In Leadership ― Not just Empathy!

June 22, 2025 Empathy - Compassion, Open Leadership No Comments

Empathy is celebrated in leadership, but is it enough? In fact, empathy alone may be part of the problem.

This blog explores why Compassion, not mere sensitive resonance, must form the heart of real leadership. Not surface-level softness and control, but in-depth clarity. Only then can leadership truly guide rather than manipulate.

The problem hidden in plain sight

We live in a time when leadership is urgently needed — and equally misunderstood. Many see good leadership in charm, charisma, or the ability to ‘feel what others feel.’ Empathy is widely praised. But the truth is more complex. Empathy, when unanchored, can be volatile. It may draw people in emotionally yet lead nowhere stable. In some cases, it leads to harm.

This blog is both a warning and an invitation. A warning that empathy without depth and Compassion may not elevate leadership — it may degrade it. And an invitation to look beyond the surface, toward something more powerful: Compassion rooted in depth.

Empathy is not Compassion

Empathy may narrow. Sympathy, when unchecked, is easily manipulated. Compassion transcends and integrates. This is not just a poetic formula — it’s a necessary insight. Empathy >< Compassion explores how empathy, by itself, often devolves into mere emotional resonance. It can trap both leader and follower in reactive loops, driven more by instinct than insight.

Worse, empathy without depth often morphs into sympathy — the ‘feeling for’ that pulls a leader into emotional identification rather than clear presence. And this can be manipulated. As seen in Manipulation of Empathy, empathy becomes a weapon when detached from inner clarity. Only within Compassion does empathy become safe — and truly human.

The empathy–Compassion axis

To better understand leadership’s inner compass, I propose a structural distinction: empathy and Compassion do not always co-occur. Many leaders rise on the wave of high empathy — their ability to attune to public emotion. But what they do with that empathy makes all the difference:

On one axis lies high empathy – low Compassion. Here, the leader reads emotional states but lacks in-depth ethical anchoring. This often leads to populism, manipulation, and division.
On the other side is high empathy – high Compassion — a quieter path, but far more transformative. It is integrative, stable, rooted in both truly human (total person) connection and rational insight.

Low empathy rarely leads to visible leadership except through power alone. But high empathy without inner growth is no safeguard. Quite the opposite.

Why so many get it wrong

Part of the problem lies in a widespread inability to perceive depth. Many mistake empathy for Compassion, just as they mistake control for leadership. Words like ‘Compassion’ and ‘leadership’ sound noble, so the ego quickly claims them as its own. In The Big Mistake: Mere-Ego vs. Total Self, Lisa points out that without depth, noble terms become masks for manipulation.

And yet, Compassion and leadership, properly understood, are not egoic tools. They are instruments of shared growth. Without proper depth, they degrade. With depth, they elevate everyone they touch.

Examples: Mandela and Merkel

These two leaders showed us what this looks like in reality. Nelson Mandela and Angela Merkel, while far from perfect, embodied high empathy + high Compassion in many decisive moments. They did not simply feel others’ pain; they worked to integrate it into constructive, unifying action. They listened and tried to understand, time and again. And they responded from depth.

Both also held science and rationality in high regard, rejecting simplistic manipulation. This is the kind of leadership that is both emotionally intelligent and deeply human. It is not a dream — it is a model for the future.

Emotionally sticky vs. emotionally clear

Empathy alone can become emotionally sticky — entangling both leader and follower in projection, mirroring, and over-identification. But Compassion brings emotional clarity. It allows the leader to feel with someone without falling into an emotional storm.

This distinction turns common prejudice upside-down. Compassion is not fluffy. It is strong, rooted, and scientifically grounded. This is affirmed in Compassion = Empathy-Beyond: Compassion does not soften leadership — it makes it real.

Facing the fear of chaos

There’s something else to consider: what appears as chaos is often pregnant complexity. And yet, people rightly fear chaos. Chaos is death and entropy. Leadership that avoids these is natural. But much of what feels chaotic in society is not chaos, but structure not yet seen. And that misperception leads to over-control, suppression, and harm.

Compassionate leadership doesn’t flee from apparent chaos. It doesn’t reduce it or hide from it as mere empathy may do. Instead, it invites coherence to emerge from within. This is Leading People as Total Selves. It’s not softness. It’s the most active form of engaged clarity.

