13
Compassion at Work

Tim Anstiss

Introduction

There is a growing interest in the field of compassion: its evolutionary origins; the underpinning neuroscience; its determinants, benefits, and its cultivation. We are also seeing a growth in research studies, journal articles, initiatives, policy documents, strategies, conferences, groups, and organizations focusing on the topic of compassion and compassion at work, for instance: The Centre for Compassion and Altruism Research (http://ccare.stanford.edu/), The Compassionate Mind Foundation (http://www.compassionatemind.co.uk/), The Charter for Compassion (http://www.charterforcompassion.org/).

In the first section of the chapter I will explore what compassion is, why it matters for individuals and organizations, and the evidence that it can be increased. In the second section I look at some of the factors known or thought to be associated with the appearance and unfolding of compassion at work. In the final section I make some theory driven and evidence‐informed suggestions about how organizations might go about increasing compassion at work, and explore where research into the topic might best focus in the future.

What Is Compassion, and Why Does It Matter?

The word “compassion” comes from the Latin compati, meaning “to suffer with.” There is no universally agreed definition of compassion. The Compassion Cultivation Training approach of Stanford University (Jazaieri et al., 2010) defines compassion as: “a process that unfolds in response to suffering. It begins with the recognition of suffering, which gives rise to thoughts and feelings of empathy and concern. This, in turn, motivates action to relieve that suffering.”

Jazaieri et al. (2013) define compassion as:

a complex multidimensional construct that is comprised of four key components: (1) an awareness of suffering (cognitive component), (2) sympathetic concern related to being emotionally moved by suffering (affective component), (3) a wish to see the relief of that suffering (intentional component), and (4) a responsiveness or readiness to help relieve that suffering (motivational component).

A shorter and commonly used definition within the literature is that compassion is: “a sensitivity to suffering in self and others with a commitment to try to alleviate and prevent it” (Germer & Siegel, 2012; Gilbert & Choden, 2013).

These three definitions emphasize two key aspects of compassion:

1. the intention and act of turning toward and engaging with suffering in self and/or others – rather than avoiding or dissociating from it; and
2. the intention to acquire the wisdom to learn how to alleviate and prevent suffering and act on that wisdom.

Compassion is rooted in our ancient caring motivations and is enabled by a range of competencies, abilities, skills, and strengths including empathy, sympathy, generosity, openness, distress tolerance, commitment. and courage (Gilbert, 1989, 2005, 2009; Gilbert & Choden, 2013; Goetz, Keltner, & Simon‐Thomas, 2010). It is important to note that compassion is not one thing – for example, it is not just an emotion (see Figure 13.1). It is related to – but not the same as – sympathy, empathy and empathic concern, kindness, caring, and altruism. It can also be considered a motivation involving feeling, thinking, behavioral readiness, physiological preparedness, and action components. It also requires or builds on such character strengths as bravery and wisdom (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Figure 13.1 Attributes and aspects of compassion.

Source: Adapted from Gilbert (2009).

To better understand what compassion is and what it isn’t, it may be helpful to explore some of these related terms.

“Sympathy” is the distress we feel when we encounter suffering – for example, concern, distress, or sorrow. However, what the sympathetic person feels may be different from what the suffering person is actually feeling. For instance, a person with a certain kind of brain injury may have become relatively indifferent to what is going on around them, but we may feel very sad for what has happened to them. Loewenstein and Small (2007) consider sympathy as caring, but immature and irrational.

“Empathy” comes from the Greek empatheria meaning “to feel into” or “to enter into the experience of another.” It links to abilities to feel a similar emotion to the other person (sometimes called emotional contagion) and to have insight into the nature of their emotional and motivational state. The latter skill is called cognitive perspective‐taking or mentalizing. This means we can understand not only what somebody might be feeling but why they might be feeling as they do, and hence why they might act in the way that they do. Sometimes these different aspects of empathy are called emotional empathy (the feeling of similar feelings) and cognitive empathy (the less emotionally involved sense of perspective‐taking; Decety & Cowell, 2014; Decety & Ickes, 2011). Empathy, of course, does not have to be about someone else’s suffering – it could be about their feelings of joy, achievement, confusion, delight, surprise, or any one of several other emotions and experiences.

We have a growing understanding of the neural basis of empathy and its fundamental importance for good social functioning (Singer & Lamm, 2009). Empathy is necessary but not sufficient for compassion. It is necessary in that one needs to be able to imagine what it might be like for the other person in order to identify that they might be suffering. It is insufficient in that it one might empathize with another person, identify that they may be suffering, but not be moved to act to alleviate or prevent their suffering. In fact, some people might even use empathy in order to increase the suffering of another – for instance, a bully, a torturer, a kidnapper, or an advertiser wishing to sell more beauty products by inducing feelings of shame over appearance. When the focus of empathy is on another’s suffering or distress and this is combined with a desire to alleviate this suffering or distress, then this is sometimes referred to as empathic concern (Decety & Cowell, 2014).

Compassion can thus be thought of as an innate, multicomponent, and very human process (and motivation) which appears and unfolds in certain situations and circumstances. The unfolding of compassion is thought to take place via the stages illustrated in Figure 13.2 (Kanov, Maitlis, Worline, Dutton, & Lilius, 2004; Miller, 2007).

Figure 13.2 Compassion as a process which unfolds.

Source: Author.

The first step in the unfolding of compassion is the noticing of suffering in another (or in oneself in the case of self‐compassion). Then there is the arising of a feeling of “empathic concern” – a desire to act so as to alleviate the noticed suffering, and/or prevent future suffering. Then there is the taking of action to alleviate the suffering and/or prevent future suffering.

The unfolding of compassion in response to noticed suffering shows considerable individual variation, and this variation may be partly explained by various appraisal processes taking place rapidly, automatically, and outside of conscious awareness in the person noticing the suffering of another. In fact, these appraisal processes may also influence whether or not suffering is noticed in the first place. Variables the brain may assess in its calculation of whether or not to act may include: level of similarity with the person suffering; the extent to which the person suffering was complicit or caused his or her own suffering; whether or not the suffering is in some way “good” for him or her; whether or not the skills are present to help him or her; whether or not the distress involved in helping can be tolerated (Goetz et al., 2010; Loewenstein & Small, 2007).

The skills which may be required for compassionate responding are not just immediate helping skills (first aid, advocacy, swimming, counseling, pain relief, befriending, reassuring, etc.), but also management and planning skills, listening skills (to learn about what the suffering person may want for themselves, including whether they want help at all), and skills related to the ability to tolerate the distress which may arise in the face of being close to someone with, for example, disfiguring injuries or an unpleasant disease.

Compassionate action may also require courage – for instance when the responder needs to put herself or himself in harm’s way, such as when trying to save someone from drowning in rough seas, or rescue them from an angry mob or from a high ledge. Intention is also key to compassion. The same behavior – such as caring for other human beings when they are suffering – can be performed for both compassionate and non‐compassionate motivations. Caring for others, for example, can be done for pay, out of fear, or because a person is following a moral code. The caring would only be considered to be coming from a place of compassion if the responder felt moved by the noticed suffering – if there was empathic concern. When empathic concern is absent, so is compassion.

