Jiang, Xiaoxiao; Yeo, Gillian; To, March.

Empathy is defined as “the tendency of, or capacity for, understanding other’s thoughts, feelings and internal states” (Aw et al., 2020, p. 1038). There is consensus that this capacity involves perspective-taking—which allows individuals to understand others’ thoughts and feelings, and empathic concern—whereby individuals feel and show their concern for others (Clark et al., 2019). Over the last two decades, across management, business, and applied psychology fields, empathy and its cognitive and affective components have been linked with valued work outcomes, such as positive emotions, relationship quality, and leadership performance (Barneron et al., 2021; Cooper et al., 2022).
A key feature of empathy—which is inherent in its conceptualization—is that it reflects a two-way interpersonal process, whereby an empathizer extends or gives empathy and the empathizee receives it (Zaki, 2020). Despite recognition of this two-way process, current research has inadequately accounted for this fundamental property of empathy, or, moreover, the implication that empathy’s effects may be qualified by features of this two-way process. As such, there has been a growing call for researchers to expand the narrow focus on one-way links between empathy and outcomes to more broadly account for the two-way process between empathizer and empathizee (Jian, 2022), including consideration of boundary conditions that may arise as a function of this interpersonal process (Goldstein et al., 2014; Zaki, 2020). The lack of consideration of the inherent two-way process of empathy is problematic, because current understanding may be obscured due to being based on an incomplete picture (Jian, 2022).
To address this issue, our systematic review provides a structured roadmap for future research on the interpersonal nature of empathy. We first elaborate the implications of a two-way view of empathy by considering the divergence between empathizers and empathizees. This set the stage for a 2 (empathizer giving empathy vs. empathizee receiving empathy) × 2 (empathizer’s outcomes vs. empathizee’s outcomes) matrix and four associated empathy-outcome pathways that we used to review and classify the 91 empirical articles identified by our literature search. In parallel, we identified interpersonal boundary conditions of empathy’s impacts. This approach enabled us to synthesize what is known versus less understood regarding the interpersonal nature of empathy, and to use this existing landscape in conjunction with relevant theoretical frameworks to provide recommendations for future theoretical development and practical advancement.

- Understanding Empathy as a Two-Way Process: Practitioners could learn to recognize empathy not just as their own ability to understand and share the feelings of others, but also how it is received by the empathizee. This perspective allows for a more nuanced approach to interpersonal interactions in professional settings.
- Embracing the Impact of Empathy in the Workplace: The review found that empathy is linked to a range of valued work outcomes for both the empathizers (e.g., leader) and empathizees (e.g., followers). Practitioners might therefore see the value in cultivating empathy within themselves and their teams to improve these areas.
- Navigating the Complexities of Empathic Interactions: Practitioners can learn to be aware of boundary conditions that may influence the process of giving and receiving empathy. This understanding can help them to better manage and facilitate empathic interactions in ways that are effective and appropriate for their specific context.