5.6.2 The Compassionate Organisation

Compassion is considered to be a uniquely human trait, so unique it sometimes has as its synonym the term humanity. 

It encompasses human kindness and concern for our fellow human, and also other animals and plants that we share our living space with.  Gaia Theory encourages us to tread lightly on our only home, Planet Earth, and be compassionate in all our dealings with her.

In the context of supporting families compassion encourages us to prioritise matters that may not be thought of as being important, or may be glossed over in other contexts.

I believe that it goes far beyond feeling sorry for someone.

It is a proactive endeavour that reaches to the core of the other.  It, in particular, involves reaching out to someone who is hurting, rather than blaming them for the circumstances whence their hurt arose.

I heard a saying once that proposes that there is no compassion without truth, and there is no truth without compassion [1].

This is a helpful guide when thinking about compassion, but can also be promoted as an absolute truth in itself.  For example, a giant corporation could argue that the truth is that if they behave compassionately and don’t sack people, or downsize, they will lose profits, be swallowed up by their rivals, and then everyone will lose their jobs.

So I don’t really believe that the compassion we wish for should be limited by being bound by a statement like that quoted above, useful as it is.

Rather, it is determined by adult, mature, reflection on complex issues that demand a sympathetic yet effective response with safety and promotion of vulnerable humans as its ultimate goal.  For example the saying: there but for the grace of God go I [2] might be remembered by the compassionate worker when working with people who are misusing drugs, involved in violence, people in prison etc.

However, one saying that I have come across in my reading (I am not sure where – I think, once again, that it has a Buddhist origin and I’d be indebted to anyone who can throw any light on it) comes from a belief about heaven that is an alternative to the one with which most Christians are familiar.

That is, that no one goes to heaven until we are all ready to go there!

This is a real challenge for the compassionate worker, in that it differs from the traditional Christian belief that the good people (us, obviously) go to heaven and the bad people (them) go to hell if they don’t repent for their sins – a far more logical position if one thinks of it. However, logic might not have that much to offer when considering compassion, as compassion is beyond logic.

This thinking on heaven actually reminds me of the theories developed by Paulo Friere who also believed in the power of compassion to change people, albeit in a more secular way, i.e. that nobody should be materially rich until we are all materially rich. 

And John Lennon may have been exposed to this kind of thinking during his education by the Maharishi in India and referenced it in his song Imagine when he wrote ‘imagine all the people, sharing all the world’.

[1]. I think that this might have its origin in Buddhism but I am not sure.

[2]. Definitely from the Christian tradition with which I am obviously more familiar – though probably has equivalents in other traditions!

Anything that is universal in human culture is likely to be contributing to parts of us that are vital for our existence.

I wouldn’t be an expert on Charles Darwin or his writings so I’m not sure if he examined this – but I believe that compassion must have a role in the evolution of our species. 

Perhaps its role is simply survival – and is a totally selfish trait in that respect.  For example we noted in the Chapter on Anthropology that reciprocity among hunter-gathering peoples has a survival role – and I suppose the same holds true for modern day reciprocity in business dealings.

And it can be argued that if we don’t reach out to people in pain then they will make trouble for us.  Some wise people (such as saints, philosophers, religious leaders, gurus, etc.) copped on to this – perhaps unconsciously – and framed it into their life’s work and teaching.

If indeed compassion assists in the successful evolution of our species [1] I believe that its role is more spiritual than material.  (I will return to this in the next Sub-Chapter when I discuss spirituality).  There is something about it that lifts us above the ordinary, gives us a good feeling, and appeals to a part of us that we find very hard to describe and define.

And, like creativity, if we are in distress and we experience compassion we are attracted to it.  We may realise that a part of us, perhaps, no-one has ever taken seriously will be heard.

We will feel safe to explore parts of ourselves that we are ashamed of or embarrassed about, or afraid of, or angry about – in the knowledge that the ear that listens will be compassionate.

Without compassion, relationship would not have evolved to the point where it is a necessary part of our psyche, and without relationship we wouldn’t have evolved and developed to be the kind of human family we recognise today.

Now given the amount of wars, violence, underhand dealings and troubles that there are in the world at any one time this is sometimes hard to believe – but I have read that one of the reasons that other humanoid species did not thrive was because they couldn’t get along with each other. And homosapiens – our crowd – did!