Skillful action is also essential for compassion. For instance, a person might notice a child getting into difficulty in a river, feel empathic concern, and jump into the river to try and save the child from drowning. But if that person could not swim, it might not be considered a wise compassionate action. Some people spend decades improving their skills at being able to respond to suffering with compassion – for instance, neurosurgeons, social workers, and cancer researchers.

Compassion evolved over millions of years from the mammalian reproductive strategies of caring for infants. Mammals differ from most reptiles in being orientated to stay close to their infants, to feed and provide for them – including providing them with protection and being sensitive to and responding to their distress calls. Thus our ability to be attentive to the needs and distress of others is evolutionarily very old and predates the emergence of humans as a distinct species. Humans have developed this capacity for compassion to a very high degree, not least because human infants are born prematurely compared to other animals (due to our large brain size), which makes human infants significantly more dependent on maternal and paternal care than the newborn infants of other animals (Dunsworth & Ecclestone, 2015). The underpinning neural and behavioral mechanisms for noticing and responding to actual or potential suffering in our own infants was then extended to kin, non‐kin members of the tribe (Barrett, Dunbar, & Lycett, 2002; Gilbert, 1989; Preston, 2013), and eventually to strangers and non‐humans (Geary, 2000; Gilbert, 1989, 2015; Loewenstein & Small, 2007; MacLean, 1985; Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005; Preston, 2013).

Why does compassion at work matter?

Compassion is thus a very important contributor to prosocial behavior, which in turn is one of the main drivers of human evolution and human intelligence (Carter, 2014; Dunbar, 2007, 2010; Porges, 2007). Without this complex and innate motivational, interpersonal, and behavioral process it is unlikely humans would ever have been able to form the many cooperative alliances and enterprises we notice all around us – including teams and organizations. Viewed in this way, compassion can be considered to be at the very heart of organizations. It helps and enables groups of unrelated humans cooperate, flourish, and thrive.

Compassion is linked to a wide range of benefits for a wide range of people: the sufferer; the person acting compassionately; witnesses to compassionate responding; work units; organizations, and society more generally.

Compassion and self‐compassion have been shown to be associated with increases in prosocial motivation and helping (Leiberg, Klimecki, & Singer, 2011; Weng et al., 2013), as well as being linked to a range of health and well‐being outcomes (Arch et al., 2014; Barnard & Curry, 2011; Brach, 2003; Breines et al., 2015; Raque‐Bogdan, Ericson, Jackson, Martin, & Bryan, 2011; Salzberg, 1997; Seppala, Rossomando, & Doty, 2013).

In a prosocial game experiment, Leiberg et al. (2011) showed that participants who had received short‐term compassion training increased their helping behavior between pre‐training and post‐training measures (p = .05) whereas participants receiving short‐term memory training did not (p = .24).

Weng et al. (2013) examined whether compassion could be systematically trained by testing whether short‐term compassion training increased altruistic behavior outside the training context, and whether any individual differences in altruism were associated with induced changes in neural responses to suffering. Individuals were randomly allocated to either compassion training (n = 20) or reappraisal training (n = 21). Firstly, examining all participants together, they observed a positive correlation between trait levels of empathic concern and the level of money distributed (r = .43, p < .001). Secondly, after 2 weeks of training, the mean level of money distributed to a victim was higher in participants who received the compassion training compared to participants who received the reappraisal training (t = 2.09, p < .05). They also found that such behavior was associated with altered activation in the parts of the brain associated with understanding suffering in others, executive and emotional control, and reward processing.

Breines et al. (2015) exposed 33 healthy volunteers to a standardized laboratory stressor on 2 separate days and found that scores on a self‐compassion rating scale were a significant negative predictor of salivary‐amylase levels (a marker of sympathetic nervous system activity) on both days (day 1, p = .007; day 2, p = .03).

Self‐compassionate individuals may experience better psychological health than those lacking self‐compassion, and experience lower levels of anxiety and depression (Neff, Hsieh, & Dejitterat, 2005), lower cortisol levels, increased heart‐rate variability (Rockliff, Gilbert, McEwan, Lightman, & Glover, 2008), less rumination, less perfectionism, less fear of failure (Neff, 2003; Neff, Hsieh, & Dejitterat, 2005), less suppression of unwanted thoughts, and a greater willingness to accept negative emotions as valid and important (Leary, Tate, Adams, Allen, & Hancock, 2007; Neff, 2003).

Self‐compassion is also associated with psychological strengths such as happiness, optimism, wisdom, curiosity and exploration, personal initiative, and emotional intelligence (Heffernan, Griffin, McNulty, & Fitzpatrick, 2010; Hollis‐Walker & Colosimo, 2011; Neff, Rude, & Kirkpatrick, 2007). People with higher levels of self‐compassion also seem better able to cope with such adversities as academic failure (Neff et al., 2005); divorce (Sbarra, Smith, & Mehl, 2012); childhood maltreatment (Vettese, Dyer, Li, & Wekerle, 2011); and chronic pain (Costa & Pinto‐Gouveia, 2011), and may be more likely to exhibit healthier behavior patterns, such as: persistence with dietary changes (Adams & Leary, 2007); smoking reductions (Kelly, Zuroff, Foa, & Gilbert, 2009); seeking appropriate medical care (Terry & Leary, 2011); and physical activity (Magnus, Kowalski, & McHugh, 2010). They may also experience improved relationship functioning (Neff & Beretvas, 2012; Yarnell & Neff, 2012); empathetic concern for others; altruism; perspective taking; and forgiveness (Neff & Pommier, 2012). For these reasons, and others, compassion has become the focus for psychotherapeutic interventions with increasing evidence for their effectiveness (Gilbert, 2010; Hofmann, Grossman, & Hinton, 2011; Hofman, Sawyer, Witt, & Oh, 2010).

In two studies involving 222 undergraduates, Neff at al. (2005) explored the relationship between self‐compassion, academic achievement goals, and coping with perceived academic failure. They found self‐compassion negatively predicted fear of failure (B = –.54, p < .001) and positively predicted perceived competence (B = .33, p < .001), as well as being positively correlated with mastery goals, and negatively associated with performance‐avoidance goals.

The person suffering (or at risk of suffering) may benefit from compassion in a number of ways, for instance by: being cared for; being protected; being listened to, heard, and understood; being reassured; being rescued; being helped to escape from a dangerous situation; being helped with task they are struggling with; being helped to reduce their risk of poor health or injury risk; being helped to find a new job; receiving material assistance in the form of goods or money, shelter, transportation, and so on. They may also benefit from the feeling of being supported, cared for, and protected by others. Compassion has also been associated with improved healing and recovery (Bento, 1994; Brody, 1992; Doka, 1989), as well as communicating dignity and feelings of being valued (Clarke, 1987; Dutton, Debebe, & Wrzesniewski, 2012; Frost, 2003).

