Objective Empathy in Human Centered Design

In nearly every conceptual, practical, or philosophical view of Everyday Empathy, popular culture is correct. Empathy is pretty great. Down the rabbit hole of popular Design theory, Empathy becomes considerably more nuanced.

tl;dr version can be found in the article summary.

Empathy as a Design Attitude

Who is the Human benefiting from the Design solution?

Because “success” of the Human Centered Design process is most effectively measured by the degree of a Design solution’s benefit to its human actor, Human Centered Design practitioners must understand the stated human need, as well as the motivating nature of the need, to effectively respond with Design solutions that create meaningfully impactful products, services, and experiences on the actor’s behalf.

What is the human feeling? What is the human thinking? What does the human need? What does the human want? What is the human’s ideal outcome? What are the human’s motivations and expectations? What are the human’s measures of success? How can we create systems that directly benefit the human? How can we create meaningful benefits for all of the humans acting within a system?

How can we better understand the motivating nature, circumstance, and context, of the human’s need, ideal outcome, or measure of success?

By being Empathetic.

Assuming the perspective of the human benefiting from the Design solution gives Human Centered Design practitioners a method to understand the context and meaning of collected Design Research, Human Centered system observations, and qualitative human feedback.

Within Human Centered Design processes, Empathy is the attitude, method, and practice of assuming the point of view of an identified human actor to better understand their needs, outcomes, and metrics for success, when designing meaningfully impactful services, products, or experiences.

Why Empathy is Confusing

According to Design Culture, Empathy is Everything.

As the conceptual usage, and industry attitude of the word “Empathy” continues to evolve within the intersection of Design philosophy and practice, it has become increasingly difficult to find a crisp, meaningful definition on which to base team expectations.

Empathy Everyday. Empathy is Compassion. Empathy Works. Empathy is a Stage. Empathy is a Foundation. Empathy is a Powerful Sales Technique. Empathy is a Lifestyle. Empathy is a Key. Empathy is a Framework.

With each new philosophical perspective highlighting the conceptual value of Empathy, its practical purpose within Human Centered Design can often become misunderstood. This misunderstanding leads to emotionally subjective interpretations of the human actor, resulting in Design solutions that do not meet objectively identified needs, goals and ideal outcomes.

Because each Collaborative Design contributor brings with them a different perspective (or article) on how valuable Empathy is as a worldview, business practice, or technological philosophy, there can be numerous disagreements about its interpretation and use when participating in the Design of practical, real-world solutions.

Empathy has such a wide range of interpretations and emotional considerations outside of the Design space, that it becomes a difficult subject to tackle when setting expectations for the attitude of Collaborative Design teams.

Empathy in Human Centered Design Frameworks

How Empathizing with the Human Actor Drives Design Processes.

As Design practitioners highlight the perspective of the human actor across collaborative teams and functions, participating contributors align around a common Human Centered objective.

Human Centered Design places an identified human actor at the center of a series of contextual problem statements, around which Design practitioners frame discovery research, testing hypothesis, and Collaborative Design exercises to determine “Human-Driven” Design solutions.

The goal of the Human Centered Design team is to create meaningful benefit for the “human actor” by viewing Design challenges from their perspective when making decisions that will impact the actor’s experiences.

With empathy serving as an effective way to understand the “Human” part of the Design team’s problem statement, practitioners are able to more effectively gauge the “success” of the solution throughout the Design planning, creation, and implementation phases. This attitude of “Perspective-Based Decision Making” guides Design practitioners throughout the iterative creation of any process, function, or service, providing a touch point for the human actor within a system.

Articulating the human actor’s perspective gives the Design team a frame of reference for the context of the actor’s needs, bringing together otherwise disparate facts and feedback to create a clear view of the Design problem, as well as the solution.

Establishing empathy as a team philosophy drives Design attitudes and discussions when creating a wide variety of Design or Research artifacts, deliverables, or solutions.

Designing with Empathy means that team observations, hypothesis, discussions, and solutions focus on creating benefit, or improving the condition, relationship, or experience, of the human actor.

