No, empathy from your manager isn’t enough. Here’s what you really need

Empathy is often regarded as a cornerstone of human connection—a way to step into another person’s shoes and demonstrate understanding. It provides a sense of assurance when emotions, beliefs, or experiences are heard and acknowledged. However, while empathy is important, it may not go far enough in addressing the complexities of workplace dynamics. This perspective is at the heart of the work of Leila Billing, co-founder of We Are Feminist Leaders, who argues that empathy often stops short of meaningful action.

In this context, the concept of acuerpar offers a powerful alternative. Rooted in decolonial Central American feminist theory, acuerpar calls for action beyond empathy, emphasizing tangible support and collective solidarity. As Mayan feminist Lorena Cabnal explains, it involves “the personal and collective action wherein our bodies, outraged by the injustices experienced by other bodies, self-convene to provide themselves with political energy.” Inspired by this concept, Billing explores how workplaces can move beyond empathy to create environments that prioritize meaningful support and accountability. Here, we’re sharing Billing’s insights, examining how acuerpar can transform workplace relationships and power dynamics through action and solidarity.

The following article is adapted from an interview with Billing, edited for length and clarity.

Wait, is empathy a bad thing?

Through all my focus on feminist approaches to leadership over the years, one thing I’ve noticed is that there is a lot of focus on the importance of empathy as a central leadership skill. It’s something upper management wants to see in their managers or their leaders as well as their staff, and on the surface, there’s nothing wrong with that. Of course we need to be empathic with each other! We need leaders who take the time to listen and try to understand people’s different perspectives. The problem is, we have a tendency to fetishize empathy.

I have spoken to many people of color working for nonprofits. But the example that stands out to me is the story of one young woman working for a very large international charity. She was brilliant at her job and wanted to be promoted. But she felt discouraged after seeing far less experienced white men around her being promoted above her time after time. It took her three years to gather the courage to speak to someone about it, but eventually, she approached the Diversity Equity and Inclusion team. They had a very honest conversation. She said, ‘Look, I’m trying to get promoted and it’s not happening. I think I’m experiencing discrimination, and I think our organization’s promotion system is systemically racist.’

When I asked her how it went, she said they listened to her and they really empathized. She said they even told her they went through similar struggles early on in their careers. But what happened next? Nothing. She was essentially told by this senior leader that there was nothing she could do because there would be too much resistance from the top.

This is where we encounter the limits of empathy. I don’t think empathy always delivers on what it promises because it doesn’t always lead to meaningful action. The person dispensing empathy, rather than the person with the problem, has the most to gain. They’ve found a way to make the person with the grievance feel heard without really doing anything.

“Ultimately, it’s still quite an individualistic idea.”

Individualism and existing leadership molds

Many of us, particularly in the western world, have been sold a story around leadership that has been heavily influenced by capitalist values and colonial thinking. We’ve been educated about a very individualistic idea of leadership that’s about climbing to the top and being a heroic, charismatic leader. Perhaps you do a bit of collaboration, but ultimately, it’s still quite an individualistic idea.

We can also tie in the idea of white liberal feminism. And when I say white feminism, I’m not talking about white women who are feminists. I’m talking about a particular brand of feminism that places the concerns of women with more power. It’s the type of feminism that will really fetishize this idea of empathy. But it’s also a type of feminism that has very little to say about what it really takes to deal with key issues of unequal power at work, like the gender pay gap, institutionalized racism, or the ways in which our workplaces function, like the hierarchies that can make our workplaces fundamentally unfair and unequal. Both of these things contribute to the way I see empathy being championed and spoken about in the leadership industry. They center the individual over the collective.

“If you can’t be bold right off the bat, build a ramp.”

What is needed to allow acuerpar to flourish?

I want to bring it back to Lorena Cabnal, who writes a lot about acuerpar. She reminds us that it’s a very radical political position. It’s about coming together to challenge harmful abuses of power wherever they may arise. But, in your average workplace, how do you practice that when not everyone can be radical and political?

It’s about starting small—that is, using whatever power and privilege we have to support groups in the workplace who have the least power. Let’s say women in your organization are campaigning for enhanced parental leave provision. Then, acuerpar may mean the men in the organization supporting the women in a visible way. Not just empathizing behind the scenes, but actually showing up to the meetings, verbalizing their support in front of leaders and decision-makers, and not leaving all the trouble-making only to the women. More generally, other members of a team who have slightly more power because of their identities, their social positions, or their organizational positions, should stand up for their marginalized peers. There’s a responsibility on all of us. Don’t leave it to people who are minoritized in your workplace to voice their opinions. Often, minoritized groups in the workplace fear backlash from voicing their perspectives. It comes from a really, real place. It might be smart and strategic to just say ‘I’m not going to fight this fight’, and that might be a means to self-protection.

In larger workplaces, employee advocate groups may already exist. So you might have a group that might represent LGBTQI+ people. Or for people of color, particularly for larger organizations. Acuerpar could mean each of those groups showing up for each other’s agendas rather than competing for resources or the ear of leadership.

Acuerpar can be taken to a higher level though. For those people who like to be challenged, an approach that is more in line with Cabnal’s thinking asks us to think a bit more radically. For example, maybe you work for a fashion company marketing clothes. Who are the women who made the clothes that your company sells? Where are they from? Under what conditions do they work? Acuerpar invites you to think about how you show solidarity with them. Could you push the company for greater transparency in its supply chains? The majority of people reading this may not see this as within the scope of their work. But to really understand acuerpar as Lorena Cabnal saw it is to remind yourself that it’s a radical.

If you can’t be bold right off the bat, build a ramp. Where are the cracks? Sometimes you have to strategize and operate below the radar. You’re not always going to be able to come out with all guns blazing. To quote Alice Walker, the most effective way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any. No one is ever completely powerless, not even the most marginalized person in the world. They will always have some degree of agency. I think there’s no path to change that starts with telling ourselves that there’s nothing we can do.

“We need leaders who are more reflective and accountable for their own biases.”

How do we implement acuerpar within the hierarchy of our workplaces?

Unequal power structures at work undermine acuerpar. I’m not saying hierarchies are bad, but when hierarchies are overly rigid; when they enable power to be used without accountability. When they encourage us to work only in service of those who are at the highest levels of the hierarchy, then I think hierarchies can undermine aquerpar.

We need checks and balances that ensure leaders aren’t in a position that enables them to act with impunity. So that when they’re not acting in the best interests of staff, there are accountability mechanisms that enable people to be able to hold feet to the fire. The thing is though, sadly, in many workplaces, either those accountability frameworks don’t exist, they’re ineffective, or people are too scared to actually use them. We need leaders who are very reflective and who are willing to kind of regularly check in on their own practice and at how they show up. They need to ask themselves questions: Did I overstep the mark? How did I use my power? How am I holding myself accountable to the organizational values we need? They need to show they’re not afraid to have difficult conversations and that they can listen to critiques and then react without defensiveness. We need leaders who are more reflective and accountable for their own biases and how these biases might operate.

But let’s not forget that power can be informal too in workplaces. It can show up in unspoken ways. There are organizations that I’ve worked with that have much flatter structures, with less of a top-heavy leadership organizational structure, and they still have challenges with harmful power dynamics. That’s because the power dynamics that are inherent in a hierarchy just shift into other places, or they become hidden in the organizational culture. But I think a workplace that is far more power-aware and accountable is still able to have acuerpar take root.

Photo: Betty Zapata for Welcome to the Jungle

Follow Welcome to the Jungle on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram and subscribe to our newsletter to get our latest articles every week!