The person acting compassionately can benefit from: taking effective action in line with their values of what matters in life; seeing the person suffering respond to their efforts; being appreciated by the other person; and being able to maintain or improve their self‐concept as a caring and effective person. Acting with compassion is also something that people can enjoy. Of course they may not enjoy engaging with the suffering and might even feel bad and distressed themselves – hence the need for distress tolerance. But they may enjoy the consequences of being helpful, which can also provide meaning and job satisfaction (Graber & Mitcham, 2004; Kim & Flaskerud, 2007; Pearson, 2006; Youngson, 2008), a positive work identity (Moon, Hur, Ko, Kim, & Yoon, 2012), and perceptions of being a leader (Melwani, Mueller, & Overbeck, 2012).

Moon et al. (2012) studied 338 employees from 10 firms in South Korea, and used structural equation modeling and bootstrapping statistical methods to discover that positive work identity mediated the relationship between compassion and affective organizational commitment (B = .45, 95% confidence intervals .36, .58).

People witnessing compassion at work may experience feelings of pride about the way that work colleagues are behaving (Dutton et al., 2006) as well as the positive emotion of elevation which may in turn encourage people to act more for the common good (Haidt, 2002). Condon and DeSteno (2011) have also suggested that when people witness compassionate action, punitive action against transgressors unrelated to the compassion episode may be reduced.

Work units and organizations may benefit from the appearance and unfolding of compassion at work by noticing improved levels of positive emotions such as pride and gratitude (Dutton, Worline, Frost, & Lilius, 2006), improved health and well‐being, improved collective commitment, lower turnover rates (Grant, Dutton, & Rosso, 2008; Lilius et al., 2008), improved levels of collaboration (Dutton et al., 2006), improved reputation, and an improved ability to attract and retain needed human resources. Compassionate acts may also reduce costs that arise due to injuries, ill‐health, sickness absence, and damage.

Grant et al. (2008) used qualitative date from 40 interviews with employees of a Fortune 500 retail company, from 20 stores across the USA. The interviews focused on understanding employees’ relationships with their employer, especially accounts of exchange when they gave something to or received something from the company, as well as accounts of organizational commitment. They found that contributing to the company’s internal charitable Employee Support Foundation initiated a process of “prosocial sensemaking,” leading to employees judging personal and company actions and identities as caring, and strengthening affective commitment to the employer.

Failure to act with compassion at work can also be very costly. Reducing staffing levels and pay levels without sufficient compassion may increase the probability of lawsuits (Lind, Greenberg, Scott, & Welchans, 2000), disengagement, and unwanted behavior (Greenberg, 1990). In the UK there have been incidents where poor levels of compassion have resulted in organizational failure and even breakup of the offending organization (Francis, 2013).

Can compassion be increased?

A number of approaches have been developed to help people experience an increased sensitivity to suffering in themselves and others, as well as an increase in their empathic concern and ability or readiness to act on their own or other people’s suffering, including: Compassion‐Focused Therapy and Compassionate Mind Training (Gilbert, 2009, 2010); Compassion Cultivation Training (Jazaieri et al., 2010); and Mindful Self‐Compassion (MSC; Neff & Germer, 2012).

Neff and Germer (2012) evaluated the effectiveness of an 8‐week Mindful Self‐Compassion program designed to train people to be more self‐compassionate, in which only one of the 8 sessions specifically focused on mindfulness. They found significant pre/post gains in self‐compassion, mindfulness, and various well‐being outcomes, with gains maintained at 6‐ and 12‐month follow‐up.

Jazaieri et al. (2013) examined the effects of a 9‐week Compassion Cultivation course taught by trained instructors in a randomized control trial using a community sample of 100 adults assigned to either intervention (n = 60) or a waiting‐list control group (n = 40). Within‐group t‐tests demonstrated significant improvement in all three domains of compassion – compassion for others (effect size .44, p < .001), receiving compassion (effect size .27, p < .001), and self‐compassion (effect size .34, p < .001). They concluded that specific domains of compassion can be intentionally cultivated in a training program.

Klimecki, Leiberg, Ricard, and Singer (2014) investigated the functional neural plasticity underlying increases in empathy in training, and the impact of compassion on any negative affect associated with empathizing with someone in pain. They found empathy training increased activation in anterior insula and anterior midcingulate cortex regions of the brain, areas known to be associated with empathy for another person’s pain. Subsequent compassion training attenuated this negative affect (t = 3.04, p < 0.01) and increased self‐reports of positive emotions (t = 4.25, p < 0.001). They concluded that training in compassion can help overcome empathic distress and strengthen resilience.

Engen and Singer (2015) investigated the effects of an emotional regulation technique based on compassion meditation on experiential and neural affective responses to images of people in distress. They found the technique increased positive emotions relative to control groups, and also that compassion increased activation in brain regions previously associated with affiliative types of positive affect such as maternal love (Bartels & Zeki, 2004).

Rosenberg et al. (2015) also examined the impact of meditation training on emotional responses to scenes of human suffering. Sixty participants were randomly allocated to either meditation or waiting‐list control. Training comprised daily practice in techniques to improve attention and compassionate regard toward others. After 12 weeks of training and upon viewing film scenes depicting human suffering, participants in the meditation group were more likely than controls to show facial displays of sadness (B = 0.783, p < 0.001), with fewer facial displays of rejection emotions such as anger, contempt, or disgust. Rosenberg et al. felt this result suggested that intensive mindfulness training encouraged enhanced empathic concern for, and reduced aversion to, suffering in others.

As previously discussed, compassion involves more than noticing and experiencing empathic concern – it also involves skillful action to alleviate current suffering and prevent future suffering. This skillful responding to noticed suffering can be improved with training – after all, that is why we educate, train, and assess people in various helping professions such as doctors, nurses, therapists, social workers, first‐aiders, emergency relief workers, disaster response planners, medical researchers, fire‐fighters, and so on.

What we know less about is whether or not we can increase compassion at work. We will return to this issue later.

What Factors Shape the Appearance and Unfolding of Compassion at Work?

Compassion at work arises in response to the noticing of suffering and the desire to prevent future suffering. Suffering in the workplace may result both from things happening in the workplace and things happening outside of the workplace which then result in the person suffering while at work. Workplace causes of suffering include, but are not limited to: work‐related stress; redundancy; relocation; bullying; discrimination; accidents and injuries; occupational diseases; missing out on promotion; job insecurity; isolation; working unwanted hours; physical discomfort; verbal abuse from customers; assault (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989; Dutton et al., 2014; Driver, 2007; HSE, 2011; Lilius, Kanov, Dutton, Worline, & Maitlis, 2012). Non‐workplace causes of suffering which may result in suffering at work include: financial worries; injury; ill‐health; death and grieving; loss; relationship breakup; being a victim of crime; hunger; loneliness; natural and man‐made disasters.

Suffering in the workplace is costly to individuals, work teams, and organizations. Individuals who suffer may find it hard to perform their work tasks to their usual standard and may need to take time away from work. Suffering can result in absence, staff turnover, disengagement, bad workplace reputation, and an organization finding it hard to attract and retain talent (EUOSH, 2014; Rosch 2001; Zaslow, 2002).

It should be noted, however, that there is significant variation in the extent to which people suffer when faced with the same situation or circumstance, as well as how they communicate their suffering (if at all), whether or not they want to be helped, and how they would like to be helped or cared for (Beck, 1970; Ellis, 1980; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lin & Peterson, 1990; NHS England, 2015).