Responding directly to human needs, making choices with the human’s benefit in mind, and incorporating meaningful human feedback, all represent practical applications of Empathy within Human Centered Design philosophies.

The Purpose of Empathy

Empathy is meaningless without a meaningfully defined purpose.

As varying popular usages of the word “Empathy” continue to shift its tactical, professional use, it becomes increasingly important for Collaborative Design practitioners to re-center Empathy as an objective attitude when participating in the Human Centered Design process.

When Design practitioners objectively assume the point of view of a human actor, Empathy has a practical, beneficial purpose within the Human Centered Design framework.

The goal of Empathy within the Human Centered Design process is to create a perspective-based understanding of human needs, ideal outcomes, and measures of success. By understanding the actor’s perspective, Design practitioners frame objective assumptions and observations to create a solution for further feedback and testing.

The Human Centered Design toolkit includes a wide variety of collectively established exercises, attitudes, and techniques, to objectively establish a deep understanding of the needs of the human actor, and then meaningfully respond by testing and assessing different human-facing hypothesis to identify and deploy the most beneficial Human Centered solution.

Applying Empathy within Human Centered Design practice gives Design practitioners a method to better understand and contextualize the motivations of the human actor by objectively viewing the conditions or benefits of the Design solution from the human’s perspective.

Empathy is a Tricky Subject — Hugs After

Types of Empathy as Framed by Human Centered Design Practice.

Within Human Centered Design exercises, Empathy is the ability to take the perspective of the human actor who will directly benefit from the Design solution.

Because many Design contributors consider “Empathy” to be a universally understood word, with applications and meanings outside of the Human Centered Design process, setting expectations for how best to practically apply Empathy during Collaborative Design phases becomes a critical factor in focusing team discussions and exercises productively.

Affective Empathy establishes an emotional perspective, while Cognitive Empathy establishes a psychological perspective.

Affective Empathy (AE) — Emotional Empathy

Affective Empathy is the act of understanding the perspective of a human actor by emotionally identifying with their feelings or emotional condition. Affective Empathy identifies with the emotion of the human actor, and as a result, exhibits an emotionally-driven response.

Taking on the emotional perspective of the human benefiting from the solution is intended to minimize the inherent emotional biases of the Design practitioner, and provide a holistic understanding of emotionally complex problem statements. When applied to Human Centered Design methods, Affective Empathy runs the risk of encouraging an “Emotion By Proxy” mindset within the practitioner.

Cognitive Empathy (CE) — Analytical Empathy

Cognitive Empathy is the act of understanding the perspective of a human actor by psychologically identifying with their mental model, point of view, or state of being. Cognitive Empathy provides Design practitioners with an analytical model to identify with the psychology, thought process, and methods of human actors to better understand their world view and associated perspectives.

Adopting the psychological perspective of the human actor gives Design practitioners a way to represent and respond to the human attitudes, expected systems, and underlying mental models that most resonate with the actor inside the space of the Design solution. Human Centered Design exercises also commonly focus on using Tactical Cognitive Empathy to identify possible Design solutions that resonate with the perceptions, functions, or mental models of the human actor.

{A Brief Word of Caution: In Human Centered Design conversations involving the philosophical meaning, or practical application of the word “Empathy,” voices have become raised.

In a twist of “Design-rony,” it is extremely difficult to change a Design contributor’s interpretation of the word “Empathy,” even when trained in objective Design methods.}

Drawbacks of Affective Empathy

Common issues of Affective Empathy within Human Centered Design practices.

Design choices driven by Affective Empathy create several detrimental types of fallacies. When left unchecked, these fallacies undermine the success of the Human Centered Design solution, as measured by the degree of benefit to the human actor.

“I know the human, I am the human.”

“I have facilitated quantitative and qualitative research including the human. I have spoken directly with the human. I know intimate details about the human. I feel emotions on behalf of the human. I sympathize with the human. I have taken on the emotional role of the human. I am connected with the emotional perspective of the human. I know the human. I understand the human. I share the point of view of the human.”

“I am the human.”