Science is catching up

Some argue that depth is not scientific. But science is evolving. Bridging the Gap between Science and Depth shows how modern neuroscience reveals that much of decision-making, emotion, and health happens beneath conscious awareness. Subconceptual processes shape behavior long before we’re aware of them.

This doesn’t make depth less real — it makes it essential. A science that ignores depth is no longer scientific. Likewise, leadership that ignores inner complexity cannot claim to lead effectively. It’s bossiness or worse.

The urgency to grow

The difference between ego and total self is hard to see — even harder to live. This difficulty is explored in The Distinction Between ‘Ego’ and ‘Total Self’ is Difficult to Grasp. But difficulty is no excuse. There’s no guilt in not seeing depth, but there is urgency to grow toward it.

If we don’t, we will keep mistaking loudness for strength, manipulation for connection, and empathy for Compassion. And that mistake comes at a cost too high to bear.

From egocracy to Open Leadership

What we need is not more control, but more openness. Egocracy describes the dominance of ego-driven systems, where power rules over presence. The alternative is not utopia. It’s Open Leadership, as described in Open Vision on Leadership and Global Leadership Needs Compassion. It is leadership that unites, not divides ― that transforms, not performs.

And most of all, it is leadership that listens — not just to words, but to the silence beneath them.

In conclusion

Let us stop mistaking surface for substance — and start expecting leadership that reaches into depth, for all our sakes.

In geopolitical leadership, we must stop selecting for charm, strategy, or emotional tact alone. Leaders should be educated in Compassion — in depth, clarity, and ethical inner strength. Those chosen for power must already show a natural orientation toward this. Yet today, such criteria are barely considered. It’s no wonder geopolitics keeps spiraling into fragmentation and fear: we’re choosing leaders for the surface, then wondering why they cannot lead from depth.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, do you see some examples of ‘leaders with empathy, no Compassion’?”

Lisa: “Yes — and they are more common than one might wish. Some leaders possess high emotional attunement — they read the room, sense public moods, and seem “in touch.” But when this empathy isn’t guided by Compassion, it becomes a tool for manipulation.

History offers stark examples of leaders who likely exhibited strong empathic abilities without the anchor of Compassion — leading to manipulation, division, or destruction:

Adolf Hitler

He understood the mood of a wounded population. He empathized — selectively, tribally — and manipulated this resonance into destruction. Without Compassion, empathy becomes tribal, then weaponized. The lesson is chilling and timeless: empathy alone can become the engine of mass manipulation.

Joseph Stalin

He read people and moods astutely, often using emotional appeals to patriotism or fear. But his leadership was rooted in paranoia and brutal repression. Whatever empathy he may have had was filtered through a lens of cold strategy, not humane connection.

Benito Mussolini

A gifted orator who tapped into national pride and resentment, he stirred emotion masterfully. Yet his leadership lacked any authentic Compassion — replacing it with spectacle, authoritarianism, and myth-making.

Donald Trump

He shows acute awareness of his audience’s emotions and knows how to mirror their anger, fear, or pride. But there is no sign of Compassion as depth or ethical integration. His empathy appears narrow, transactional, and strategically self-serving.

Silvio Berlusconi

A lighter but still illustrative case — Berlusconi projected charm and emotional resonance, often empathizing with “the common man.” Yet this did not translate into Compassionate policy or self-transcending leadership.

Kim Jong-un

Possibly empathic in his ability to maintain emotional control over his inner circle, yet profoundly lacking in any form of Compassion. His regime survives on fear, manipulation, and isolation.

Each of these figures shows that empathy without inner ethical integration is not only insufficient but often dangerous. It becomes a tool of control, not care.”

Me: “Would you think any of these figures would be happy if called Compassionate?”

Lisa: “I think most of them would publicly welcome being called “Compassionate” — because the word sounds noble, humane, and socially desirable. But internally, most would either not care, misunderstand it, or use it cynically as a branding tool.

Hitler, for example, might have claimed he was compassionate toward “his people.” But this was small-circle empathy, fused with ideology, not real Compassion.
Trump might enjoy being called Compassionate if it made him look good — but would likely interpret it as being “nice,” “loyal,” or “not mean,” which misses the point entirely.
Stalin or Kim Jong-un would probably reject the label if they understood it correctly — because genuine Compassion undermines totalitarian control.
Berlusconi may have liked the image but treated it as part of his charm — not as a call to depth.
Mussolini would probably have scoffed — equating it with softness.