Since compassion is an innate human motivational system, compassion at work will be arising all the time in response to noticed suffering. Compassion at work has been studied: in a range of different workplaces and sectors – for example, banks, schools, airlines, call centers, healthcare organizations, care homes, universities, financial services, the criminal justice system, and so on; as it unfolds between two people, as well as more collectively in groups, departments and organizations; and using a range of different research methods and designs, including interviews, surveys, case studies, action learning, appreciative inquiry, and interventions. Researchers have examined: when, where, and how compassion arises and unfolds, and its impact on the principal actors and others; as well as which work‐related factors might increase or inhibit the appearance and unfolding of compassion at work. Factors that have been examined include: values, beliefs, norms, practices, quality of relationships, aspects of leadership, and patterns of internal organization. (For a comprehensive review, see Dutton et al., 2014.)

Shared values

Shared values refer to what people in an organization believe is important. They shape “sensemaking” (Smircich 1983), the communication of what is significant, and what gets noticed (Dutton et al., 2006). They provide motivation for certain actions and behaviors (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996). In a detailed case study describing and analyzing how compassion at work unfolded in response to a student house fire on a university campus, Dutton et al. (2006) suggested that the shared value of treating individuals as whole persons affected both the noticing of suffering, the sharing of the news about the students’ experience, and the legitimization of their painful circumstances as something worthy of attention, responding, and resources.

In workplaces where such a shared value (of treating people as whole people) is less present, Bento (1994) argued that emotional suffering such as grief may be stifled and thus compassion at work less likely to flow and unfold. Similarly the rise of financial performance as a value together with the need to meet targets may result in a decline in caring and compassion in health care workplaces (Crawford, Gilbert, Gilbert, & Harvey, 2013; Maben, Latter, & Clark, 2007).

Shared beliefs

In the previously mentioned detailed case study of a university fire, Dutton et al. (2006), suggested that the shared belief that it was acceptable to “put one’s humanity on display” made sharing the circumstances of the three students involved more likely, which in turn facilitated the speed and scope of compassionate responding. Similarly, Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate (2000) have suggested that when people at work share the belief that it is acceptable and desirable to know about a colleague’s personal life outside of work and act on that knowledge, then people are more likely to express that they may be suffering at work, and colleagues in turn may be more likely to respond compassionately.

In contrast, some shared beliefs may reduce the likelihood of compassion unfolding at work. Martin et al. (2015) examined the relationship between competitive, hierarchical belief systems and empathy in business school students. They measured Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Sidanius et al., 2012) – the belief in the world as a competitive, dog‐eat‐dog environment of winners and losers with the strong wish that one’s in‐group dominate and be superior to out‐groups – and found that students having strong social dominance beliefs were more fearful of expressing compassion for others, of receiving compassion from others, and of expressing kindness and compassion toward themselves (self‐compassion). Molinksy, Grant, and Margolis (2012), in a series of experiments, primed or activated beliefs about economic efficiency, rationality, and self‐interest and found that this resulted in a dampening of the empathy people experienced along with heightened concerns about the unprofessionalism of expressing emotion in the workplace. Similarly, Darley and Batson (1973) manipulated beliefs about the urgency of a task (including, ironically, giving a short talk on the parable of the good Samaritan), and found people in more of a hurry were less likely to stop and help someone who appeared to be suffering.

Organizational norms

Organizational norms reflect expected behaviors – including the way things are done and what is not permitted (Schein, 1985). They may shape whether and how suffering at work is expressed as well as how colleagues are expected to respond. Goodrum (2008) commented that in a study of employees’ grief reactions after losing a family member to murder, grief displayed at the wrong time, in the wrong place, or to the wrong person represented a norm violation and brought negative reactions from others. Grant and Patil (2012) explored how helping norms can emerge in workplaces to support caring and compassion, and examined how norms of self‐interest (which may inhibit helping) can be changed by a single team member who consistently models, advocates, and enquires about helping behavior. They also explored how a person’s ability to shape work unit norms is likely to be influenced by their status, similarity, work unit agreeableness, openness, and timing considerations.

Organizational practices

Organizational practices are repeated patternings of actions (Orlikowski, 1992). Three detailed case studies (Dutton et al., 2006; Lilius, Worline, Dutton, Kanov, & Maitlis, 2011; McClelland, 2012) have shown how various organizational practices seem to influence the appearance and unfolding of compassion in the workplace during both single incidents of suffering and across a range of episodes of suffering. For instance, selection practices such as selecting people on the basis of their relational skills may influence the extent to which a workplace contains people more likely to act compassionately toward noticed suffering. Research by McClelland (2012) showed how some hospitals used behavioral interviewing techniques and responses to prompts about compassion to select people they thought were more likely to behave compassionately at work. Once employed, assistance and support practices that help employees in need are both manifestations of compassion and may also help people behave more compassionately toward others at work. Grant et al. (2008) found that donating a dollar a week to a workplace fund for helping struggling colleagues also helped strengthen workers’ identities as prosocial, caring people, and McClelland (2012) found that the existence of formal employee support practices in turn helped to foster compassion toward hospital patients. There are also “notification” practices which let key people know about the occurrence of harm, pain, and suffering at work. Such practices contribute to the appearance and unfolding of compassion in the workplace by strengthening the first step in the process, the noticing of suffering. Dutton, Frost, Worline, Lilius, and Kanov (2002) mention John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco, establishing an HR communication practice to inform him when anyone in the company experiences a severe loss, such as a serious illness or the death of a family member, so he may contact them personally. Another organizational practice likely to influence the prevalence of compassionate responding at work is recognizing and rewarding people for their helping and compassionate responding (McClelland, 2012).

Quality of relationships

Being an innate and interpersonal process (influenced by appraisal processes including similarity, see previously), levels of compassion at work will also be influenced by the structure and quality of people’s relationships at work. When relationships at work are characterized by mutual respect and positive regard (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003), people will be more emotionally attached to each other (Kahn, 1998), which in turn will likely facilitate compassionate responding to incidents of suffering (Lilius et al., 2012). News of episodes of suffering is also more likely to spread when ties are strong (Dutton et al., 2006).

Leadership

The quality and style of leadership is another contextual factor likely to influence the emergence and unfolding of compassion at work. Leaders can notice suffering, draw attention it, shape its meaning, and model compassionate responding (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005; Dutton et al., 2002). Furthermore, leaders’ formal power and status help them shape the previously mentioned contextual factors of shared values, shared beliefs, organizational practices, and the structure and quality of relationships – thus multiplying their personal impact on the amount of compassion at work. The fact that people often attribute leadership traits to people acting compassionately (Melwani et al., 2012) suggests leadership practices and compassion responding may work in harmony to deliver superior outcomes for multiple stakeholders – customers, employees, teams, managers, leaders, and the organization as a whole.

Patterns of Internal Organization

Much of the research into compassion at work has looked at how compassion arises and unfolds in dyads, but there has also been research and theory building into how compassion arises and unfolds at the group and organizational level, and how an organization’s capacity for compassion might be improved over time. Dutton et al. (2006) explored how individual responses to suffering in organizations can become socially coordinated through a process they term “compassion organizing,” which they define as “a collective response to a particular incident of human suffering that entails the coordination of individual compassion in a particular organizational context.” They describe how the contextual enabling factors of attention, emotion, and trust interact with the social architecture, improvised structures, and processes of symbolic enrichment to shape and influence the generation, mobilization, and coordination of resources for compassionate responding, and hope their insights can help organizations wishing to build their capacity to act and respond compassionately.