The primary philosophy behind the use of Empathy within the Human Centered Design process is the clear acknowledgement that Design practitioners are creating solutions on behalf of other humans. Taking on the emotional perspective of the other human does not make you that human.

No matter how closely you identify with the feelings of the human, or how strongly you identify with the human’s emotional world view, or how often you have the same emotional response when using the same Design solution, you will never be the human.

Design practitioners who view themselves as the human, instead of an objective advocate of our humans, do so as a representation of their own subjective world view, not out of objective consideration for the human benefiting from the solution.

Emotional Confirmation Bias

When taking on the emotional perspective of a human actor, Affective Empathy quickly becomes “Inherited Emotion.” By inheriting emotions, the Design practitioner assumes their own subjective interpretation of the human’s emotion, rather than objectively determining an interpretation based on known perspectives, or new observations of the human actor.

Inherited Emotion facilitates Emotional Confirmation Bias when the emotional disposition of the contributor inherits only those emotions with which the practitioner resonates. While not explicit, these intrinsic emotional value judgements wildly skew interpretations of Qualitative Research, resulting in Designs that do not address the human actor’s need.

When prioritizing only the emotions of the human actor which create resonance within the Design practitioner, many other causal factors, alternate interpretations, and resulting solutions, are often de-prioritized, or ignored.

Emotional Justification

Affective Empathy creates a sense of emotional justification, whereby the practitioner operationally prioritizes the emotional representation of the human over the direct feedback of the humans themselves.

When taking an “Emotion by Proxy” approach, the practitioner feels empowered to take emotional leaps in logic to justify Design decisions, rather than objectively qualifying the value of the decision as measured against the degree of benefit to the human actor.

Because the practitioner now emotionally represents the human, they feel empowered to make choices as framed by their own emotional lens, as they have now qualified themselves as the true “Emotional Voice of the User.”

When acting within Human Centered Design processes, Appealing to Affective Empathy is commonly used as a justification for a choice which may not have clearly defined logic, reason, or purpose, other than to address the emotional priority as conveyed by the Design practitioner.

Emotionally justified actions on the part of the Design practitioner ultimately undermine the core principles of Human Centered Design as an objective system of representation for the human benefiting from the solution.

Affective Empathy “Sells”

When the feelings of the human are represented emotionally by the practitioner to a stakeholder in an effort to elicit an emotional response on which to base a decision of approval, Affective Empathy becomes a sales position.

At this point, the Design practitioner is no longer advocating for the human, they are advocating for the solution by associating it with the human’s emotional story in the hopes of “selling” the solution to a collaborator, or stakeholder.

When used in ways that are subjectively (or politically) motivated, the technique of “The Empathetic Sell” often misrepresents the emotional need of the human, without creating a solution that has the same level of commensurate benefit.

The “Sales” fallacy occurs when Affective Empathy is not used on behalf of the human benefiting from the solution, but is instead used to illicit an emotional response within the stakeholders, or points of review, by which projects are approved.

Although beneficial to establish the emotional needs of the human within the minds of the Design team or business stakeholders, the solution itself should not need to evoke an emotional response in the stakeholder to have proven its objective benefit to the human actor.

Misattributed Solutions

Design practitioners who incorporate Affective Empathy into the Design process can often prioritize solutions incorrectly, as a response to the emotion, rather than the cause of the emotion.

Because the use of Affective Empathy is such a successful sales technique, it’s possible that no stakeholder noticed the fact that the solution does not address the causal need of the human actor, but only addresses the emotion itself.

When the solution does not meet the needs of the human actor, the value of the tangible business metrics suffer as a result.

1. Does the recommended solution effectively and meaningfully address the human need driving the emotion which is now being used as justification for the recommended decision?
2. Is there a direct correlation between the value of the solution to the human actor and the emotional weight being placed on the advocacy of the solution?
3. Does the weight of the practitioner’s emotional advocacy, in fact, represent the causal need on behalf of the human actor?

If the human for which the solution is being designed does not directly benefit from the practitioner’s emotional representation of their need, the solution will be unsuccessful when judged by the metric of that human’s benefit.

“I Am My Own Measure of Success.”

