The theme of this week’s lecture is about Perspective Taking & Empathy. There are few common misconceptions about the similarities between empathy, sympathy, and compassion. While sympathy focuses on feeling sorrow for other’s misfortune, empathy is about feeling what other person feels from their perspective. Compassion takes it further by introducing desire to relieve those suffering. If you are new, this is a continuation of the IT2900 Weekly Reflection series, where I share my responses to the weekly assignments of this course.

The previous week’s blog post was titled “Your Feet Don’t Fit in Others’ Shoes”. You can take a look if you later find this article interesting.

Personal Takeaways

A few months ago, I learned the 4 principles of software engineering from Prof. Ben during the CVWO programme. Although it is not directly related to empathy, the first principle that was taught there is somewhat related to what our guest speaker mentioned today. To be clear, that principle is about User Persona and that what users say they want is likely not the actual thing they need.

In this specific scenario, users don’t know what they don’t know. The gap here leads to the wrong direction. It is our job as the engineer to figure out ‘why,’ dive deep into the problems they need to tackle, and design solutions based on that.

However, today, our guest speaker said that we should not ask why and instead use about 3 constructive questions when communicating with clients. Personally, I found this to be daunting initially, since it breaks the common sense that I have learned and adopted so far. Fortunately, after listening more carefully, I realised that it is not suggested to ignore the ‘why,’ but rather to approach it in different ways instead.

What our guest speaker proposed is that when people are asked ‘why,’ they are put into defensive mode. From my experiences, on both sides of the conversation, I found this to be quite true. People make lots of wrong assumptions that we cannot even control, so it may be more beneficial to prevent them from making one in the first place.

To properly take the perspective of others and demonstrate empathy, I will begin to ask more types of questions to figure out ‘why,’ rather than just saying the word directly. As an extension, I believe sometimes we need to say the word directly, but only at the point where we have enough information or have created a psychologically safe environment for the people we are working with, so that they don’t get into defensive mode and still want to share their thoughts with us.

Misunderstanding between Carl and Jack

Carl’s Perspective:

Jack is not respecting my creativity as a chef. He only cares about playing it safe.

He even wants to control my Twitter posts. I feel like he is stepping into my space.

Jack’s Perspective:

Carl is too focused on creativity and risks. I only care about what makes the restaurant profitable and sustainable.

He should not post on Twitter without my approval. It could harm the restaurant’s reputation.

What I Could Do Differently as Jack

If I were Jack, I would begin by demonstrating ‘empathy’ as Carl expressed his desired for creative freedom for the menu. At that moment, I would first acknowledge his perspective, instead of insisting on controlling the menu.

I would give myself a pause and understand that creativity is also important for the growth of both the restaurant’s reputation and the chef. I would say something like:

I understand that you want to showcase your creativity. Let’s discuss which dishes we can experiment while keeping the menu profitable!

By validating this intention of Carl and providing collaboration, I could de-escalate the tension, build trust, and allow him to feel heard without compromising my goal. This, in turn, would also de-escalate the latter situation on twitter post. If I have discussed before, and show my understandings, it is the scenario where we both agree.