Madden, Duchon, Madden, and Plowman (2012) explored how an organization’s capacity for compassion can be seen as an emergent property, arising without formal direction. Using the lens of complexity science (Anderson, Mayer, Esienhardt, Carley, & Pettigrew, 1999; Axelrod & Cohen, 2000; Beeson & Davis, 2000; Stacey, 2005), they explored the conditions under which an emergent organizational compassionate response to a pain trigger is more likely to happen – including conditions of diversity, having interdependent roles, and the right social interactions. They also looked at how the process of compassionate responding may over time change the structure, culture, routines, roles, and scanning mechanisms within the organization and thereby improve the organization’s capacity for compassionate responding in the future. They believe a tipping point may occur when an organization internalizes compassion as an organizational value and incorporates it into its structures and norms.

Evolutionary psychology and aspects of work climate

Organizations can be viewed as groups of social living primates, and ethologists have recognized two quite separate modes of social interaction in social primates: agonic and hedonic (Chance, 1977, 1998; Gilbert, 1989; Price, 1992). The agonic mode is based on threat, power, and anxiety; the hedonic mode is based on reassurance, safeness, play, and affiliation. When levels of threat, dominance, and urgency are high, these can act to suppress compassionate responding (Darley & Batson, 1973; Martin et al., 2015; Molinsky, Grant, & Margolis, 2012).

These findings can be explained by the social neuroscience‐informed three circles model of emotional regulation (Gilbert, 2009; see Figure 13.3). The threat‐focused and the drive‐focused motivational‐emotional systems are both associated with sympathetic drive, while the safe, calm, affiliative, prosocial motivational‐emotional system involves para‐sympathetic activation. All three motivational systems can be activated very rapidly and outside our awareness, and they shape what we pay attention to, how we feel, and how we behave (Gilbert, 2009; Kahneman, 2011; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). They can also compete with each other for control of the organism.

Figure 13.3 The three circles model of emotional regulation.

Source: Adapted from Gilbert (2009).

Excessive activation of the threat and drive systems at work may inhibit activity in the more prosocial, caring system, and activation of threat‐based emotional states may interfere with our ability to mentalize, be reflective, and integrate information (Liotti & Gilbert, 2011). The excessive emphasis on financial performance with an associated culture of fear may also have contributed to the high‐profile failure of care and compassion at the Mid Staffordshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Francis, 2013).

This ability of high levels of threat in the workplace to undermine performance is the reason why Deming (1982) emphasized the importance to leaders and managers of “Driving out Fear” in his 14 points for managers.

In order to increase the appearance, flow, and benefits of compassion at work – including aspects of performance – organizations may wish to temper hierarchical and authoritarian management styles and cultures, and create feelings of safeness, connection, and affiliation in the workplace.

Leading with and for compassion at work

Since 1990 we have seen the emergence and exploration of several leadership models and frameworks emphasizing different aspects of leadership (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014). They tend to agree that leadership involves bringing about change and improvement for and with others.

Empathy and perspective taking – the ability to feel and think what others are or might be feeling and thinking – is thus a core element of leadership, sometimes subsumed under the topic of emotional intelligence. So too is empathic concern – the ability to be moved by other people’s struggle, frustration, and suffering – together with taking firm action to bring about a reduction in other people’s suffering and/or an improvement in their well‐being and flourishing. Viewed like this, good leadership is very much based on compassion.

To the extent that compassion involves noticing, being moved by, and acting to reduce or prevent suffering, it helps to reduce levels of negative emotion in an organization. To the extent that receiving compassion from others, being compassionate toward others, and witnessing compassion can help people experience such states as commitment, achievement, friendship, job satisfaction, uplift, and positive workplace identity, it can be seen as increasing positive emotional states. In this way, compassion can be seen as helping to increase the ratio of positive to negative emotions and thus contributing to human thriving and flourishing at work (Fredrickson, 2013).

Leaders can therefore draw upon the emerging science of compassion and compassion at work in their efforts to being about improved levels of health, well‐being, engagement, and performance for themselves, their teams, their employees, and their organizations. In acting compassionately, leaders also increase the extent to which they are judged as leaders by others (Melwani et al., 2012).

While we await high‐quality, repeatable studies showing how compassion at work can be reliably increased, based on the current scientific knowledge outlined in this chapter and elsewhere (Dutton et al., 2014; Gilbert, 2005, 2009; Lilius et al., 2011; Madden et al., 2012; Ricard, 2013), people seeking to increase compassion at work may wish to consider the actions in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1 Actions and rationale for increasing compassion at work.

Source: Author.

Potential action	Rationale and detail
Creating the right conditions for compassion to appear and unfold at work.	Compassion is an innate human capacity and process which emerges when the conditions are right. Things managers and others can do to create the right conditions include: creating shared values around treating people as whole people at work; promoting shared beliefs about it being acceptable to be fully human at work; reducing authoritarian management styles, fear, and feelings of threat; selecting people on the basis of their relational skills; creating opportunities for people to act compassionately at work (e.g., volunteering, donating to workplace charitable funds, etc.); establishing notification systems and processes which can detect and communicate episodes of employee suffering; modeling compassionate responding; recognizing and rewarding compassion at work; building and maintaining positive workplace relationships characterized by mutual respect and positive regard; making changes to roles to make it easier for people to notice and respond to suffering; making policy changes to better protect people’s health and well‐being at work.
Providing opportunities for people to learn about and develop their skills around empathy and compassion – including self‐compassion	Compassion is an innate human processes, but a growing body of evidence suggests both compassion and its constituent elements (e.g., empathy, empathic concern, distress tolerance, helping skills, etc.), can be increased with training.
Developing and implementing a strategy to bring about the desired change.	Piecemeal action can be helpful but large‐scale culture change toward more compassion at work is more likely with a well‐designed and well‐executed strategy. Appelbaum, Habashy, Malo, and Shafiq (2012) reviewed 15 years of literature on change management for each of the steps outlined in Kotter’s 1996 book Leading Change (Kotter, 1996) and found support for most of the steps, with no evidence found against this change‐management model. They recommended its use as an implementation tool, in combination with other tools to adapt for contextual factors or obstacles. The eight steps they examined were: establish a sense of urgency about the need to achieve change; create a guiding coalition; develop a vision and strategy; communicate the change vision; empower broad‐based action; generate short‐term wins; consolidate gains and produce more change; and anchor the new approaches in the corporate culture. One complementary approach that has been used and evaluated as a tool for increasing levels of compassion at work is appreciative inquiry (Dewar, 2011; Youngson, 2014).

Future Research

Scientific interest in the topic of compassion is growing. For instance, the result of a recent search of Medline using the search term “compassion” is illustrated in Figure 13.4.

Figure 13.4 Medline citations for the term “compassion,” 1950–2013.

Source: Author.