“I understand the human’s emotions. I know what will make the human happy. I know what the human wants. I find this solution emotionally compelling. I like it. I believe this solution will address my emotional need. I feel like this is the right decision. This is the decision that means the most to me, the arbiter of the human’s emotions.”

“I like this one better.”

Design practitioners who take on the emotional burden of the human actor are also clearly defining the measure of their own success. When Design practitioners act emotionally, even on behalf of the human actor, they have now shifted the stated measure of Human Centered Design “success” to reflect their own emotional qualification. This attitudinal shift minimizes the practical needs of the human actor and establishes the metric for “success” with the practitioner themselves.

By gauging their own emotional reaction as a litmus for solution success, Design practitioners operating with Affective Empathy are qualifying their own subjective emotional reaction above the needs of the human actor.

Self-congratulatory emotional qualifications undermine the value of Human Centered Design methods. Design practitioners must objectively understand the nature of the human need, while also facilitating human-driven evaluations of the proposed solution.

Inherited Bias

When Design practitioners come to an understanding of the emotional point of view of the human, they must not take on the emotional burden of that understanding, as it will shift “practitioner bias” into “emotion by proxy.”

Introducing one more layer of emotional complexity by asking the Design practitioners to “feel” on behalf of the human actor creates confusion, opinion, and frustration, on teams specifically assembled to objectively create meaningfully impactful solutions on behalf of a human actor.

When Design practitioners express points of view based on a feeling, rather than a thought, they have either unknowingly adopted the Human’s bias as their own, or are presenting their own emotional biases under the guise of “representing the human.”

Inherited emotional bias is what designers, researchers and product leaders must maintain objectivity to resolve, especially within teams focused on the Design “Solutioning” phases of Human Centered Design processes.

Fallacies, Summarized

Affective Empathy erodes the value of objective reasoning by unnecessarily introducing an emotional component into an otherwise objectively driven framework. Because the objective representation of the human actor is the critical cornerstone of Human Centered Design methods, objectively responding with meaningful Design solutions should be the Collaborative Design team’s highest priority.

Conversations that incorporate the use of Affective Empathy, or other subjective representations of the human, should be re-framed to identify objective methods to verify team assumptions. If Affective Empathy becomes an issue, re-center the collaborative conversation on the objectively identified perspective of the human actor, rather than the emotionally interpreted perspective of the Design practitioner.

In the ideal Human Centered Design model, the human benefiting from the solution is always the point of approval, and ultimately, the final word on the metric of the solution’s success.

Benefits of Cognitive Empathy

The benefits of objectively understanding the perspective of the human actor.

While Affective Empathy takes on the emotional perspective of the human actor, Cognitive Empathy focuses instead on the human actor’s psychological point of view, existing mental model, or established analytical mindset.

The use of Cognitive Empathy is an extremely effective method for Design practitioners to consider a series of possible Design solutions, while also systemically gauging likely human responses, based on the understood motivating perspective of the human actor.

Design practitioners who understand the psychological perspective, or the way the human thinks, are better equipped to troubleshoot points of Design friction as solutions are actively being created.

Solutions based on Cognitive Empathy are grounded in the practitioner’s objective understanding of the human’s mental model, psychological perspective, or expected metrics for solution success.

Applying Cognitive Empathy objectively means observing, measuring, and assessing Design decisions from the perspective of the human actor in an effort to better understand the context, condition, and circumstances of their needs, goals, and outcomes.

Tactical Cognitive Empathy in Functional Design

Design practitioners often use Tactical Cognitive Empathy when exploring Design options to meet specific functional needs. Assuming the perspective of the human interacting with the functional solution drives interaction models, data architecture, and platform strategy across a wide variety of system touch points.

After objectively identifying known human functional needs, goals, and metrics for success, it becomes much easier for Design practitioners to generate directly beneficial solutions as a response.

Cognitive Empathy serves as a method to approximate the human’s reaction to the tasks, steps, and processes necessary to achieve the desired functional outcomes.

Incorporating Empathy objectively into Human Centered Design solutions enables Design practitioners to Design systems of interaction which mirror a human actor’s intent, expectation, and progressive need.

