6.1. Empathy: between China and the West, a collaborative aspect

Developing the interpersonal MO.O.N. skills in companies begins with identifying where they are useful, that is, where their C.U.P. is the most consistent. In contrast to what is most often written, this MO.O.N. is not an “intelligence” of the relation, first because relation is a Greek concept whose foundation is justice and geometry (relatio, relation between, fixed, immobile structure, such as the wall in relation to the ground) and second because it is not the “relation” that is “observed” but the symbols that refer to it: a wedding ring (the circle, symbol of the immutable), a manager’s office (symbol of territory), a diploma (symbol of legitimacy and social recognition), a contract (symbol of legal commitment by law) or an account on a social network (symbol of one’s life/place in a social network). This natural method of operation has a purpose of promoting, fluidifying and understanding interactions not only between humans, but also between humans and animals and even between humans and the environment. Each MO.O.N., as mentioned above, is organized around a specific computational mode, a core component allowing the operating mode to be deployed. Here, the core component is empathic-interactive.

Let us address the (now ambiguous) question of empathy. The word is historically composed of em- (in-), “inside” and pathos (pathy) “what one feels”. This didactic term for philosophy and psychology refers to the ability to identify oneself with others, in order to feel what they feel [REY 00, p. 1222]. As Jorland points out, the word empathy can be likened to a “nomadic” concept [BER 04, p. 19] whose definitions vary from one discipline to another; thus, he says: “empathy consists of putting oneself in the other’s shoes without necessarily experiencing one’s emotions, as we anticipate one’s reactions” [BER 04, p. 20]. Jean Decety defines empathy as “the ability to put oneself in the other’s shoes in order to understand one’s feelings and emotions” [BER 04, p. 53]. Alain Berthoz proposes, with “audacity” (using his own term), to spatialize the “problem of empathy”; in other words, “to put oneself in the other’s place is to adopt the other’s gaze. To change one’s point of view is to change one’s perspective. Moreover, empathy is my own view (in the strongest and fullest sense of the word) that I carry of the world instead of the other. The physiology of the gaze is a physiology of manipulations of space by action, emotion, attention and intention” [BER 04, p. 255].

It takes memory to emulate, as well as perceive, the process inherent in the continuum of one another. Matthieu Ricard evokes what an “essential” characteristic of empathy is for him: “to enter into affective resonance with the other, while clearly distinguishing between oneself and him/her; I know that my feelings come from the other, but I don’t confuse my feelings with his/hers”. Finally (although this is far from the end), let us consider Cyrulnik’s approach while relying on the term metempsychosis (as a substitute for the empathic term that he attributes to philosophers and that it is appropriate to leave out), he states: “to put oneself in the other’s place is to enrich oneself, but it is an effort, it is to discover a new mental continent, a new way of thinking, a new way of being human” [CYR 00, p. 54]. The problem with the word is the “pathos” by which it is constructed, and, as we know, pathos is the place of passions. When we speak of empathy, we find ourselves “sucked in” by the underlying emotional pathology. Jullien proposes the idea of connivance to replace it; however, there is this idea of complicity in connivance that we do not find in the concept of empathy. Empathy is a term belonging to the great family of ontology, and in the absence of openly negotiating a new meaning, it can only remain centered (rightly and legitimately) in its original semantic category. We also find “fierce” opponents of empathy, such as psychology and cognitive science professor Paul Bloom, who postulates that empathy is, above all, a moral point of view to which he displays his opposition. He believes that is helping to make the world worse than it is¹. He asks the question “why is empathy bad?”, to which he replies, “the problem of empathy is to blind us to the long-term consequences of our actions. This is because empathy takes more if an interest in a child being stuck in a well than in what we could do about global warming [...]”². Here, it is not a question of criticizing Bloom for the use of a sustained argumentation or of referring to “everything” that is written or said about empathy, but it is appropriate to underline the common ground from which “empathy” is considered. Concerning Bloom, empathy is not understood as an operating mode but as a component of morality (referring itself to the postulates and values of a society). It is thus consistent with its philosophical obedience.