And to get along with each other we need compassion.

[1]. It is sometimes hard to imagine that we are evolving – but of course we are.

We have focused on the family quite a lot; in particular the central role it has in protecting children and enhancing their well-being.

The family is probably the principal repository and source of compassion in society.  (For example, in a previous post I highlighted the role that the family has, through upward causation, in determining what happens in society in general, or indeed at a global level).

Mark Twain commented ‘home is a place that, when you go there, they have to let you in’, or something like that.

While even in well-functioning families compassion has a tendency to be somewhat conditional, it is hard to imagine a family without it.  Allied to this, a characteristic of a family, even a well-functioning one, is that, sometimes, behaviours that would not be acceptable in the world outside are tolerated.

I believe that the unique emotional undercurrents that prevail in families – i.e. the cultural make-up of the family – and that are not really observed in the world outside both give rise to this tolerance and are the result of it.

How to harness the power of these undercurrents, and, in supporting families that have the characteristics of the Focus Group, how to ensure that they tend towards nurture and not destruction requires skill, leadership ability, and very good judgment that comes from both experience and commitment to open and honest communication.

In the good enough family it is the parents that do this.

I have devoted a full Chapter to cultural matching when we are supporting families and individuals in distress. But it is relevant in family life too – because one of the most challenging aspects of joint parenting is the matching of the cultures of the two families that the parents come from.

When that matching is good enough, it is likely that children’s well-being – not some harmful element of the culture of one of the families of origin – will be the most important influencer of decisions that are made.  Members of the compassionate family (or extended family) will reach out to the one in pain – not ignore, criticise or disparage him.

This happens all the time in families because we are a compassionate species and it bubbles up no matter what.

And, in might also open us up to new direction in our thinking, i.e. that we might consider having some characteristics of a good enough family in our organisations.

Compassion is a trait that may be observed more in families (and communities, or clubs or gatherings where cultures, rules and practices are informal and non-written) than in professional organisations, where it may be viewed with a certain suspicion.

This is probably due to lack of trust.

I propose that this lack of trust is a residue of many centuries if not millennia of them and us thinking when it comes to either managing a workforce, or helping people who are often called the less fortunate [1] in society. 

In our them and us world, when considering organisations and employment, compassion may be viewed as being soft on workers (and by extension, people who come looking for help).

Perhaps there is a grain of truth in this – and if you have been around for a while you will recognise the worker that takes advantage of what they perceive to be compassion in agencies and then use the agency in a self-serving manner. Naturally this can have a detrimental effect on morale, efficiency, work practice etc. (This post describing narcissism might be helpful in understanding how this might happen)

In managing such organisations, the no compassion without truth statement is helpful, and I would propose that this is where good selection of staff and thereafter, supervision comes in.  (A method of staff selection that would reduce the chances of employing people who take advantage of the organisation is proposed in the Sub-Chapter on Recruitment below).

I would say that at the end of the day the result of compassion coupled with truth is actually an encouragement for people, whether we are practitioners or people seeking help – and, of course, practitioners can need help too – to take responsibility for our actions.

There are many aspects of organisations that might inhibit proactive compassion (for example, fear, rigidity, reactive behaviour etc.), but I believe that the principal inhibitor is the way that we default to a logical position during times when we feel uncertain, uncomfortable or threatened.

This is so prevalent in organisations that it is almost the norm and I have often experienced it.

Consideration is rarely given to the process of how the default-to-logic happens because it is so ingrained that we are not really aware of it.  Rarely, when conflict arises in a workplace, does ‘who is hurting here’ trump ‘we must resolve this quickly and logically’.

Now there is nothing wrong with logic, but from the compassion point of view, I believe that great opportunities are missed if it is always the position from which we view the world of the ever-changing human, whether she is at home or at work.

Also, the default-to-logic (and thereafter the reluctance to be compassionate, i.e. perceived to be soft) often arises, I believe anyway, from the dominance of Pillars thinking (or, particularly the values of the corporate world – i.e. who is to blame) in community work and the workplace in general.

The corporate world – which influences the Pillars anyway – is, by and large, a bit light on compassion – so being soft would indeed be anathema to the corporation where profit always trumps human concerns.