Cognitive Empathy is especially beneficial when Designing solutions including highly specialized, or enterprise-level digital applications. Because the mental models of human actors performing functional tasks at the enterprise level so closely align to the “why” and “where” of the human need, Design practitioners are able to add significant benefit by considering the psychological and functional perspective of the human actor.

When Design practitioners focus on understanding the “Why” of functional needs, they are able to more effectively determine the “How” of the Human Centered Design solution.

Balancing Technical Solutions with Cognitive Empathy

Design practitioners are often challenged with balancing practical system variables against the needs of the human actor.

In some environments, these challenges are based on limited budget, resources, or technology. In other environments, they are based on requirements, delivery timelines, or market spend. In all cases of Human Centered Design, the limitations of the system, the team, or the company, also directly shapes the solution.

Cognitive Empathy gives Design practitioners a method of mentally gauging the human’s reaction to “Technically Feasible” solutions in order to establish a balance between the needs of the human actor, and the practical solution limitations.

When facing a technical challenge, Cognitive Empathy gives the Design practitioner a frame of reference to create assumptions, or hypothesis, on how the human might react to feasibility limitations.

Once a hypothesis has been created, practitioners can then approximate the response of the human actor for further Design iteration and testing. Considering the human perspective when faced with technology or system challenges is one of the many ways that Cognitive Empathy can be objectively applied to practical, real-world Design solutions.

The Design practitioner’s view into both the human need, as well as the business goals, provides the necessary visibility to practically “Balance” Design solutions between business metrics, technical feasibility, and meaningful human outcomes.

Cognitive Empathy in Design Delivery

Objectively determining ideal needs, goals, and outcomes of the human actor serves the function of Human Centered Design by clearly identifying, and continually prioritizing, the human measures of success for the solution.

It is much easier to determine what benefit the human actor hopes to achieve when viewing the problem statements from the actor’s psychological perspective.

As the Human Centered Design process shapes Design solutions to meet objectively identified human needs, the role of Cognitive Empathy shifts to become a practical mental checkpoint throughout Design delivery and implementation.

Design practitioners acting with Cognitive Empathy are able to incorporate the human actor’s perspective when troubleshooting business, technology, or system limitations throughout the end-to-end Design and Delivery process. This continued focus on the perspective of the human actor throughout the Delivery process maintains a meaningful connection between the solution and the human actor, even as code rolls off the digital presses.

Cognitive Empathy gives Design practitioners a method to objectively apply team understandings of the human perspective, mental model, and referable research observations, to technical challenges with the intent of balancing delivery feasibility against the needs of the human actor.

Cognitive Empathy From Understanding to Solution

During different phases of the Human Centered Design process, the benefits of Cognitive Empathy shift to continue to meet the needs of the human actor.

The application and value of Cognitive Empathy within Human Centered Design evolves throughout the Design and Delivery process, based on the corresponding uses and goals of each Design process phase.

When included during problem framing exercises, Cognitive Empathy serves as a way to better understand the needs of human actor. During ideation phases, Cognitive Empathy plays the role of motivation, prioritization, and goal identification for team brainstorming. During iteration stages, Cognitive Empathy provides a functional perspective, driving tactical Design solutions. During research and assessment, Cognitive Empathy gives the Design team a way to contextualize feedback and actor responses.

Although a demonstrated method for determining a human actor’s perspective need, identified priority, or expected outcome, Cognitive Empathy must still be objectively rendered into a Design solution that creates an associated level of meaningful benefit as a reflection of the perspective human need.

Objective Empathy

The Fine Balance of Detached Attachment.

Objective Empathy is purposeful. Objective Empathy is strategic, tactical, and meaningful. Objective Empathy understands human needs, while also balancing an inherent knowledge of “the system,” to deliver the highest possible benefit to the human actor, within the circumstances of real world constraints.

The success of Empathy’s contribution to the Design process is determined by the effectiveness of the Design practitioner to objectively understand, represent, and respond to, the perspective of the human actor within the context of the Design solution.

In either functional model of Empathy, objectively representing the human actor’s perspective is the core consideration of its application and functional use within Human Centered Design frameworks.