We looked on the side of Chinese thought for what would look like this Western concept of empathy. The expression tóng lĭ xīn (同理心) seems to best correspond to our Western “idea”. However, as we know, ontology has not found a basis of existence in China and hence the (precise) definition of 同理心 is “of the same mentality” ([RIC 01, vol. VI, p. 364]). The character 同 designates the idea of an ensemble (in concert) and harmony³ (in agreement with Heaven and Earth, yin er yang), as well as the idea of “similarity”. The character 理 (lĭ) implies a sum of notions that we must understand in order not to choose the right one, but to correlate the one from which the others will be “coherent”. Li can designate the idea of pacifying (establishing order, 4.), of favor (6.), of lines that guide the constitution and determine the sensitive qualities of beings and things (10.), of reasoning, that is, of finding the lines of force of beings and events (10.c), the state of ainsité (a word for which there is no equivalent in English), shared between a state of vacuity (static, empty, without idea) and a dynamic aspect (inherent in the world of phenomena), of paying attention (16.) and of understanding (in the sense of appreciating the situation) (17.). Finally, the character 心 (xīn), already discussed in Part 1, designates the capacity of discernment, intention and attention.

Could we thus “define” or try to represent Chinese empathy – “ainsité” – as the ability to apprehend the dynamics of the other without a fixed idea, but to pay attention with discernment (focused on events) in order to seek to pacify and tend toward the favorable? In this form of “Chinese” empathy, the idea of an indifference (without any fixed or preconceived opinion) is possible to apprehend and appreciate (ji) the trend of the other and to harmonize oneself with it, not out of compassion or sympathy, but by adjusting oneself to the moment and the position (shi-wei) of the other. Thus, tong li xing (“empathy”) does not imply an affective aspect of passion, or considering other’s emotions by putting oneself “in his place”, or by “feeling” them, but an ability to assess-apprehend (li-wei) the duration (procedural time) as well as the way in which the situation affects (in effective-affective terms) the person in what he/she “experiences”. It is “here” that an acceptable intersection between Chinese and Western thoughts could be found. Indeed, the notion of anticipation that is inherent in empathy stems from the observation of a congruent operative process in the other.

The issue, in our case, is not to “know” what empathy “is” from the viewpoint of “knowledge”, but how the sum of the activities named as such unfolds in a person operating with this natural operating mode. We know that Chinese thought has been developed by scrutinizing reality, searching for clues and assessing trends. Hence, “empathy” is part of this cultural slope. Also, in the absence of a more appropriate word, we use the term “empathy” for semantic convenience.

6.2. Empathy: three operating registers

Empathy, as an operative treatment, implies a skill of observation (looking, listening, perceiving – in the sense of perception) and of apprehension of several registers: physical, semantic, symbolic, spatial and temporal. After years of observation and assessment, we have come to suggest three criteria for assessing and observing an empathic type of operation:

• – observe, identify and recognize expressions (micro-macros) and their nuance on the face and body. A person who is able to operate empathetically can observe, identify, name and adjust in real time (by imitation) to the emotions being watched (discerned). The person should be able to describe these expressions and precisely associate them with simple or complex emotions (without having learned them formally) and then regulate his/her own behavior in terms of speed of speech, meaning of the words used, physical distance and positioning in space (to move forward, to move backward, to get down, to get up, to lower the chin slightly, to soften the features of his/her face, etc.) in order to generate a state of adjustment (reassurance), as much as interaction, in the other(s);
• – understand and emulate the reality (moment-position) experienced by the other, in order to perceive its impacts, consequences and trends. Memorizing (sound-image) even seemingly insignificant aspects perceives the feeling (fear, anger, enthusiasm, fatigue, etc.) produced by the other. It is not a question of “understanding” (thus taking the intelligible reason as a bias), but of spatializing in a continuum, the way the other describes-tells the situation. It is a question of apprehending the way in which the other evolves (kinesthetic) in his/her environment and thus, to leave the person’s “self-centered” universe, that is, from his/her only reality (in any case, his/her perception), in order to be “perceptive” of the reality of the other;
• – recognize and understand the other person’s different symbolic representations, in other words, religious beliefs, beliefs about life, human appetites, symbols tattooed on their skin, piercings, hair color, dress, language system, musical tastes and so on. Here again, it is not a matter of wanting to “understand”, but of “taking as it is”, with indifference (without looking at it from a different perspective), apprehending cultural differences and gaps and remaining calm, “empty” of any idea to put forward.

