.
Do you know what takes longer? Continuing to talk to her. I can be kind about it. I can express confidence in her abilities and encourage her to give it a try. I may leave the conversation thinking I've been helpful, while she's still wondering whether there's room to tell me what really concerns her.
She may not want to disappoint me or seem ungrateful. She may even wonder whether she's entitled to have doubts when everyone else sounds so confident. A pleasant conversation can end with her true voice still unheard.
That doesn't have to produce immediate contention or argument. It can become a slow burn of resentment. If she keeps having that experience, she may eventually stop offering what she sees. That's a possibility I want leaders to take seriously when we talk about disengagement. When I think about the engagement figures I shared yesterday, I want us to examine what our own conversations might be contributing.
Research offers a useful caution here: imagining another person's perspective doesn't reliably mean we've understood it. Psychologist Tal Eyal and her colleagues found that getting someone's perspective through conversation improved accuracy in a way that simply imagining it didn't.[2] We need to ask and know for ourselves.
I can imagine a manager reading this and thinking, "Yes, that would be a good conversation to have. I just don't have the bandwidth."
Of course you do! Before we close the conversation with "I don't have the bandwidth," let's look at HOW we're spending our time. Do you know what you don't have time for? Continuing to misunderstand your workforce and their true capabilities.
I understand that managers carry real demands, some of which they don't control. We still make decisions about how we spend the time we do have. How much are we already spending repeating instructions, chasing progress, or fixing something we could have understood earlier?
That has a business value I can explain to an executive.
A concern heard earlier gives us a chance to avoid rework. A person willing to ask for help can begin learning. A colleague who feels understood may become willing to try something they've been holding back from.
These are things we can look for in the work itself.
And the wider evidence gives us reason to take empathy seriously. In a study of more than 6,700 leaders across 38 countries, leaders whose staff rated them as more empathic also received better performance ratings from their bosses.[3] It doesn't prove cause and effect, but it challenges the assumption I made when I first saw my StrengthsFinder results.
I also know that feeling understood can happen in a conversation with AI. I've experienced it. Research has found that AI responses can help people feel heard.[4] The relief someone feels in that conversation can be real.
At work, though, I want to know what follows. If someone tells me they're overwhelmed, does anything change about the workload? If I hear a concern about a decision, do I consider it seriously enough that it could affect my decision?
I can take someone's experience seriously without agreeing with their point of view. I still have to make the decision I believe is best. But understanding what that decision asks of them should affect how I carry it out. What will they need to be able to do? What support will they need? What might happen to morale if I leave their concerns unaddressed?
Empathy gives me a clearer picture of the reality we're making decisions in. Even when we disagree, I can work with the team on what the decision will mean in practice. I need to explain why I've made it, show that I've understood its impact, and follow through on the support I've promised.
We can anticipate where the work will stall and address what people need to carry it through. Some might call this "moving slow to move fast." Taking time for that conversation is a strategic bet on how we spend our time. So is skipping it.
Across hundreds of one-on-one sessions with leaders, I've seen too many who were promoted for their technical capabilities without receiving the feedback they needed to develop this part of their leadership. They've been underserved. We keep rewarding what they know how to do, while leaving them unaware of how people experience their leadership.
Do you know what takes a long time? Operating in an environment where true understanding isn't allowed to surface. You can be sitting on a ticking time bomb while the work appears to be getting done. The signs may be quieter than an argument: people asking to move out of a department, experienced colleagues leaving, concerns no one raises anymore. Those patterns deserve questions. What is happening in that department? Has anyone had an honest conversation with the leader about their effectiveness? What are they accountable for changing, and what happens if they don't?
Throughout my career, I've returned to a line commonly attributed to Dag Hammarskjöld, the former United Nations Secretary-General:
"It is more noble to give yourself completely to one individual than to labor diligently for the salvation of the masses."[5]
That has been a personal, and spiritual, guide to how I approach my work.
Your role may be different from mine, but the person in front of you deserves that same attention. When a change is moving too slowly, what might that person be ready to tell you if they believed you'd take it seriously? What could you get moving once they did?
Never lose sight of the one.
[1] IMD. World Digital Competitiveness Ranking 2025: Singapore third of 69 economies. Gallup. State of the Global Workplace 2026, Singapore country-level data: 14% engaged, three-year rolling average ending 2025. These national measures provide context, not a causal test of empathy or digital adoption.
[2] Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 547–571.
[3] Sadri, G., Weber, T. J., & Gentry, W. A. (2011). Empathic emotion and leadership performance: An empirical analysis across 38 countries. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 818–830.
[4] Yin, Y., Jia, N., & Wakslak, C. J. (2024). AI can help people feel heard, but an AI label diminishes this impact. PNAS, 121(14), e2319112121.
[5] Hammarskjöld quotation: commonly attributed; original source for the exact wording has not been verified. Wikiquote lists it under Attributed, citing Beca Lewis, Living in Grace (2002), p. 158.
Singapore haze: NEA regional update, 6 October 2026, 5:29 PM. The live page changes as new updates are issued.
The essential findings from this article.
The Engagement Paradox — Singapore ranks third of 69 economies for digital competitiveness, yet only 14% of its employees are engaged; the gap between having a capability and people using it in everyday work is where empathy does its job
Resistance often hides an unspoken concern — the engineer still checking everything manually may be asking whether twenty years of judgment still counts when her name goes on work she can't fully check; reflecting that back, and letting it change the rollout, turns her experience into part of the change
Intent counts more than technique — encouragement and pleasant conversations can leave someone's true voice unheard, and research shows getting another person's perspective through conversation beats imagining it
"I don't have the bandwidth" is a choice about time — repeating instructions, chasing progress, and fixing what could have been understood earlier cost more than the conversation; empathy is a strategic bet on where the work will stall
Never lose sight of the one — feeling heard only matters if something follows: take the experience seriously without necessarily agreeing, explain the decision, show you understand its impact, and follow through on the support promised
Explore more writing on leadership, transformation, and organizational change.