Developing Strategic Empathy and Perspective Taking in Military Leaders

Olenda E. Johnson¹, and Allison Abbe²

¹ U.S. Naval War College

² U.S. Army War College

Download the PDF

Abstract

Strategic empathy requires stepping into the minds of an adversary, competitor, collaborator, or ally to understand their motives and interests from their point of view. The core mechanism that enables strategic empathy is perspective taking. Importantly, strategic empathy is gaining primacy in our warfighting decision spaces and is increasingly recognized as a leadership imperative. Within professional military education, however, how leaders cultivate this complex cognitive capacity remains a gap. We introduce an instructional method, “Perspective Papers,” designed to further the ability to shift mental frames away from one’s own viewpoint to another’s viewpoint, while suspending judgment. Perspective Papers immerse students in the seemingly simple, yet cognitively challenging, experience of addressing questions through multiple lenses other than their own. (It is harder than it sounds!) Students practice this process iteratively during a 10-week course at a senior service college. The method has been utilized for over a decade with consistent effect and operational application. We include unsolicited communications from students 3, 5, and 10 years post their participation in the course to reflect longitudinal impact. Additionally, we offer guidance to fellow professional military education educators for employing this instructional method in their learning spaces. We argue that the development of perspective-taking capacities throughout professional military education facilitates desired joint officer learning outcomes and furthers operational success.

 

At its core, deterrence is based on the perceptions of our adversaries and how such perceptions can influence risk and reward-based decisions to create conflict in the pursuit of their national interests. But in determining these perceptions lies the challenge … It is important that we understand our adversaries’ strategic perspective and how they view their priorities, their values, and their place in the world … to truly understand how to deter them.

—Gen Charles Q. Brown Jr., Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
U.S. Strategic Command Deterrence Symposium, 14 August 2024

 

Educators in professional military education (PME) have a responsibility to prepare leaders for emerging challenges and evolving strategic priorities. Today, military leaders face a dramatically changing security landscape characterized by unprecedented complexity, fundamental shifts in global relationships, and multiple, interconnected actors and adversaries. Success in this dynamic security environment requires leaders who possess the ability to grapple with persistent uncertainty and think through complex challenges. Of particular consequence is the need to understand the motives, mindsets, and intentions of adversaries to anticipate and respond to their actions effectively, which is strategic empathy (Abbe, 2023). While much has been written about the importance of strategic empathy for strategic decision-making (McMaster, 2020), security policy (Yorke, 2023), and operational planning (Vowell & Evans, 2022), little attention has been directed toward how to develop this complex cognitive capacity (Hinck & Cullen, 2024).

The core mechanism for effectuating strategic empathy is perspective taking—the cognitive capacity to recognize and hold another’s point of view (Abbe, 2023; Kegan & Lahey, 2010). Deliberate learning and development are necessary to enable this complex cognitive task (Cavallaro & French, 2021). Perspective taking requires mental openness to alternate views, comprehending the basis for those views, and setting aside one’s own judgments about the views (Hui et al., 2021). These are not automatic skill sets nor easily accessible cognitive capacities; however, they can be developed. The scholarship of teaching and learning along with neuroscience research points to disruptive instructional methods for facilitating strategic empathy and perspective taking (Hill et al., 2016; Jin et al., 2024). The learning should disrupt reflexive cognitive tendencies to form more sophisticated mental models (Cavallaro & French, 2021; Jin et al., 2024). This requires structured teaching and learning processes. To this end, PME is an avenue for developing this critical leadership capacity.

In this article, we detail an immersive instructional innovation, “Perspective Papers,” designed to further learners’ ability to recognize and hold multiple viewpoints while withholding judgment. We begin by first delineating the central theoretical constructs and then briefly discuss the cognitive science that forms the foundation of the instructional design while also establishing the strategic and operational necessity for the learning intervention. We then describe the what, how, and impact of the Perspective Papers—to include the framework, instructional design, learning processes, iteration and feedback, student experience, and application. Finally, we offer guidance for employing this instructional method in PME across disciplines and with varied modalities. The goal is to provide fellow educators with additional instructional strategies to prepare leaders to succeed in the dynamic security landscape.