Of the more than 1,000 managers assessed⁴, less than 10% deployed empathic skills. The case of Laurence, a top manager in a pharmaceutical group, illustrates this aspect. In an assessment of three MO.O.N.s (intra, inter and extra-personal), she said: “I am righteous, very rational, always fact-based, I know where I want to go, and where I want to take them. I lead, but not with empathy”. Laurence does not look at people when she talks to them, what they think is equal to her (she tells us) and only the result counts. She never asks how they are or what they like; considering herself a “steamroller”, she operates in a “push” mode. Christophe, sales manager, is the same: “I talk to the customer about the product, but if they come back two hours later, I’ve already forgotten them because I was focused on the product”. Focused on the technical aspect and analog data (he says), Christophe cannot stand that a customer can “know” more than him and quickly shows frustration if that is the case. Let us take another, more “extreme”, example with Laurent, who is asked to “solve” an emergency situation in the mountains. Within the team he is supposed to be leading, two people crack under cold pressure. The script says they get angry at him and blame him for everything that happens. The weather conditions are bad: −12 °C, 60 km/h gusts of wind on a slope at about 27°. The group is composed of 25 people who spend three days in the mountains. On the basis of a real situation, this scenario aims to understand how a person operates in such a situation. Laurent first answers in writing: “1) quick discussion with the two people who are frustrated, we are in the emergency, we are in peril, we’ll take a break at 40 minutes, we’ll talk about it again in the shelter”. Laurent’s interpersonal MO.O.N. skills will be assessed as “latent”, in other words virtually non-operating. This result is confirmed, he says, by an observable reality on the ground, of which he becomes “aware”.

Conversely, let us take the case of Valérie, who works in social work. For her talent assessment, she wants us to come to her workplace so that we can see her reality (she says). Valérie knows the first names of her entire team (this is not the case for all managers), as well as the first names of members and their children (proof is provided when we are present). Then, she tells us about her director, with visible signs of sadness and anger on her face. Valérie receives no recognition for her work, which leads to bitterness in her. She mentions a seemingly insignificant matter where she had organized a visit to a museum for the residents of the neighboring city. It was necessary to take the bus and, since there was still a spare left, she had invited her manager so that the latter could meet her “crowd”. The latter replied: “With the people you have, I don’t want to!”. As soon as a person does not deploy an empathic mode of operation, it becomes difficult for him/her to show his/her close collaborator gratitude involving empathy. We met the director, but she was not looking at us; her face was certainly turned towards us, but her gaze was not “there” because it was focused on preparing the “exact” time of the next meeting. While we were walking in the street a little later, Valérie met different people. She calls them by their first names, looks at them carefully when they speak, does not cut them off and then explains their “reality” to us without getting lost. We present her with about 10 images that express emotions, and for each of them Valérie goes into an imitation mode and we can observe the expression that she was viewing on her face. When we show her facial expressions, she correctly names 9 out of 10 photos, the 10th she gets wrong mostly due to an issue regarding semantic expression. Let us go back to her director: what would an emphatic operation mode have led to? Understanding the reality of the people of the city, sharing time and space with them without overstepping and getting involved in their situations, acknowledging them when they enter the hall and greeting them, explicitly naming the results of their collaborator by describing the consequences of said people and underlining their implications, in other words, being considerate of the spatiality of their daily life and making it visible, both inside and outside the center. We specify that the examples given come from situations where the operating modes could either be observed or correlated with “reliability”, that is, whose result had little difference with the assessment (ji).

6.3. Mandela: the man who observed “others”

Nelson Mandela displayed several MO.O.N.s, and empathy was no exception. The day after May 10, 1994, John Reinders gathered his belongings after 17 years in the presidential office. He was convinced that there was no more room for “whites”. Nelson Mandela, as an “early bird”, surprised him and asked him, after enquiring how he was, what he was doing “there”. The man explained that he was planning to return to correctional services. Mandela replied with a smile: “I spent 27 years there, you know. It was a bad place. Very bad!”. Mandela invited Reinders to reflect on the idea of staying, which surprised him, and then Mandela said:

“Yes. I’m very serious. You know this job. Not me. I’m from the bush. I’m ignorant. But if you stay with me, it would only be for a five-year term. Then, of course, you’d be free to go. However, don’t get me wrong: this is not an order. I would only like to have you here if you want to and if you wish to share your knowledge and experience with me” [CAR 09, p. 147].

