Empathy with a Backbone: Why Good Leadership Needs Closeness and Boundaries

Empathy is one of those terms that hardly any manager would openly contradict today. Of course, empathy is important, they say. Especially in difficult times, when people are feeling insecure. And of course, they see themselves as an empathetic leader.

However, there is often a significant gap between one's own perception and that of the employees.

A US study from 2024 shows this very clearly: 55 percent of the polled CEOs were convinced they lead with empathy. Only 28 percent of employees and 22 percent of HR managers shared this assessment. Empathy is apparently abundant – but often only in one's own perception. The State of Workplace Empathy Report sums up this discrepancy impressively.

The current August 2026 issue of Harvard Business Manager also addresses this area of tension. I find the idea of a shared "empathy protocol" particularly interesting. Because it moves away from well-meaning attitudes and toward a crucial question: Where can we actually recognize empathy in everyday leadership?

Empathy is more than sympathy

Empathy in leadership does not mean feeling all of another person's emotions yourself. Managers also do not need to become therapists for their employees. And empathy certainly does not mean avoiding conflicts, lowering standards, or trying to please everyone as much as possible.

Leading with empathy means first of all making a serious effort to understand the reality of the other person before judging, deciding, or acting.

This includes listening closely, taking different perspectives, and noticing the needs of an individual just as much as the interests of the entire team. Empathy is thus more than just emotional support. It is also a form of gathering information: Anyone who understands what occupies people, what experiences shape their view, and what they need right now can make better decisions.

A technology organization described in the Harvard Business Manager therefore refers to empathy as "intellectual generosity". This means the willingness to give genuine space to another person's perspective and to allow one's own assumptions to be challenged through contradiction and debate. The goal is not harmony at all costs, but technical excellence through diverse points of view.

This may seem unusual at first – and yet it hits on an important point: Empathy can be friendly, but it doesn't always have to be comfortable. Respectful contradiction can also be empathetic. The key factor is whether it serves the common output and respects the other's dignity.

What an empathy protocol can achieve

An empathy protocol is not a conversation guide that provides managers with pre-formulated phrases. Rather, it is a shared agreement on what empathy means in one's own company or team and how it should manifest in everyday work.

To achieve this, four questions should be clarified:

1. What do we mean by empathy?
   Is it about genuine interest, shifts in perspective, attentive listening, respectful contradiction – or a combination of these? The clearer the shared definition, the smaller the risk that everyone understands something different by it.

2. What behavior makes empathy visible?
   For example, letting people finish speaking, asking questions before presenting solutions, or being able to speak difficult truths openly without exposing anyone.

3. How do we connect empathy with performance and responsibility?
   Individual workloads should be taken into account. At the same time, the team must not permanently bear the consequences. Empathy does not replace commitment. Instead, it helps to find viable and fair solutions.

4. What do we commit to mutual and reciprocally?
   What can employees expect from their manager? What can the manager expect from the team? And how do both sides recognize that the agreed-upon commitment is actually being lived?

In this way, an abstract value becomes observable behavior. Empathy is no longer something a leader claims about themselves. It becomes something that others can experience.

Really listening – without immediately taking the stage yourself

Many managers want to establish closeness by sharing their own experiences: "I know that feeling. Something similar happened to me once." This is usually well-meaning. But suddenly the conversation is no longer about the person who sought support, but about the manager.

Empathetic listening requires something else: opening the space without immediately filling it yourself.

This does not require a sophisticated technique. Often, a few honest questions are enough:

• How are you experiencing the situation?

• What bothers you most about it?

• What is working at the moment – and what is not?

• What do you need from me right now?

• Would you like to develop a solution or should I just listen first?

The last question in particular can make a big change. Because not everyone who describes a problem expects immediate advice. Sometimes, the most important support is simply that someone stays present, listens, and doesn't prematurely downplay the other's experience.

Provide support without taking over the problem

Empathetic leadership easily seduces into savior-mindset. The manager hears a problem, feels responsible, and starts organizing solutions right away. However, by doing so, they may take away the very self-responsibility that leadership is actually meant to promote.

Four pragmatic questions are more helpful:

• What actually happened?

• What support is needed?

• Who can reasonably provide this support?

• What is my role in this?

Leading with empathy does not necessarily mean providing the support yourself. It can just as well mean enabling access to appropriate support.

In doing so, keeping an eye on the bigger picture remains important. An individual relief can be right. However, it must not unnoticed lead to the permanent overloading of other team members. Good leadership therefore keeps the needs of the individual and the capability of the collective in balance.

Empathy needs boundaries

An empathetic leader does not have to be constantly available. Anyone who absorbs every mood, is accessible at all times, and makes every problem their own business will eventually burn out. Empathy then turns into overload – and the supportive leader turns into someone who withdraws inside.

Healthy boundaries are therefore not a contradiction to empathy. They are what make sustainable empathy possible in the first place.

Dedicated times for deep focus work, clear rules on availability, and consciously protected breaks are not signs of a lack of support. On the contrary: A manager who takes their own needs seriously also shows their employees that self-care and performance go hand in hand.

Three questions help in personal clarification:

• What boundaries do I currently need to lead effectively?

• Why are these boundaries important to me?

• How do I need to communicate them so that others can understand and respect them?

Approachability does not mean permanent availability.

The right words are part of it too

Finally, empathy shows in language. Sentences like "I know exactly how you feel," "It will be fine," or "At least..." are often intended to comfort. However, they can unintentionally downplay the other person's experience.

Phrases that acknowledge without claiming to understand everything are better:

• "I hear how much this is occupy you."

• "That sounds like a really difficult situation."

• "I want to better understand your perspective."

Such sentences don't solve the problem immediately. But they create a connection – and often this connection is precisely the prerequisite for finding a good solution together.

The protocol must not turn into a theatrical play

As helpful as the idea of an empathy protocol is, it also harbors a risk: Empathy cannot be fully standardized. If managers merely work through learned questions or recite the correct phrases, people will quickly sense that they are not receiving genuine attention.

An empathy protocol should therefore be a framework for orientation, not a script. It can clarify behavior and make mutual expectations visible. However, the quality of the interaction still arises from presence, honest curiosity, and the willingness to actually be touched or even irritated by another person's point of view.

Empathy is not a kindness program. It requires openness – and sometimes courage. The courage to listen even when you don't know the answer yet. The courage to let another perspective stand. The courage to clearly disagree. And equally the courage to protect one's own boundaries.

Especially in crises, people need both: a leader who perceives what is happening to them – and a leader who provides orientation. True empathy combines humanity with clarity. In this lies its strength in leadership.