If we want to avoid mistakes in strategic policy, we need to understand how others see the world. We need strategic empathy—the ability to step into the minds of other actors and grasp their motivations, fears and goals.
Strategic empathy should be embedded into university curriculums in international relations and security studies, as well as in the training of public servants, military officers and intelligence professionals. It would help if ministers understood it, too.
Understanding intent is just as important as measuring capability. While capability can be quantified, intent is intangible and far more difficult to assess. Misreading another state’s intentions remains one of the greatest risks in international relations, often leading to overreaction or underestimation.
In an era of rapid escalation and shorter warning times, the ability to anticipate adversarial behaviour is crucial. Strategic planning cannot rely on waiting for declarations or overt signals. It requires interpreting ambiguous cues and unspoken motives.
Empathy is vital to this process. It demands sensitivity to the emotional, symbolic and historical meanings behind actions. Failures of empathy—as seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan, for example—have revealed the high cost of misreading cultural and psychological contexts.
Strategic empathy is essential for working with allies and partners. Strong relationships rely on recognising others’ interests, priorities and perspectives. Empathy helps facilitate deeper, more genuine connection and understanding. In doing so, it strengthens diplomacy and enhances cooperation.
Strategic empathy also remedies some of the more concerning trends in dominant models of international relations. Much of current theory is rooted in a narrow version of the rational actor model, shaped heavily by realism. While not inherently flawed, this version of this model often ignores cultural, psychological and normative influences. Two actors can face the same situation and interpret it very differently. In some cases, behaviour we see as irrational may simply reflect a worldview we haven’t tried hard enough to understand.
Additionally, as new technologies promise ever-faster solutions to strategic problems, we are at risk of sidelining human knowledge and judgment. While data, AI and cyber capabilities are important, they cannot replace the insight that comes from understanding people. Human intelligence, cultural expertise and local knowledge remain irreplaceable. Institutions such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Australia’s intelligence community should continue to prioritise these assets, and should be resourced accordingly.
To be truly effective, empathy must be more than a situational tool. It should be a guiding ethos. Embedding this approach into policy demands education, structure and institutional support.
But empathy is hard. It requires us to confront biases, question assumptions, and set aside individual and national ego. It’s cognitively taxing and often neglected in high-pressure environments. That’s why it must be deliberately taught and practiced, not assumed as an innate ability.
First, we must overcome the overestimation of our own importance. Strategists can fall prey to egocentric bias, projecting their own views, values and intentions onto others. This tendency undermines perspective-taking and leads to misinterpretation of others’ actions.
Additionally, we must develop rigorous understandings of our own worldviews and how they compare to those held by others. By interrogating the assumptions and norms that underpin our strategies and using net assessments, which allow for more nuanced predictions than rational actor models, we can better identify where others diverge. For instance, if a country seeks to counterbalance a rising power, that country must first understand how the rising power interprets the balance of power, and why its view might differ.
Training should be institutionalised to reflect this. Strategic empathy should be a core part of diplomatic and military education, rather than an optional add-on. It supports ethical leadership and more effective strategy. Leaders who can understand and anticipate others’ motivations are better equipped to avoid conflict, build partnerships and navigate crises with precision.
So how do we expand and strengthen strategic empathy? It starts with education. We need to resist the trend of over-prioritising science and technology at the expense of the humanities. History, psychology, anthropology and regional studies are essential for developing the insight needed to understand complex actors. This isn’t to say technical knowledge isn’t important. But without a human dimension, strategy becomes brittle and reactive.
Strategic empathy can also be built through cross-cultural engagement. By encouraging secondments, exchange programs and in-country experience for diplomats, defence officials and students, we create opportunities to see the world through different eyes. Language learning, too, is an underrated tool of empathy, as it forces us to think in another’s terms and absorb the subtle cues that don’t always translate.
Importantly, empathy should not be confined to specialists. While regional experts provide vital insight, all members of strategic and policy teams should cultivate empathetic approaches. A shared appreciation of the importance of perspective-taking would improve collective understanding, strengthen collaboration and enhance respect for expert knowledge.
Australia must equip its strategic thinkers with the mindset and tools to practice strategic empathy. Doing so will enhance our ability to build partnerships, avoid missteps and navigate uncertainty with wisdom and agility.
No comments:
Post a Comment