82,892
edits
Empathy and compassion: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
They must sometimes to make decisions their subordinates might not like. They must arbitrate, decide and settle disputes between subordinates that at least one of them definitely will not like. They can’t always be “kind”. | They must sometimes to make decisions their subordinates might not like. They must arbitrate, decide and settle disputes between subordinates that at least one of them definitely will not like. They can’t always be “kind”. | ||
In our postmodern, morally relativistic times, the opportunities for leaders to take sides and get away with it — where there is a consensus good guy against an old-school Bond villain — are rare indeed. Jacinda Arden, who branded herself an empathetic leader, had a couple of rare opportunities: it is safe to side against white | In our postmodern, morally relativistic times, the opportunities for leaders to take sides and get away with it — where there is a consensus good guy against an old-school Bond villain — are rare indeed. Jacinda Arden, who branded herself an empathetic leader, had a couple of rare opportunities: it is safe to side against white supremacist terrorist killers and volcanoes. But these are outliers. Most governance decisions are harder than that. The COVID experience taught that: An apparently brilliant solution (and classically empathetic: shut the borders and keep outsiders out) became less brilliant as the pandemic developed. When the situation called for reassessment — for iteration on earlier hasty decisions — Ardern was slow to do this. | ||
===Empathy is inert. Compassion is active.=== | ===Empathy is inert. Compassion is active.=== | ||