In the light of this, our community workplace needs to be constantly vigilant to ensure that alternative voices are heard to counter the corporate ones.

One way of doing this is to maintain clear focus on reality, and as we said already, this is a primarily a leadership responsibility, but while the leader can and hopefully will set the atmosphere, I believe that expressing the alternative voice is the responsibility of every worker.

I mentioned above that compassion involves reaching out, and reaching out to workers might not be common in many organisations, generally.

But in the sort of organisation that we aspire to, reaching out to staff members is, I believe, essential. 

[1]. Even a cursory knowledge of the history of labour relations is enough to recognise them and us in management – staff relations which prevails to the present day.  I also believe that the tradition of helping others contains a significant component of them and us thinking – none more so than the history of helping those who we describe as mentally ill or socially deviant etc.

Since much of the website promotes taking our emotions seriously (and reflecting on them) it is proper to mention here that compassion in its purest sense often involves extending ourselves emotionally, and so can use up a bit of energy. (In the previous post I described how we can default to logic when under pressure).

One of the reasons for this is that we use a lot less emotional energy if we get all logical.

And I know that this is a bit of a cliché, but in the area in which we are choosing to work, it can be hard to be compassionate all the time.

Many people who end up in prison for violent crimes are very hurt, and the outward manifestation of their hurt is what is visited upon their victims.  Because of the nature of our work, it will be necessary from time to time to draw some kind of a boundary in respect of behaviour.

This could arise if we have to report people who commit to attending a programme due to some sort of court order and then they don’t.  Or it could be reporting parents who are neglecting their children.  Or we may have to ask someone to leave because they are under the influence of drugs.

In my experience, however, showing compassion to a very hurt person usually results in them being less likely to either attack us, or – worse – go away and never come back again, if they are angry because we draw a boundary.

Showing compassion always implies a willingness to be in relationship.  It is very much a prefrontal cortex [1] response and, (once again referencing the neural mirroring that is always ongoing in human encounters) its use will optimise generation of a prefrontal response in the other, hurt, anxious person whose anger (and fear – remember the drowning man gasping for air) may be rising.

(And this analogy is not a bad one. Because if I am rescuing someone and I don’t take care of myself the drowning man might pull me under).

While the website is located generally in a community work context, I believe that the above holds true for all of us practitioners who are regularly faced with such challenges in our work.

Recognition that relationship can be built on compassion means that our rational mind (the mind that thinks in the context of relationship and/or empathy) as well as our logical mind (the mind that thinks totally logically, almost robotically) will be accessed. Note the difference between the two.

In this, can a person (whether a very distressed person seeking help, or a very distressed employee) trust our organisation to be compassionate when it is under pressure?

This, I believe, is the big test.

Because, if we have compassion written into our vision or mission statement and we are not compassionate when under pressure it involves a breach of trust.

Within the Focus Group this has particular resonance.

If we end up in prison we may have suffered as children, and almost always our suffering involved substantial breaches of trust.  (In fact, I think that it’s safe to say that all significant harm done to children by adults involves a breach of trust).  We then grow to adulthood with significant trust issues.  That is why it is so important for us to trust an organisation to do what it says it will do.

And an atmosphere of trust encourages people who have never known trust to take a risk.

[1] This is the part of the brain that causes us to behave like mature adults

Previously, I mentioned inhibitors of compassion such as fear, rigidity, default to logic etc.

I did not include compassion fatigue (which most of you will have heard of) in this list – I had mentioned it briefly already.

This is linked to burn-out, and if we are burnt out we will run the risk of paying lip-service to compassion.

This is a particular danger which can be avoided by good supervision (both team and individual), high morale, attentive listening by those in leadership positions, and an atmosphere of freedom where staff can express fear, tiredness, anger etc. in a healthy way and be encouraged to take responsibility for such emotions.

So what does this commitment to compassion mean, in a practical sense?

The thing about compassion in a proactive sense is that it can push the envelope [1] when it comes to rules or policies, and in those areas it can be challenging.

It involves the much-vaunted non-judgmental approach, but yet involves judgment, or at least, assessment of some sort.

Compassion encourages us to be forgiving and empathic when people do not come up to our expectations, and indeed serves to educate us in the pace at which we need to move to build and sustain relationships.

[1]. We came across this expression before!