Sympathy considered harmful

ou start chatting with Adam by the water cooler. He starts complaining about Brett. Your instinct might be to sympathize — and if Brett were Adam’s  significant other, that could be exactly the right move.

But Brett is a co-worker. And if Adam and Brett need to collaborate effectively, sympathizing without question might actually make things worse.

In this context, a more constructive response is to gently state the obvious: the best way for Adam to resolve his communication issue with Brett is to talk to Brett directly.

It’s surprising how often people try to fix communication problems by speaking to everyone except the person involved.

Sympathy Can Reinforce Dysfunction

Sometimes, an indirect approach is warranted — particularly if the situation is sensitive or there’s been a serious breakdown in trust. In such cases, involving a neutral third party can help build a bridge. But most of the time, that’s not what’s happening.

More often, Adam is not looking for a solution — he’s looking for sympathy.

Worse, he may be trying (consciously or unconsciously) to recruit you into an alliance against Brett. This creates an “us vs. them” dynamic that corrodes trust, damages team cohesion, and fosters workplace drama.

“Should” Is Not a Strategy

Ask Adam whether he’s spoken to Brett, and he might say yes. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll often discover that what he really means is: “I dropped a few hints.”

You’ll start to hear the word “should” a lot:

• “He should have known.”

• “She should understand.”

• “They should realize what they’re doing.”

But should is a trap. People should do many things — but often don’t. Clinging to what someone should know or do rarely improves outcomes. It just leads to frustration.

To enact change you need to start where a person is, not were they should be. Then use feedback and coaching to slowly improve they behaviour over time.

Choose Constructive Support

When someone vents to you, it’s natural to want to be supportive. But support doesn’t have to mean agreeing or indulging.

You can listen compassionately and still nudge them toward resolution.

Try asking:

“Have you talked to Brett about this directly?”
“Would you like help figuring out how to start that conversation?”

Encouraging direct communication helps break the cycle of avoidance, resentment, and triangulation. You stop being a passive participant in the problem and start becoming an active part of the solution.

It’s not always easy — especially when a friend just wants a sympathetic ear. But it’s better for everyone in the long run.

Update 1:

The Drama Triangle

This pattern of interaction — where someone plays the “Victim” and seeks out a “Rescuer” to defend them from a “Persecutor” — is known as the Drama Triangle, a concept from psychology and leadership coaching.

In this model:

• The Victim avoids direct action.

• The Rescuer enables avoidance by offering emotional comfort instead of real help.

• The Persecutor often doesn’t even know there’s a problem.

While the roles feel familiar and even comforting, only temporary relief, it doesn’t address the root of the problem — and so nothing truly gets resolved.

Update 2:

Kim Scott’s Advice: Make Backstabbing Impossible

Kim Scott, in Radical Candor, offers four key actions to build strong teams. Her second:

Make Backstabbing Impossible.

Outlines a three-step approach:

1. Don’t allow people to badmouth others in front of you. Cut gossip short — respectfully but firmly.

2. Encourage direct conversations. If someone complains about a teammate, urge them to raise the issue privately with the person involved.

3. Facilitate resolution when needed. If they can’t resolve it on their own, bring both parties together. Help them talk through the issue constructively. If that fails, step in with practical solutions.

This isn’t about enforcing artificial harmony. It’s about replacing a passive-aggressive cycle of behaviour with respectful dialogue. It’s about replacing manipulation with honest communication.

Conclusion: Lead with Empathy, End with Accountability

Empathy is essential—but without accountability, it can enable dysfunction. When we respond to workplace complaints with unchecked sympathy, we may unintentionally reinforce avoidance, gossip, or division.

The better path is to listen with care, but guide people back to direct, respectful communication. That’s how teams grow, problems get solved, and relationships strengthen.

Encouraging others to speak up honestly—and helping them do it well—isn’t just good leadership. It’s how we create cultures of trust, clarity, and mutual respect. Sympathy might feel kind in the moment, but long-term, candor with care is the real kindness.

So the next time someone vents to you about a colleague, don’t just comfort—coach. Help them take the conversation to the person who can actually resolve it. That’s where real progress begins.

Related Posts

• Dangers of Heroism

Related Information

Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity by Kim Malone Scott

Challenge directly while caring personally. For those who want to foster open, honest, and respectful feedback cultures.

Read the book.

Watch the Video.

Blogs for Marketing purposes

or a while I have been advocating making companies' Internet presences more interactive by the use of blogs, wiki and forums. Marketing staff are always receptive but management are often resistant. The topic has come up so often that I now have a standard spiel.
Web sites that publish reader’s comments increase customer engagement. As do sites that communicate in a more personal style (e.g. in the form of a blog).These more interactive sites can be used to

• Gather customer preferences and needs
• Rehabilitate a reputation of arrogance and ignoring customer’s preferences
• Create a more personal two way dialog with customers instead of a breakdown into impersonal gathering and disseminating information.
• Build community
• Create customer buy in
  • Customer’s criticisms will be more constructive and their attitude more positive if they believe they are part of the process

There is often resistance to these ideas usually centered on losing control of the process. But losing control of the process is not the worst thing that could happen. The worst thing is to be totally ignored.

There is a misconception about where the power is in a conversation. The power is with the listener not the speaker. If the listener is thinking about the shopping list or what they are going to say next then the speaker is raising the air temperature of the room and little more. It follows that trying to keep control of the situation by keeping an iron grip on what is said is a foolhardy exercise. You increase your comfort as you speed your way to disaster. Your ears are soothed by the sound of your own voice as it echoes in an empty room.

The company that has a one way presence on the net has no user comments on their blog (because they have no blog). No user additions to their FAQ (because it is not Wikified). No discussion threads in their forum (because their customers are too busy talking behind their backs where they can not hear them). If someone posts some vitriol in a comment on their blog at least they have the commenter's attention and the beginnings of a discussion. This is better than the 'chirp chirp' sound of silence.