Design practitioners must learn to objectively administer the application of Empathy as both a step, and a team attitude, when formulating solutions based on Human Centered Design practices.

Objective Empathy in Human Centered Design

Human Centered Design practices place a high degree of emphasis on Empathy as a way of understanding a human actor’s needs, goals, and outcomes because the determination of Design solution “success” is measured by its degree of direct benefit to the human actor.

Establishing Objective Empathy as a driving team attitude should be clearly articulated when assembling Collaborative Human Centered Design teams. Designers create the most beneficial solutions by understanding all of the variables of the system, including variables which may not be directly driven by the human themselves.

Many of the decision points that create successful design solutions are not known to the human actor. The value of “Empathetic Understanding” is the Design practitioner’s ability to view the problem from the perspective of the user, while also responding from the standpoint of a professional Design practitioner. This dual purpose must be objectively applied to find balance between the needs of the human, and the service, product, or technology.

It is the Design practitioner’s responsibility to Empathetically understand the human need, and respond with meaningful Design solutions, while also objectively balancing the human benefit against the functional needs and limitations of the “system.”

Objectively balancing the human perspective against the functional considerations of the solution is one of many benefits Objective Empathy provides within the Human Centered Design process.

Objective Empathy in Specialized Team Functions

As Design practitioners approximate and evaluate possible perspectives of the human actor, they must practice objectivity to effectively minimize their own relative preferences, biases, and world views.

Maintaining objectivity can be especially difficult when Collaborative Design participants are contributing a highly specialized skill or business function.

While the entire Design team shares the same inherent challenge of objectivity, those with specialized skill sets are often motivated by different systemic considerations than the Human Centered problem statement. Specialized team considerations run a higher risk of driving decision making as a reflection of a “departmental” need, rather than an associated Human Centered benefit.

Objectively discussing the impact of specialized team roles or functions on the experience of the human actor facilitates increasingly successful Human Centered Design solutions by focusing team conversations around the human actor’s response to system limitations.

Considering the human actor’s perspective when reviewing specialized limitations or opportunities gives the Collaborative Design team a forum to troubleshoot alternative solutions which meet the needs of the human actor, as well as the needs of specialized team functional contributions.

Objectivity in Design Research

The role of Objectively in the Design Research process.

The functional contribution of Human Centered Design Research is to objectively observe, test, measure, or evaluate the motivations, needs, outcomes, attitudes, or responses, of the human actor.

Design Researchers act as facilitators for Human facing conversations with the intent of observing, measuring, or quantifying various determining factors of benefit, while also assessing or qualifying the human’s response to a variety of Design solutions. Design Researchers facilitate the conversation, feedback, observation, qualification, and quantification of the human actor through a wide variety of methods, techniques, and exercises. Design Research tests are often targeted to illicit specific types of feedback, or indicators of success, from a human actor as a reflection of Design “success.”

Because many of the Human Centered Design team’s decisions will be based on incorporating the direct feedback of the human benefiting from the solution, it becomes increasingly important to establish objectivity, trust, and transparency as a central characteristic of Design Research contributors.

Establishing Objective Research Baselines

Objectivity minimizes subjective Research variables across different Design Researchers, effectively establishing a comparative baseline, from which to draw meaningful Design conclusions.

Objective Design Research gives Design practitioners a central team knowledge base, compiled from both Qualitative and Quantitative Research results. When compiled and reviewed, objective research findings can be meaningfully compared, referenced, and analyzed by cross-functional teams when evaluating Design solutions for testing and evaluation.

When Design Researchers become influenced by Affective Empathy, subsequent results, observations, readouts, and findings become an interpretation, rather than an objective representation, of the human actor. This bias ultimately leads to a Design solution that addresses the subjective views or interpretations of the Design Researcher, rather than the actual needs of the human actor.

Inaccurate, biased, or “interpreted” Design Research creates a false metric for success, significantly impacting the “accuracy” of the Design solution’s response when measured against the actual needs, goals, and outcomes of the human actor.

Communicating Design Research Results.