Since around 2000 there have been growing calls for more research in this area (Frost, 1999). This chapter helps illustrate how far the field has come in that period.

The field is truly multidisciplinary, touching as it does upon leadership, management, organizational development, evolutionary biology, social neuroscience, economics, physical and mental health, and well‐being. But it is still an emerging science.

Much of the research on compassion at work to date has been of a descriptive, exploratory and theory‐building nature, using case studies, observational studies, interviews, surveys, action research, and a few experimental studies to better understand when and how compassion appears, the consequences of compassion at work for various stakeholders, and the contextual factors which encourage or inhibit its appearance and flow.

While continuing with observational and model‐building work, for the field to progress it now needs to focus much more on experimental tests and interventional studies, preferably experimental design, exploring the impact of well‐described and reproducible interventions on both compassion at work and the downstream effects of compassion at work on individuals, teams, work units, services, organizations, and local communities.

For instance, what is the impact, if any, of educating and training leaders, managers, and employees in compassion and compassion‐related skills and competencies (including self‐compassion) on dependent variables such as: engagement; well‐being and thriving; positive emotions; prosocial behaviors; creativity; ethical behaviors; job performance; health outcomes; service quality; customer care; attendance, and so on. And what are the precise pathways and mechanisms through which any beneficial effects are realized?

Beyond the individual level, what is the impact of manipulating the previously mentioned contextual factors on compassion and related variables, for example, job roles; volunteering opportunities; modeling of compassionate action by leaders and managers; stories celebrating compassionate actions at work; values clarification exercises and activities; compassionate coaching and mentoring activities; incorporating information about the importance of compassion at work in new employee induction and socialization processes; providing feedback to managers about compassion‐related aspects of the work climate they have helped create – including feeling of being cared for, respected, affiliation, and safeness?

While single interventions to improve compassion at work do need to be developed and tested, future researchers should also develop and test multicomponent interventions that target several variables at once, using Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for evaluating the impact of complex interventions (MRC, 2006).

Other questions suggested by researchers in the field of compassion at work include: how a single compassion episode unfolds and affects the likelihood of compassion in the future; which types of pain trigger stimulate compassion at the individual level, and which stimulate more collective forms of responding; how sufferers communicate that they are in pain; how the personal context of the sufferer – for instance, individual differences and role characteristics – influences their experience of, or even desire for, compassion from another, and how they shape and respond to the compassionate acts of others; how national–cultural differences may influence compassion at work, including how suffering is expressed and responded to; the experience and perceptions of employees when compassion might have been expected but was not forthcoming; circumstances when compassionate responding is considered unwelcome and even harmful by the person suffering; how, during a single or a series of acts of compassion, the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of the sufferer, responder and any third parties interact; how the power of the focal actors affects the range and nature of compassionate actions; whether and how an organization’s capacity for compassion affects future responses to suffering; whether or not organizations that have internalized compassion into their value and belief structures notice suffering more often, or notice different types of pain; whether or not, and how, the mission and structure of an organization might increase or decrease compassion at work; whether an internal focus on compassion at work translates to, or correlates with, corporate social responsibility, and/or a sensitivity to suffering outside of the organization; whether or not organizations that say they value compassion are less likely to harm external stakeholder groups; how an organization decides which internal and external pain triggers to respond to; when and how the presence of compassion can have negative repercussions; how compassion can be best institutionalized; the links between compassion at work and the neuroscience of emotions; and how insights from compassion at work might inform compassion at a more global or macro level – that is, how best to cultivate a more compassionate society

Conclusion

Compassion at work is an important field of study. It is a multi‐ and interdisciplinary topic, informed by evolutionary biology, physiology, neuroscience, and positive, organizational and performance psychology, as well as philosophy and economics.

Compassion itself is a complex, innate, motivational system or process built on the mammalian caring system and involving noticing suffering, being moved by the suffering, and acting so as to alleviate and prevent suffering. Research into both compassion and compassion at work is increasing, and we now have a growing understanding of the circumstances in which compassion appears and unfolds in the workplace, the benefits to different stakeholders, and how levels of compassion at work might be increased over time.

The research area now needs to progress from descriptive studies, theory building, and the development of plausible models to more rigorous and systematic model testing, single‐ and multicomponent interventional studies, and research into causal pathways and mechanisms. Research investigating compassion at work is thriving but still in its infancy. If we can discover and develop reliable, repeatable, and scalable methods for increasing the appearance, unfolding, and benefits of compassion at work, then we will have taken a big step forward in understanding how to increase levels of compassion in general society and the world.

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Paul Gilbert, Chris Irons, Neil Clapton, and Jane Dutton for their helpful comments during the preparation of this chapter.