There are many anecdotes of Mandela’s empathy, for example when he “saved” the Springbok name, because he knew that the name is highly symbolic for the “white” community, or when his words and his attitude during a talk show on a radio station in Johannesburg, transformed the threatening (telephone) words of Eddie von Maltitz, a Volksfront warrior, into an attitude of confusion. von Malitz, accusing Mandela of driving the country into a bloodbath, said: “You continue to walk with these communist henchmen”. To that, Mandela, after a moment’s pause, said: “Well, Eddie, I think you are a worthy South African and I have no doubt that if we sit down and exchange views, I will get closer to you and you will get closer to me. Let’s talk, Eddie”. To that, the warrior said, “Uh... well, okay, Mr. Mandela, thank you”. Another anecdote from his autobiography tells us that he wanted to take advantage of a visit by General Aucamp to Robben Island prison, in order to express complaints for which there was “no follow-up”. Mandela called him while he was in the company of the prison commander, but he did not speak to him. He just looked at him and said to the guards, “make a report for him”. Rather than getting angry and thus reinforcing a possible hatred toward his captors, Mandela said: “There was a lesson to be learned from what I had done, a lesson I already knew, but had not followed, out of despair. No one, let alone a prison official, likes to be challenged in public. To answer me, Aucamp should have humiliated his subordinate”.

Careful study of Mandela’s attitudes, regardless of the C.U.P., reveals a systematic skill to:

• – understand the spatial and temporal reality of the other;
• – observe people and their attitudes in order to adjust so that the other person does not feel or infer any innuendo;
• – integrate the symbolic system in the way that they speak to the other person, decide and act.

Empathy is opposed to belligerence; one “seeks” balance (an acceptable balance of forces in progress) and the other seeks imbalance (an unacceptable balance of forces in progress). This “empathic” skill thus makes it possible for people who deploy this MO.O.N. to apprehend a behavior or a dynamic reality behind a word and question it, take it into account and adjust to it. Thus, speaking using the right words (without ambiguity) designates the skill, as much as the ability, to look and to adjust the structure of one’s (signifier, signified) thought in real time, in order to apprehend the intention underlying the purpose and the consequences of the latter. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the most plausible reality with regard to the situational trend. Talking with the right words implies a constant adjustment between people, like two tango dancers. At the same time, a rhythmic adjustment, an emotional adjustment and a real-time assessment (appreciative and correlative) favor this degree of adjustment. Thus, if one person accelerates his/her flow, the other slows it down to favor appeasement; if one slips toward anger, the other dissolves it by adopting a calm face and a pacifying semantic structure, in other words, a structure which does not imply any lever of aggression or negative reaction in the other.

It is the same for unity. To unite implies, for this MO.O.N., granting a place for the solicited persons (moment-position), so that they can be deployed (actualized). But space, in the strongest sense of the word, is needed for this to be possible. Once again, “empathy”, in this triple skill of apprehending the spatiality of the other, apprehending their intentions (and motivations) as well as attentively scrutinizing and observing their attitudes, favors the unifying process. Indeed, this is what unification implies: here is the place where you, your skills and your competencies can operate freely (without constraint); here is the temporality during which you can deploy yourself and here is the principle around which “I” invite you to commit yourselves, not because I believe in it, but because the latter is the potential for which your MO.O.N.s. are useful. Hence, non-action (wuwei, 無為), that is, doing nothing more, but so that nothing is not done, does not imply this “empathy”, because how can we let ourselves be without the ability to apprehend the procedural reality in which the other operates? It is thanks to this that it becomes possible to train others, not because our “personality” attracts – or over short periods – but because the space of fruition is such that there is space and possible actualization for all people.

6.4. Interaction: a dynamic principle that encourages commitment

Interaction, as the second part of the core component of the interpersonal MO.O.N., refers to the dynamic ability to operate with others. It is not a question of relationship (the term being a philosophical, then social concept), but a dynamic principle whose principle is movement. Those who deploy interaction skills show themselves capable of generating movement in their teams and with people in general. The meaning of the word “interpersonal” is in the prefix inter-, which means “within two” (between). It involves space and time (which is not the case with “relationship”). The interpersonal MO.O.N. is therefore not a relationship nor a social “intelligence”, but rather an operating mode aiming to regulate, activate and animate the thing between people, as well as between animals (and plants), that participates in putting the “others” in (kinesthetic) dynamic movement. Hence, talking or remaining silent is not the prominent thing in interaction. If the word is useful, then it is used; if silence is useful (so that the other follows their “path”), then it is used.

The symbolic system of this MO.O.N. is observable through ritualized figurative signs, such as the custom handshake. We see it in coach Stephen Garnett⁵, for example, when he interacts with each of his players in a specific sequence after a basketball match, as well as in the now-famous New Zealand Haka sequence. The structure of visible or “sensitive” signs (such as touching each other while “kissing” in France) implies this inter-action, which says: “I recognize you, I am happy to see you, I accept you in my ‘clan’, etc.”. These dynamic rituals make this MO.O.N. identifiable in a person’s willingness to generate “movement”.

