In a bustling open office, Sarah and her team struggle through a project meeting. As the discussion unfolds, Sarah proposes a change to the project timeline, confident in its necessity. Yet, an underlying tension fills the room: John’s foot taps impatiently, and Anne’s sighs grow more frequent. Despite the obvious nods of agreement, their emotions tell another story. This moment of miscommunication, where logical plans clash with unspoken feelings, exemplifies a common workplace dilemma. Let’s Discuss Cognitive Empathy.
Most people think they know what empathy means. It is about feeling what someone else feels or imagining yourself in their place. But the way your brain handles empathy is more complex than that.
Daniel Goldman – Optimal 2024 – Harper Business
Recent neuroscience shows empathy is not just one skill. Your brain uses at least two separate systems to understand others. Imagine it like switching between two apps on your smartphone. One app helps you figure out what someone is thinking. The other app senses how they feel. Each taps into different neural networks but working together, they give a full picture of empathy.
This is more important than you think. Most people rely on one system. They almost ignore the other. This behavior can cause real problems at work and at home. For example, consider a team meeting where a project manager solely focuses on cognitive empathy. They understand everyone’s perspectives and goals. Yet, they miss noticing the team’s growing frustration. This is due to a lack of effective empathy. This can lead to miscommunication, where the This Is More Important Than You Think. Most Rely On One System, Often Ignoring the Other, Causing Problems at Work and Home. For example, a project manager understands perspectives by focusing only on cognitive empathy. However, they miss the growing frustration due to a lack of effective empathy. This Leads To Miscommunication and Resistance to Logical Solutions If Emotional Concerns Are Unaddressed. Balancing Both Empathy Systems Is Key. Additionally, Fostering Psychological Safety Encourages Open Engagement, Enabling Both Empathy Systems to Thrive and Creating a Cohesive, Productive Environment.logical solution proposed is met with resistance because the emotional concerns weren’t addressed. Such scenarios highlight the need to balance both empathy systems for effective communication.
Furthermore, fostering psychological safety in team settings can be the hidden variable that enables both empathy systems to thrive. When team members feel safe, they are more Likely to engage openly. This allows both systems to work in harmony. It creates a more cohesive and productive environment.
Two Systems, One Brain – Cognitive Empathy
Here is how it breaks down. Cognitive empathy is your ability to understand what someone else believes, wants, or intends. Researchers call this Theory of Mind. It uses a network Centered on the medial prefrontal cortex, temporoparietal junction, and precuneus. These are all parts of the brain’s default mode network.
Affective empathy works differently. This is when you actually share someone else’s emotional state and feel their pain. It involves the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex, which are completely different parts of the brain.
A 2024 meta-analytic study by Arioli and colleagues confirmed that cognitive centralising shows both shared and specific brain activation. Effective mentalising and sympathy also show both shared and specific brain activations. The idea of one unified empathy circuit does not hold up. Some labs argue for a third modulatory network. They suggest it could influence how these empathy systems interact. This ongoing debate enriches our understanding of empathy’s complexity and invites further exploration into its underlying neural mechanisms.
Another study using the EmpaToM paradigm demonstrated that these components can be measured separately within the same person. One person might be excellent at reading thoughts but poor at sharing feelings. Or the reverse.
Why This Matters for Communication
Consider a meeting where someone disagrees with your proposal. You need cognitive empathy to understand their reasoning—what they believe, what their goals are, and what information they have.
But you also need affective empathy to gauge the room. Are they frustrated? Anxious? Threatened by the change?
Most workplace communication training focuses on just one type. Active listening exercises build affective empathy, while negotiation training targets cognitive empathy. It is rare for training to address both at once. One integrated approach could involve role-playing scenarios where participants are tasked with identifying both cognitive and affective cues in conversations. For instance, a training exercise might start with a participant explaining a workplace challenge. Others practice listening for both what is being said. They also focus on how it is being said. This dual focus encourages trainees to use both empathy systems. It can be a practical step toward improving communication skills in a professional setting. Connecting these exercises to classic team dysfunctions makes the training more relevant. Examples include fear of Conflict or a Lack of commitment. Understanding how these empathy systems operate can aid teams in overcoming the fear of conflict. This is achieved by fostering open and honest communication. It also improves commitment by ensuring that all viewpoints and feelings are acknowledged and addressed.
The data backs this up. Businessolver’s 2025 State of Workplace Empathy rThe Data Backs This Up. Businessolver’s 2025 State Of Workplace Empathy Report Found That Unempathetic Firms Risk $180 Billion Annually In Employee Attrition. 96% Of Employees Want Increased Empathetic Communication From Leadership. Yet 52% Say Their Company’s Empathy Efforts Seem Dishonest.A report found that unempathetic firms risk $180 billion annually in employee attrition. 96% of employees want increased empathetic communication from leadership. But 52% say their company’s empathy efforts seem dishonest.