References

1. Adams, C. E., & Leary, M. R. (2007). Promoting self‐compassionate attitudes toward eating among restrictive and guilty eaters. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 1120–1144.
2. Anderson, P., Mayer, A., Esienhardt, K., Carley, K., & Pettigrew, A. (1999). Introduction to the Special Issue: Applications of complexity theory to organization science. Organization Science, 10, 223–236.
3. Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J.‐L., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: Revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31, 764–782.
4. Arch, J. J., Brown, K. W., Dean, D. J., Landy, L. N., Brown, K., & Laudenslager, M. L. (2014). Self‐compassion training modulates alpha‐amylase, heart rate variability, and subjective responses to social evaluative threat in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 42, 49–58.
5. Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J.‐L., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: Revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31, 764–782.
6. Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity: A theory‐based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 803–829.
7. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491.
8. Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (2000). Harnessing complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York, NY: The Free Press.
9. Barnard, K. L., & Curry, J. F. (2011). Self‐compassion: Conceptualizations, correlates, and interventions. Review of General Psychology, 5, 289–303.
10. Barrett, L., Dunbar, R., & Lycett, J. (2002). Human evolutionary psychology. London, UK: Palgrave.
11. Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. Neuroimage, 21, 1155–1166.
12. Beck, A. T. (1970). Cognitive therapy: Nature and relation to behaviour therapy. Behaviour Therapy, 1, 184–200.
13. Beeson, I., & Davis, C. (2000). Emergence and accomplishment in organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 178–189.
14. Bento, R. F. (1994). When the show must go on: Disenfranchised grief in organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(6), 35–44.
15. Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope, and compassion. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
16. Brach, T. (2003). Radical acceptance: Embracing your life with the heart of a Buddha. New York, NY: Bantam.
17. Breines, J. G., McInnis, C., Kuras, Y., Thoma, M., Gianferante, D., Hanlin, L., … Rohleder, N. (2015). Self‐compassionate young adults show lower salivary alpha‐amylase responses to repeated psychosocial stress. Self and Identity, 14, 390–402.
18. Brody, H. (1992). The healer’s power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19. Carter, C. S. (2014). Oxytocin pathways and the evolution of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 17–39.
20. Chance, M. (1977). The infrastructure of mentality. In M. T. McGuire & L. A. Fairbanks (Eds.), Ethological psychiatry (pp. 180–195). New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
21. Chance, M. (1998). Social fabrics of the mind. London, UK: Psychology Press.
22. Clarke, C. (1987). Misery and company: Sympathy in everyday life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23. Condon, P., & DeSteno, D. (2011). Compassion for one reduces punishment for another. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 698–701.
24. Costa, J., & Pinto‐Gouveia, J. (2011). Acceptance of pain, self‐compassion and psychopathology: Using the chronic pain acceptance questionnaire to identify patients’ subgroups. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18, 292–302.
25. Crawford, P., Gilbert, P., Gilbert, J., & Harvey, K. (2013). The language of compassion in acute mental healthcare. Qualitative Health Research, 23, 719–727.
26. Darley, M., & Batson, D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100–108.
27. Day, D., Fleenor, J., Atwater, L., Sturm, R., & McKee, R. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 63–82.
28. Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 525–537.
29. Decety, J., & Ickes, W. (2011). The social neuroscience of empathy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Dewar, B. J. (2011). Caring about caring: An appreciative inquiry about compassionate relationship‐centred care. PhD thesis, Edinburgh Napier Univesity, Scotland.
32. Doka, K. (1989). Disenfranchised grief. In K. Doka (Ed.), Disenfranchised grief: Recognising hidden sorrow (pp. 3–11). New York, NY: Lexington Books.
33. Driver, M. (2007). Meaning and suffering in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 611–632.
34. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2007). Mind the bonding gap: Or why humans aren’t just great apes. Proceedings of the British Academy, 154, 403–433.
35. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2010). The social role of touch in humans and primates: Behavioral function and neurobiological mechanisms. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 260–268.
36. Dunsworth, H., & Ecclestone, L. (2015). The evolution of difficult childbirth and helpless hominin infants. Annual Review of. Anthropology, 44, 55–69.
37. Dutton, J., Debebe, G., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2012). Being valued and devalued at work: A social valuing perspective. In A. Beth, B. A. Bechky, & K. D. Elsbach (Eds.), Qualititative organisational research: Best papers from the Davis Conference on Qualitative Research (Vol. 3). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
38. Dutton, J. E., Frost, P. J., Worline, M. C., Lilius, J. M., & Kanov, J. M. (2002). Leading in times of trauma. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 54–61.
39. Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high‐quality connections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 263–78). San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler.
40. Dutton, J. E., Workman, K. M., & Hardin, A. E. (2014). Compassion at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 277–304.
41. Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. M. (2006). Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 59–96.
42. Ellis, A. (1980). Rational‐emotive therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy: Similarities and differences. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4, 325–340.
43. Engen, H. G., & Singer, T. (2015). Compassion‐based emotion regulation up‐regulates experienced positive affect and associated neural networks. Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(9), 1291–1301.
44. EUOSH (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work) (2014). Calculating the cost of work related stress and psychosocial risks (European Risk Observatory Literature Review). Retrieved from https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/literature_reviews/calculating‐the‐cost‐of‐work‐related‐stress‐and‐psychosocial‐risks/view
45. Francis, R. (2013). Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150407084003/http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/report
46. Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Updated thinking on positivity ratios. American Psychologist, 68, 814–822.
47. Frost, P. J. (1999). Why compassion counts! Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(2), 127–133.
48. Frost, P. J. (2003). Toxic emotions at work: How compassionate managers handle pain and conflict. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
49. Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human parental investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 55–77.
50. Germer, C. K., & Siegel, R. D. (2012). Wisdom and compassion in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Guilford.
51. Gilbert, P. (1989). Human nature and suffering. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
52. Gilbert, P. (2005). Compassion and cruelty: A biopsychosocial approach. In P. Gilbert (Ed.), Compassion: Conceptualisations, research and use in psychotherapy (pp. 3–74). London, UK: Routledge.
53. Gilbert, P. (2009). The compassionate mind: A new approach to the challenge of life. London, UK: Constable & Robinson.
54. Gilbert, P. (2010). Compassion focused therapy: The CBT distinctive features series. London, UK: Routledge
55. Gilbert, P. (2015). The evolution and social dynamics of compassion. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,9, 1–16.
56. Gilbert, P., & Choden. (2013). Mindful compassion. London,UK: Constable & Robinson.
57. Goetz, J. E., Keltner, D., & Simon‐Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 351–374.
58. Goodrum, S. (2008). When the management of grief becomes everyday life: The aftermath of murder. Symbolic Interaction, 31, 420–441.
59. Graber, D. R., & Mitcham, M. D. (2004). Compassionate clinicians: Take patient care beyond the ordinary. Holistic Nursing Practice, 18, 87–94.
60. Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. (2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 898–918.
61. Grant, A. M., & Patil, S. V. (2012). Challenging the norm of self‐interest: Minority influence and transitions to helping norms in work units. Academy of Management Review, 37, 547–568.
62. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.
63. Haidt, J. (2002). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
64. Heffernan, M., Griffin, M., McNulty, S., & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2010). Self‐compassion and emotional intelligence in nurses. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 16, 366–373.
65. Hofmann, S. G., Grossman, P., & Hinton D. E. (2011). Loving‐kindness and compassion meditation: Potential for psychological intervention. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 1126–1132.
66. Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Witt, A. A., & Oh, D. (2010). The effect of mindfulness‐based therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 169–183.
67. Hollis‐Walker, L., & Colosimo, K. (2011). Mindfulness, self‐compassion, and happiness in non‐meditators: A theoretical and empirical examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 222–227.
68. HSE (Health and Safety Executive) (2011). Work‐related stress. Topic Inspection Pack, Human Factors, Ergonomics & Psychology Unit. Retrieved from www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/fod/inspect/stress.pdf
69. Jazaieri, H., Jinpa, G. T., McGonigal, K., Rosenberg, E. L., Finkelstein, J., Simon‐Thomas, E., … Jinpa, T. (2010). Compassion cultivation training (CCT): Instructor’s manual. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford, CA.