Interaction implies a principle of synergy (sunergia), itself generating human propensity, in other words, that which beyond a verbal or postural injunction, generates an activity superior to that which is “requested”. Again, inter implies what happens “between” and action implies force (kratos) and energy (energeia) generating a direct activity. Synergy refers to the ability to coordinate movements in order to simultaneously execute a sequence of movements. To unite, to train and to mobilize are thus operational sub-components of the inter-action (and of the synergy), and these terms (and their meanings) are to be taken as much from the dynamic and propensity viewpoints, as from the relational and social viewpoints. Therefore, when “I” mobilizes around “me”, from the viewpoint of the interpersonal MO.O.N., it is not the “self ” (ontological, psychological), but movement and destination that “my” action and “my” non-action make visible and accessible to “others”.

Hence, rejecting the assumptions of Gardner and Goleman (popularizers of the concept of emotional intelligence), we do not associate this MO.O.N. with intrapersonal intelligence, but with the kinesthetic MO.O.N., because the latter correlates with a dynamic principle between people in terms of movement and utility (of a result and not of a search for a “relationship”). In other words, the interpersonal MO.O.N. is not intended to “be” sympathetic, but empathic.

Let us take the term “train” (dynamic term) and apprehend how the result inherent in this word can be observed:

• – apprehends the configuration (moment-position) necessary to elicit the action of others at his/her side; moves on the spot, questions the situation, listens without interrupting, makes no comments leading to human error and so on;
• – verbalizes and arouses favorable emotions (in a trendsetting fashion) encouraging the intention to follow him/her; knows how to show what works as well as what does not work with the same attitude, adjusts his purpose to the context (potential/situation), to the person and to the group of people, is not mistaken in the purpose, is fair (acknowledges mistakes, recognizes others’ success without ulterior motives and without “dwelling on” them), knows how to take ethnic symbols into account and adjust to them (without submitting to them: accepting against his/her will);
• – verbalizes, makes the idea, the project and the vision in which each perceives his place and its utility visible, accessible and simple; uses images that can be visualized by associating people, makes useful skills and competencies available, expresses what he/she wishes in terms of collective functioning;

• – shows and deploys attitudes and behaviors that are consistent with the stated intention (without any discrepancy between discourse and daily action); remains vigilant to ensure that his/her “off-beat” attitudes are consistent with those presented in public, not by control but by vigilance (letting oneself go: familiarity), preserves a general posture respectful of the different audiences encountered;
• – observes clues (attitudes, verbalizations, emotions, inactions, etc.) in others that indicate deviation or proximity to the original intent and adjusts; shows a purpose adapted to the person and the situation, anticipates (by correlation) the tendency with regard to the observation of a sum of behaviors (gestural, interactive, expressive, semantic) and dissolves the risk of conflict, and the same applies for his/her ability to project a motivational image (one does not motivate, but one emulates a reality leading to a process of motivation);
• – recognizes (specifies) the competencies, the MO.O.N.s and values in each: expresses the utility of the skills observed for the project and for others with precision, cultivates an indifference toward each team member in order not to generate difference (breeding ground for jealousy and frustration) between “one” and “another”, never flatters, but willingly appoints.

6.5. Interpersonal MO.O.N.: observable skills and principles

The assessment of this MO.O.N. does not take into account the ability to sympathize with others (a psychopath knows how to “sympathize”), but it does observe them, identify what sets them in motion and create the favorable conditions (without ulterior motives) which allow a group of people to engage (go into active mode). It is misleading to only associate this MO.O.N. with criteria of socialization (thus, of relation). If there is a relationship, it is because, upstream, an interaction process has been initiated and trust (memory imbued with emotions) has been woven over time between people. We have a relationship (genuine: no other words than those relating to the reality experienced by you and me), because we “traveled” together, because we won and lost together and, despite everything, because we remained faithful to each other.

Developing this MO.O.N. consists of ensuring the actualization (which becomes active) of the key principles of this operating mode, followed by the training of competencies, in other words, of intentional and targeted behaviors. It is a question of understanding what we call “mother” tendencies, that is, the tendencies from which finer skills-abilities will develop.

The main “mother” skills-abilities of the interpersonal MO.O.N. are presented in Table 6.1.