That gap exists because many organisations are performing sympathy rather than practising it. They train people to say the right words without actually engaging the cognitive system that models what another person needs.
The Mind-Reading Trap
There is a catch here. A 2024 fMRI study found that the Theory of Mind network shows phase-specific effects. Your brain processes belief-formation differently from outcome evaluation. The temporoparietal junction requires more effort when you are building a model of someone’s beliefs. It works less hard when you are assessing what happened next.
This shows that understanding what others think is genuinely hard work. People who are confident in their ability to understand others often make the biggest mistakes. They build a confident model of someone else’s thoughts but never check if it is correct.
Clinical research introduces an additional layer. A neuroethical critique by Crignon found that both affective resonance and purely cognitive clinical empathy can introduce bias. Empathy is not automatically fair. You empathize more easily with people who look like you, think like you, or share your background. It’s worth remembering that emotions are brain-made predictions, not pure reflections. This understanding deepens the discussion on bias by empowering individuals to question their automatic emotional responses.
Three Things You Can Do Today
First, treat mind-reading as hypothesis testing. Instead of assuming you know what someone thinks, explicitly check. Ask directly. Something like: I am reading this as you being concerned about the timeline. Is that right? This matches how the belief-formation phase actually works in the brain.
Second, separate what the other person believes from how they feel. When preparing an important message, write down what you think they believe about the situation. Then, write down how they probably feel. These are different questions that use different brain systems, and your message should address both. To reduce empathy bias, especially in high-risk situations like management or hiring, consider implementing structured processes. This can include using standardised interview questions. You can also use empathy checklists to ensure all perspectives are equally considered. This approach minimises reliance on gut feelings.
Third, be aware of empathy bias. You will naturally empathise more with people who are part of your group. In high-risk situations like management, medical decisions, or hiring, employ structured processes. Do not rely on gut feelings about what someone needs.
The Bottom Line
Your brain did not evolve one empathy system. It evolved at least two. Understanding the difference between cognitive and affective empathy is not just interesting neuroscience; it is essential. It is a practical communication skill.
The organisations that understand this will close the empathy gap. Those that do not will continue to lose people. They will wonder why engagement scores do not improve. This confusion persists even though they know which system they need. To make real progress, leaders should focus on two key actions. First, implement comprehensive training programs that integrate both cognitive and affective empathy skills. This dual approach ensures that employees are equipped to engage with different perspectives and emotions. Second, introduce regular feedback mechanisms that allow employees to express their communication needs and challenges. This continuous feedback loop will help organisations adjust their strategies and foster a more empathetic workplace culture.
If you want more insights on how brain science applies to real communication, subscribe to BetaTesterLife for weekly research analysis. That matters.
RESEARCH SOURCES
Primary Neuroscience Sources
- Arioli et al. – Overlapping and particular neural correlates for empathising, affective mentalizing, and cognitive mentalizing: A coordinate-based meta-analytic study. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8410528/
- Kanske et al. – Investigating the social brain: Introducing the EmpaToM to reveal distinct neural networks and brain-behaviour relations regarding empathy and Theory of Mind. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811915007028
- Unveiling the neural functioning of the theory of mind: a fMRI study of different phases of the false-belief task (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11665637/
- Crignon – Your pain is not mine: A critique of clinical empathy. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9300140/
- Kranewitter & Schurz – A Quantitative Review of Brain Activation Maps for Mentalizing, Empathy, and Social Interactions. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12293034/
- Evaluating large language models in theory of mind tasks – PNAS (2024). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2405460121
- Large Language Models & Empathy: Systematic Review – JMIR (2024). https://www.jmir.org/2024/1/e52597
Workplace Empathy Data
- Businessolver – 2025 State of Workplace Empathy Report. https://businessolver.com/workplace-empathy/
- EY US Consulting – Empathy in Business Survey (2023). https://www.ey.com/en_us/newsroom/2023/03/new-ey-us-consulting-study
- Catalyst – The Power of Sympathy in Times of Crisis and Beyond (2025). https://www.catalyst.org/en-us/insights/2025/empathy-work-strategy-crisis
- Employee Communication Statistics 2024/2025 – 96% of employees want compassionate communication. https://high5test.com/communication-in-the-workplace-statistics/
AI and Theory of Mind
- Theory of Mind in Large Language Models: Assessment and Enhancement (2025). https://arxiv.org/html/2505.00026v1
- Can large language models demonstrate cognitive and affective empathy as humans? – ScienceDirect (2025). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882125001173
- Empathy AI in Healthcare – Frontiers in Psychology (2025). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1680552/full
- Omni-fMRI: A Universal Atlas-Free fMRI Foundation Model – arXiv. https://arxiv.org/html/2601.23090v1
Leave a Reply