Effectively communicating Qualitative and Quantitative results is a key responsibility of Design Research practitioners.

Communicating Human Centered Design Research results across departments, roles, and collaborators provides a central “Human” reference point, which helps facilitate Empathy for the human actor within larger organizations and team functions.

As practitioners gain visibility into objective Design Research, it becomes easier for cross-functional teams to understand their impact on the human’s experience. When Human Centered Design Research become “filtered,” contextual details which may have meaning to certain specialized team contributors may be minimized, or lost, when only limited Research results are presented.

As the functional specialties of different Design contributors may be interested in different solution-impacting aspects of the human actor’s perspective, limiting or distilling Design Research based on the interpretation of the Researcher ultimately ignores, or minimizes, different functionally specialized opportunities that can be found in Research results.

Qualitative and Quantitative Research results benefit the entire cross-collaborative Design team by establishing a common frame of reference for solution success across departments, and contributing team functions.

Objective Empathy — The Tactical View (tl;dr)

When balancing Empathy objectively, Human Centered Design practitioners are able to effectively identify causal needs, craft and evaluate ideal human outcomes, and Deliver meaningful benefit to the human actor more effectively than traditional requirements-led Design processes.

1. Design with a professional attitude of Objective Empathy throughout the Human Centered Design phases of Discovery, Innovation, Iteration, Evaluation, and Delivery.
2. Lead with Cognitive Empathy to understand the perspective needs of the human actor benefiting from the Design solution.
3. Objectively determine the needs, goals, and outcomes that the human actor will use as a perceived measure of the solution success.
4. Understand the human’s psychological view, causal need, or mental model, behind the emotional indicators without taking on the emotional burden of the human actor.
5. Emphasize functional, tactical, or psychological observations of the human actor’s perspective over emotional interpretations.
6. Objectively and directly address the actor’s measures of success by crafting solutions as a reflection and response to their needs, goals, or ideal outcomes.
7. Apply Empathy Objectively as a method of mentally gauging the human actor’s anticipated response to practical Design Solutions.
8. Apply Empathy during Design Research by understanding the actor’s perspective, while also observing the surrounding conditions, circumstances and scenarios which frame the context of the human actor’s intent.
9. Objectively reflect on the practical, real-world, benefits of the Design solution as contrasted against the needs of the human actor.
10. Continue to facilitate meaningful Human Centered Design conversations even after Design solution delivery.

…and now for hugs.

Empathy is more than just an attitude, tool, or Design-sales jargon.

In the world outside of Design frameworks, Empathy, Sympathy, and Compassion make up a trifecta of traits that indicate an emotionally balanced worldview within human actors. Empathy is highly encouraged in nearly any social context, and most articles conceptually highlighting the value of Empathy (especially in the workplace) are in support of the larger socio-cultural “good,” which is something that even the saltiest Design practitioners can easily support.

Empathy is an act of respect and acknowledgement. Empathy is caring enough to take the time to understand the perspective of another person. Empathy is an act of listening, sensing, and observing, to better understanding another human’s perspective. Empathy is acting with consideration. Empathy is that tingly feeling you get when you emotionally resonate with another human. Empathy is a lot of the things.

Empathy forms the basis for any mutually beneficial relationship between everyday human actors.

Objectivity is the Most Important Design Skill

Design practitioners who adopt Objectivity as their foundational guiding Design principle employ many different types of techniques, exercises, and methods, to respond to the needs of the human actor. As a universally applicable attitude, Empathy must purposefully lead to Objective evaluation, conclusion, and action on the part of the Design practitioner, to truly benefit the human actor.

While Empathy does serve the Design team as attitude, method, and philosophy, the objective balance of anticipated human benefit must be weighted against the real world circumstances and limitations of the practical, usable, and functional Design solution.

Designers who take on the emotional burden of the human actor undermine the Objective nature of the Human Centered Design process, delivering Design solutions that do not meet the human actor’s need.

Empathy is one of many exercises, methods, and attitudes, but Objectivity remains as the most universally important Design skill.

Source:

https://medium.com/swlh/objectivity-is-the-most-important-design-skill-863aa6de5c78