Andrew Laming: Why Empathy Training Doesn’t Work
October 1, 2021
Author: , Senior Lecturer, Human Resource Management, UNSW Canberra,
Translator: Phan Thi Dong Hoai – Teacher of Hoa Sen University (HSU)
When members of the Federal Parliament were repeatedly accused of harassment and abuse, one of the responses from our most senior leaders was empathy training.
These programs aim to help people understand the worldview of others.
Over the weekend, Prime Minister Scott Morrison ordered currently accused Federal MP Andrew Laming to undertake a private course in empathy. Morrison told reporters
I hope that […] will notice a positive change in his behavior.
The move follows Laming’s apology for harassing two women online and then admitting that he didn’t know what to apologize for. Immediately after Morrison’s announcement, Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said he would require his Party to also undertake empathy training.
If we can […] learn some advice that not only guides us to be better at ourselves but also inspires others to do that, so I think that’s one thing. good.
Many people – including opposition MPs, women’s advocates, and psychologists – immediately reacted with skepticism. In short, if someone needs to take a course to learn how to empathize, they will miss a few basic things that are unclear whether they can be fixed within the program’s salary or not.
Issues in empathy training
People have every right to be skeptical about empathy training programs – which have all the trappings of human resources short-term activism.
The same can be noted with the introduction of unconscious bias training a few years ago. There is no easy or quick solution – or even a significant relief – when it comes to discrimination and harassment.
Requiring all employees to take mandatory training such as diversity training or sexual harassment training can be counterproductive, researchers found. When beliefs are “forced”, people will tend to resist and what they believe in will become even stronger.
Additionally, training programs aimed at raising awareness about gender equality and discrimination are often seen by employers as the best improvement measures. More seriously, there is punishment, which can also lead to resistance from participants. Laming’s empathy training will certainly be carried out in this building – he has been caught harassing women, so now he must be punished by taking a course.
Similarly, studies have shown that sexual harassment training done just once is ineffective and may make the problem worse. American researchers found that men forced to participate in sexual harassment training became defensive and resisted learning. But worse than that, men’s resistance results in them blaming the victim and assuming that all women are making false accusations of sexual harassment.
Thereby, the research results were clearly shown. One-time, mandatory sexual harassment and diversity training programs are ineffective. Meanwhile, there is little data on the success of empathy programs to date, and previous studies have not indicated that the training programs have been effective.
What works?
However, it’s not all bad news for the organizers of the empathy course. Voluntary training is more successful because these people are truly willing to learn and care about gender equality and eliminating sexual harassment. Research also shows that we do have empathy education, but those taking the course must be willing to change.
What leads to the elimination of sexual harassment when mandatory training programs have limited effectiveness? Surely we do not need any more proposals that force the Federal Parliament and our entire society to change.
Earlier this month, tens of thousands of Australians took to the streets, calling for change in parliament and beyond. James Ross/AAP
As Dr. Meraiah Foley and I have argued in the past, what needs to be done to make training effective?
First, it is necessary to add clear actionable solutions such as setting goals to increase women’s participation in leadership roles. This is why returning to the quota debate within the Liberal Party is so important.
Second, training should lead to new structures and new accountability for conduct. This can be achieved by course participants as they identify the necessary behaviors that can increase equality in the workplace. For example, simple actions like ensuring women participate equally in meetings and always valuing their opinions.
Course participants then noted when they performed those behaviors and discussed progress with the facilitators. They continue to reflect, act, and then share experiences and identify successful strategies.
Third, to develop gender equality in the workplace, ongoing behavioral change needs to be complemented with systemic organizational change. As I have written elsewhere, researchers recommend that organizations adopt short- and long-term agendas that can achieve small, immediate successes, while profound transformations still happen. Structural change starts with examining human resources policies and processes to uncover gender stereotypes and gender discrimination. Kate Jenkins will no doubt undertake such a task in her review of working culture in the Houses of Parliament.
We need more tangible change
However, checking processes and policies is not enough. Changing language and other symbols within organizations is also an important part of changing culture to align with the image of gender equality. For example, ensure meeting rooms are named and portraits of women – as well as men – adorn the walls to send a subtle yet powerful message that the space belongs to women too.
Changing the way of working, the rituals, and the objects of the Parliament House will contribute to cultural change.
Structural and systemic change to achieve gender equality is slow. Although requiring politicians who are currently unprepared to attend training courses seems an inevitable first step, it is not the primary issue we should focus on. heart.
Source:
Source:
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license.