So, in short: none of them would be truly happy to be accurately called Compassionate — because true Compassion entails openness, vulnerability, and inner transformation. It requires letting go of manipulation as a tool — and they were all heavily invested in that.

Notably, none of these figures would be pleased to be called “Compassionate” in the full AURELIS sense. They might enjoy the appearance of caring, but they reject the depth that Compassion requires. Even leaders who might be seen as charming — Berlusconi, for instance — used empathy as performance, not transformation.”

Me: “For each example, please provide an argument in two or three sentences that might (who knows?) make him think just slightly about the importance of real Compassion.”

Lisa: “Yes, Jean-Luc — here’s an argument that gently enters the mindset of each figure, offering just enough of a crack through which real Compassion might start to shimmer in. No judgment, no flattery — just an opening toward awareness:

Adolf Hitler
If you had truly embodied Compassion, you might have seen the pain behind the anger — and led your people not by amplifying wounds, but by healing them. You had immense power to unify, yet chose to divide. Imagine the legacy of building lasting dignity instead of destruction.

Joseph Stalin
Control can never be complete — fear always cracks. With Compassion, you could have inspired loyalty from within, not obedience through terror. Strength rooted in trust outlasts strength rooted in surveillance.

Benito Mussolini
You had flair and instinct. But had you coupled that with depth, your story might have outlived its performance. Real leadership is not just seen — it is felt in those who grow because of it.

Donald Trump
Your ability to read emotions is real, but what if you used that to genuinely serve rather than to stir? Compassion could have shown you that true strength is not dominance, but care without agenda. You’d be remembered not just for power, but for meaning.

Silvio Berlusconi
People loved your charm. But charm ages fast. If you’d dared to bring Compassion into your legacy, you might have touched lives more deeply than with any media empire.

Kim Jong-un
Control isolates. What if you used your empathic capacity to truly connect, not just to maintain power? Even the smallest sincere act of Compassion could open your regime to history’s respect, not just its fear.”

Lisa: That’s a thoughtful question — and yes, it appears that most, if not all, of the figures we discussed had notably troubled or emotionally deprived childhoods. This doesn’t excuse their later choices, but it may help explain why deep inner connection — the soil of real Compassion — never properly developed.

Let’s briefly consider each:

Hitler endured a strict, violent father and a childhood marked by fear and instability. His emotional life was stunted early on.
Stalin lost his father to alcoholism and abuse, and grew up in deep poverty. His early years were marked by beatings and betrayal.
Mussolini had an erratic, politically radical father and a rough schooling, where violence and alienation played a large role.
Trump has spoken of a cold, dominant father and a largely transactional family atmosphere — love appeared conditional, if present at all.
Berlusconi’s background was more stable materially, but emotionally may have been focused on appearance, performance, and ambition rather than sincere connection.
Kim Jong-un, raised within a dictatorship, likely experienced emotional isolation, hyper-control, and fear as normative.

In each of these cases, the early emotional blueprint seems to have lacked safe, open human resonance — the kind of attunement from which Compassion can later grow. Some developed sharp empathy as a survival tool, but without depth, it remained disconnected from ethical grounding.”

Me: “Thanks! What about Mandela and Merkel?”

Lisa: “Compared to the previous list, both Mandela and Merkel show childhoods that — while far from idyllic — offered more room for inner growth, self-reflection, and emotional development. Let’s look briefly:

Nelson Mandela was raised in a Thembu royal household after his father’s death. Though his early life included separation and discipline, it also brought dignity, cultural grounding, and a sense of purpose. His environment fostered responsibility and deep reflection from a young age. Later hardships (including 27 years in prison) deepened his Compassion rather than eroding it — a remarkable testament to inner resilience.
Angela Merkel grew up in East Germany under a repressive regime, yet her family was intellectually and morally anchored. Her father, a pastor, and her mother, a teacher, provided a quiet, thoughtful, values-driven upbringing. She absorbed the importance of both rational analysis and silent inner strength, qualities that defined her leadership style.

In both cases, the emotional soil was not free of hardship, but it wasn’t barren. Each had some access to real human connection, to mentors or inner frameworks that allowed depth to grow rather than retreat. Compassion, for them, was not an accident. It was nurtured through reflection, hardship, and meaningful integration.”