70. Jazaieri, H., Jinpa, G. T., McGonigal, K., Rosenberg, E., Finkelstein, J., Simon‐Thomas, E., … Goldin, P. R. (2013). Enhancing compassion: A randomized controlled trial of a compassion cultivation training program. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1113–1126.
71. Kahn, W. A. (1998). Relational systems at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 39–76.
72. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London, UK: Penguin.
73. Kanov, J., Maitlis, M., Worline, J., Dutton, P., & Lilius, J. (2004). Compassion in organisational life. American Behavioural Scientist, 47, 808–827.
74. Kelly, A. C., Zuroff, D. C., Foa, C. L., & Gilbert, P. (2009). Who benefits from training in self‐compassionate self‐regulation? A study of smoking reduction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 727–755.
75. Kim. S., & Flaskerud, J. H. (2007). Cultivating compassion across cultures. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 28, 931–934.
76. Klimecki, O. M., Leiberg, S., Ricard, M., & Singer, T. (2014). Differential pattern of functional brain plasticity after compassion and empathy training. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(6), 873–879.
77. Kotter, P. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
78. Lazarus, & Folkman,(1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
79. Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Allen, A. B., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self‐compassion and reactions to unpleasant self‐relevant events: The implications of treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 887–904.
80. Leiberg, S., Klimecki, O., & Singer, T. (2011). Short‐term compassion training increases prosocial behavior in a newly developed prosocial game. PLoS ONE, 6(3): e17798.
81. Lilius, J. M., Kanov, J. M., Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., & Maitlis, S. (2012). Compassion revealed: What we know about compassion at work (and where we still need to know more). In K. S. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 273–287). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
82. Lilius, J. M., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Kanov, J. M., & Maitlis, S. (2011). Understanding compassion capability. Human Relations, 64, 873–899.
83. Lilius, J. M., Worline, M. C., Maitlis, S., Kanov, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Frost, P. J. (2008). The contours and consequences of compassion at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 193–218.
84. Lin, E., & Peterson, C. (1990). Pessimistic explanatory style and response to illness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28, 243–248.
85. Lind, E. A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K. S., & Welchans, T. D. (2000). The winding road from employee to complainant: Situational and psychological determinants of wrongful termination claims. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 557–590.
86. Liotti, G., & Gilbert, P. (2011). Mentalizing, motivation and social mentalities: Theoretical considerations and implications for psychotherapy. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 84, 9–25.
87. Loewenstein, G., & Small, D. A. (2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11, 112–126.
88. Maben, J., Latter., S., & Clark, J. M. (2007). The sustainability of ideals, values and the nursing mandate: Evidence from a longitudinal qualitative study. Nursing Inquiry, 14, 99–113.
89. MacLean, P. (1985). Brain evolution relating to family, play and the separation call. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 405–417.
90. Madden, L. T., Duchon, D., Madden, T. M., & Plowman, D. A. (2012). Emergent organizational capacity for compassion. Academy of Management Review, 37, 689–708.
91. Magnus, C. M. R., Kowalski, K. C., & McHugh, T. L. F. (2010). The role of self‐compassion in women’s self‐determined motives to exercise and exercise‐related outcomes. Self and Identity, 9, 363–382.
92. Martin, D., Seppala, E., Heineberg, Y., Rossomando, T., Doty, J., Zimbardo, P., … Zhou, Y. Y. (2015). Multiple facets of compassion: The impact of social dominance orientation and economic systems justification. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 237–249.
93. McClelland, L. E. (2012). From compassion to satisfaction: Examining the relationship between routines that facilitate compassion and quality of service. PhD thesis, Emory University, Atlanta, USA.
94. Melwani, S., Mueller, J. S., & Overbeck, J. R. (2012). Looking down: The influence of contempt and compassion on emergent leadership categorizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1171–1185.
95. Miller, K. (2007). Compassionate communication in the workplace: Exploring processes of noticing, connecting and responding. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 223–245.
96. Molinsky, A., Grant, A., & Margolis, J. (2012). The bedside manner of homo economicus: How and why priming and economic schema reduces compassion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 27–37.
97. Moon, T.‐W., Hur, W.‐M., Ko, S.‐H., Kim, J‐.W., & Yoon, S.‐W. (2012). Positive work‐related identity as a mediator of the relationship between compassion at work and employee outcomes. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 26(1), 84–94.
98. MRC (Medican Research Council) (2006). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: New guidance. Retrieved from www.mrc.ac.uk/complexinterventionsguidance
99. Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self‐compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250.
100. Neff, K. D., & Beretvas, S. N. (2012). The role of self‐compassion in romantic relationships. Self and Identity, 12, 79–98
101. Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. (2012). A pilot study and randomised controlled trial of the Mindful Self‐Compassion Programme. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69, 28–44.
102. Neff, K. D., Hsieh, Y., & Dejitterat, K. (2005). Self‐compassion, achievement goals and coping with academic failure. Self and Identity, 4, 263–287.
103. Neff, K. D., & Pommier, E. (2012). The relationship between self‐compassion and other‐focused concern among college undergraduates, community adults, and practicing meditators. Self and Identity, 12, 160–176.
104. Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. (2007). An examination of self‐compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 908–916.
105. NHS England (2015). Personalised care and support planning handbook. Retrieved from https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2016/04/core‐info‐care‐support‐planning‐1.pdf
106. O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157–200.
107. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398–427.
108. Pearson, A. (2006). Powerful caring. Nursing Standard, 20(48), 20–22.
109. Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 1–28.
110. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
111. Porges, S. W. (2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74, 116–143.
112. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
113. Preston, S. D. (2013). The origins of altruism in offspring care. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1305–1341.
114. Price, J. (1992). The agonic and hedonic modes: Definition, usage, and the promotion of mental health. World Future, 35, 87–113.
115. Rague‐Bogdan, T., Ericson, S., Jackson, J., Martin, H., & Bryan, A. (2011). Attachment and mental and physical health: Self‐compassion and mattering as mediators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 272–278.
116. Ricard, M. (2015). Altruism: The power of compassion to change yourself and the world. London, UK: Atlantic Books.
117. Rockliff, H., Gilbert, P., McEwan, K., Lightman, S., & Glover, D. (2008). A pilot exploration of heart rate variability and salivary cortisol responses to compassion‐focussed imagery. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 5(3), 132–139.
118. Rosch, P. (2001). The quandary of job stress compensation. Health Stress, 3, 1–4.
119. Rosenberg, E. L., Zanesco, A. P., King, B. G., Aichele, S. R., Jacobs, T. L., Bridwell, D. A., … Saron, C. D. (2015). Intensive meditation training influences emotional responses to suffering. Emotion, 15, 775–790.
120. Salzberg, S. (1997). Lovingkindness: The revolutionary art of happiness. Boston, MA: Shambala.
121. Sbarra, D. A., Smith, H. L., & Mehl, M. R. (2012). When leaving your Ex, love yourself: Observational ratings of self‐compassion predict the course of emotional recovery following marital separation. Psychological Science, 23, 261–269.
122. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
123. Seppela, E., Rossomando, T., & Doty, R. (2013). Social connection and compassion: Important predictors of health and well‐being. Social Research, 80(2), 411–430.
124. Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy‐Skeffington, J., Ho, A. K., Sibley, C., & Duriez, B. (2012). You’re inferior and not worth our concern: The interface between empathy and social dominance orientation. Journal of Personality, 81, 313–323.
125. Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 81–96.
126. Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339–358.
127. Stacey, R. D. (2005). Experiencing emergence in organisations: Local interactions and the emergence of global pattern. New York, NY: Routledge.
128. Terry, M. L., & Leary, M. R. (2011). Self‐compassion, self‐regulation, and health. Self and Identity, 10, 352–362.
129. Vettese, L. C., Dyer, C. E., Li, W. L., & Wekerle, C. (2011). Does self‐compassion mitigate the association between childhood maltreatment and later emotional regulation difficulties? International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9, 480–491.
130. Weng, H., Fox, A., Shackman, A., Stodola, S., Caldwell, J., Olson, G., … Davidson, R. (2013). Compassion alters altruism and neural responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24,1171–1180.
131. Yarnell, M. & Neff, (2012). Self‐compassion, interpersonal conflict resolutions and wellbeing. Self and Identity, 12, 146–159.
132. Youngson, R. (2008) Compassion in healthcare: The missing dimension of healthcare reform? London, UK: NHS Confederation.
133. Youngson, R. (2014). Re‐inspiring compassionate caring: the reawakening purpose workshop. Journal of Compassionate Heath Care, 1, 1.
134. Zaslow, J. (2002, November 20). Putting a price tag on grief. Wall Street Journal, section D, 1.