Intention and Empathy: A Focus on the Forgotten Ones
About five years ago, I went through a facilitated process to clarify and reframe my personal mission—at least in a professional sense.
After much work (and, yes, a little bit of wordsmithing), I landed on this statement: “I am a stand for infusing the world with intentional and empathic leadership.”
That phrase resonated deeply with me then, and it continues to guide me today. At the highest level, it fuels how I approach both my teaching and my coaching. Not surprisingly, you’ll see a version of it right on the home page of my website.
But what do I mean by intentional and empathic leadership?
Intentionality is about clarity of purpose. It’s the discipline of aligning actions with priorities, setting direction, and helping others see why the work matters. Intentional leaders act with forethought rather than impulse, and they create structure that makes collective effort possible.
Empathy is about perspective-taking and connection. It’s the capacity to understand how others experience the work and the workplace, and to act in ways that respect and respond to those realities. Empathic leaders listen, adapt, and create trust. In practice, leaders need both.
Intentionality without empathy can slide into cold efficiency or micromanagement.
Empathy without intentionality can drift into indecision or lack of accountability. The two work best together, reinforcing one another.
This is where leadership research provides a helpful bridge. Long before I crafted my mission statement, scholars had been exploring a similar tension through the lens of task-focused and people-focused behaviors. These concepts are not identical to intentionality and empathy, but they map closely enough to be useful.
Where intentionality aligns with task orientation and empathy aligns with relationship orientation, the research gives us a foundation for understanding how the two play out in practice.
The Research Roots
This dichotomy is far from new. It has been examined in some of the deepest foundations of leadership research. In fact, it dates back to the Ohio State Leadership Studies of the 1940s and 1950s (with a parallel program at Michigan).
Led by Ralph Stogdill and colleagues, the research used factor analysis to identify two fundamental dimensions of leader behavior:
Initiating Structure (Task-Focused): “The extent to which an individual is likely to define and structure their role and those of their subordinates toward goal attainment.” Leaders high in this dimension plan, communicate, schedule, and drive toward results.
Consideration (People-Focused): “The extent to which an individual is likely to have job relationships characterized by mutual trust, respect for subordinates’ ideas, and consideration of their feelings.” Leaders high in this dimension build rapport, respect, and two-way communication.
Both definitions come from a classic 1962 paper by Fleischman and Peters. The fundamental finding was both simple and powerful: leaders generally benefit from being strong in both task- and people-oriented behaviors.
Yes, situations vary. Sometimes, task focus matters more. Other times, empathy and relationships take the lead. Overdoing either can backfire—micromanaging on the task side, or avoiding accountability on the people side. But as a general rule, effectiveness flows from skill in both.
This insight has stood the test of time. A 2004 meta-analysis by Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies, which synthesized 162 studies, reaffirmed these constructs 40–60 years after the original work.
In my doctoral research, I leaned heavily on these ideas—enough that one of my committee members teased me for relying on the “moldy oldies.” (Judge et al. were kinder; they called them “the forgotten ones.”)
Either way, the evidence was clear: these aren’t relics. They remain bedrock.
Why They Still Resonate
Despite their age, the simplicity of this dichotomy resonates powerfully with leaders today. Why?
First, it’s actionable. Leaders can immediately see where they stand: Do I naturally gravitate toward tasks, or toward people? Once they see it, they know where to grow.
Second, it unlocks agility. Leadership isn’t about locking into one style; it’s about shifting fluidly between modes. As I often tell clients: effectiveness comes from deploying the right behavior at the right time. Leaders usually nod, then laugh nervously—because they know it’s true, but they also know they don’t always do it. That recognition quickly turns into a practical question: “Where do I really spend my time, and how can I expand my range?”
From Research to Real Life
I’ve seen this dynamic play out countless times in my coaching practice. One recent example stands out. I worked for a year with the dean of a major college inside a large university. This leader was new to the role—never having been a dean before—and suddenly found themselves responsible for a sprawling organization: 200 faculty and staff, numerous direct reports, and, as with all deans, an endless stream of initiatives and stakeholders.
Prior to our work, the dean had completed a leadership styles assessment. The results were clear: they gravitated almost exclusively toward the people/relationship side of the spectrum.
That orientation is admirable, and I valued the instinct to care for people. But the leader quickly recognized that running such a large and complex organization required more intentionality—more task-focused behaviors—than they were naturally inclined to deploy.
There was an added complication. The dean’s past role models had been relentlessly task-driven, to the point of micromanagement. The leader wanted to avoid falling into that trap, and so they were hesitant to take on more task-oriented behaviors—even though they knew it was necessary.
Our work unfolded iteratively. We started with a short, focused list of task behaviors the dean could practice in real situations. After each attempt, the leader journaled and reflected, and we debriefed together.
As comfort grew, we expanded the repertoire, gradually building a richer, more balanced portfolio that acknowledged the complexity of reality. By the end of our engagement, the dean not only felt more confident in task-oriented leadership, but was also developing the agility to move fluidly between task and relationship.
That agility—choosing with intention which style to bring to the moment—is the essence of effective leadership.
Both/And, Not Either/Or
This is one of many moments in leadership where we confront paradox. The temptation is to think in either/or terms: task or people, strategy or empathy.
But effectiveness comes from both/and thinking.
Scholars like Wendy Smith and Marianne Lewis have shown this across multiple domains, and their research has deeply influenced me.
As a mentor once said to me: “It’s simple. It’s just not easy.”
Articulating two broad dimensions of leadership is simple. Enacting them—developing the skill, agility, and presence to do both well—is not easy.
That is the work I care most about.
It’s why my personal mission statement begins with being a stand for intentional (task-focused) and empathic (people-focused) leadership. The interplay between the two may not be easy. But it is essential. And it’s a conversation I look forward to continuing with you.