Theoretical Foundation

Defining Strategic Empathy and Perspective Taking

To understand and shape behavior in the operational environment, military practitioners need an understanding of others’ perspectives—their motivations, mindsets, perceptions, and preferences. Some authors, such as Shore (2014), have adopted the term “strategic empathy” to describe “the skill of stepping out of our own heads and into the minds of others” (p. 2) to inform analysis and decision-making. Relatedly, perspective taking is the active process of understanding the thoughts, feelings, motives, and underlying “why” of a target without judgment or agreement (Parker et al., 2008). These overlapping concepts of strategic empathy and perspective taking provide a more complete understanding of actors and relationships in the security environment. They help leaders avoid egocentrism, ethnocentrism, and projection, which can hinder operational success.

Distinct from the general concept of empathy that involves an affective component (i.e., “feeling for”), strategic empathy is a complex cognitive process useful for making sense of the environment (Abbe, 2023). It provides a means of disrupting existing mental models that may be outdated or incomplete. Whereas affective aspects of empathy sometimes occur automatically, strategic empathy requires effort centering on two cognitively demanding requirements: withholding judgment of the other’s perspective and eschewing adoption of that perspective as one’s own (Krämer et al., 2010; Preston & de Waal, 2002).

These cognitively complex processes aid in overcoming automatic responses to others’ point of view as well as projection of one’s own perspective. Perspective taking also enables leaders to rely less on preconceived expectations or emotional reactions, and instead seek out more information (Todd et al., 2012). Thus, intentional effort at perspective taking helps overcome some of the automatic biases that lead to errors in analysis, ultimately improving decision-making. In total, strategic empathy and perspective taking represent higher levels of cognitive complexity (Decety, 2005; Hodges & Klein, 2001).

Cognitive Complexity and Mental Models

Mental models are abstract knowledge structures or mental representations of reality that facilitate information processing, decision-making, and problem-solving (Johnson-Laird, 2004; Rouse & Morris, 1985). In general, people rely on mental models to scan their environment, utilizing top-down cognitive processes such as prior experiences to guide their perceptions. In a dynamic security environment, leaders need more complex cognitive structures beyond existing mental models. Strategic leaders, in particular, are responsible for accurately scanning and forecasting to inform their decision-making. They also engage in sensemaking on behalf of their subordinates and stakeholders (Johnson, et al., 2001; Mumford et al., 2015). The ability to see a situation or system from multiple perspectives is, therefore, essential.

Evidence suggests that strategic leaders rely heavily on mental models. However, once formed and used routinely, mental models may become difficult to update or replace (Johnson et al., 2001). The dynamic security environment should signal to leaders that existing mental models and cognitive shortcuts may no longer apply. The challenge, of course, is that leaders often fail to recognize the implications of a change as it occurs. Overreliance on outdated or misaligned mental models leads to faulty assumptions and a failure to recognize differing perspectives, resulting in errors in decision-making and resource allocation.

The U.S. experience in Afghanistan provides a cautionary example of the dangers of overapplying mental models and failing to appreciate relevant perspectives (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction [SIGAR], 2021). In this case, leaders had limited experience with Afghanistan and limited access to current information, leading them to draw inappropriate analogies to Iraq. According to the SIGAR report, “planners made sometimes bold assumptions about the country, many of which turned out to be incorrect, leaving practitioners to execute plans that were, in effect, designed for a different country context” (p. 71). Overgeneralizing from counterinsurgency and reconstruction in Iraq, leaders and planners applied mental models misaligned to the context and were surprised by a lack of progress when operational approaches that had produced some success in Iraq then failed in Afghanistan (SIGAR, 2021).

Building institutional capacity in Afghanistan showed similar failures. U.S. attempts to build a formal justice system competed with informal, community-based justice processes already in place (SIGAR, 2021). These competing systems reflected differences between U.S. decision-makers and local Afghans in perceptions of legitimacy. U.S. officials were simply unable to accept Afghan perceptions as relevant. “U.S. officials chose to pursue a vision for Afghanistan’s justice system that reflected American values and preferences, without sufficient regard for what was practical or possible” (SIGAR, 2021, p. 75). Strategic empathy and perspective taking relative to Afghan views would have informed more sustainable plans and enabled better decision-making. Together, these experiences highlight the need for deliberate development of these complex cognitive capacities.

Instructional Design and Method

Instructional Strategies for Complex Cognition

Research shows that intensive learning and development approaches that stretch cognitive processing serve to expand mental models and increase complex cognition (Cavallaro & French, 2021). As depicted in Figure 1, structuring learning to facilitate strategic empathy and perspective taking involves three processes: disrupting existing thinking pattern’s (one’s own perspective), mental exercises that stretch thinking (accessing other’s perspectives), and iteration to inculcate mental habit (practice and feedback).

More specifically, researchers linking neuroscience to educational psychology recommend advancing complex thinking through learning activities that (1) work against the brain’s preference for the familiar, (2) orient the brain toward more fluid concepts rather than concrete topics, (3) purposefully produce discomfort to disrupt and destabilize cognitive defaults, (4) provide opportunities to practice divergent thinking, (5) foster variation throughout the learning experience, and (6) include iterative feedback to promote reflective learning (Hill et al., 2016; Jin et al., 2024). The “Perspective Papers” learning intervention employs these instructional strategies.

“Perspective Papers” Instructional Method

For over a decade at a graduate-level military college, students in a 10-week elective course have engaged in a learning intervention known as “Perspective Papers.” Perspective Papers further students’ ability to recognize, hold, and reconcile multiple viewpoints that might differ from their own. The learning process disrupts and expands mental models, necessarily unsettling and then reorienting mental frames (cf. Kegan & Lahey, 2010; Tillmanns et al., 2017; Williams & Nowack, 2022). Iteration and substantive feedback are key to habituating perspective-taking abilities (Gerbier & Toppino, 2015).

Perspective Papers recognize three important principles. First, perspective taking differs from analyzing a perspective. The latter involves assessing a viewpoint based on one’s own worldview, expertise, and experience. The former involves accessing a viewpoint through another’s lens by working to mentally grasp their mindsets, motivations, and contexts without judgment (Abbe, 2023; Hui et al., 2022). Second, furthering the cognitive complexity necessary for perspective taking requires intentional development. More than applying a set of learned technical skills, cognitively shifting from singular to multiple perspectives requires transformative processes. These processes surface and release deeply embedded assumptions, belief systems, and viewpoints. This transformation, then, expands the cognitive space for broadened worldviews (Cavallaro & French, 2021; Laureiro-Martínez & Brusoni, 2018). Third, the disruptive experiences that enable these cognitive shifts can be uncomfortable. Mentally divorcing from the centrality and certainty of one’s own perspective while allowing for divergent viewpoints can be difficult and destabilizing (Cavallaro & French, 2021; Hui et al., 2022). However, such unease is necessary for cognitive expansion (Hill et al., 2016; Jin et al., 2024). Perspective Papers lean into this discomfort.

Assignment Instructions. Perspective Papers utilize educational case studies to engage in the seemingly simple, yet cognitively challenging, experience of addressing questions through someone else’s lens. Students receive a selected case and a case-relevant question. The assignment directs students to (1) address the assigned question from the perspective of three different individuals, groups, or organizations represented in the case; (2) articulate each of the perspectives from the point of view of third-person objective, omitting commentary and pronouns while representing a first-person viewpoint¹; and (3) limit each perspective to a single page, double-spaced. Students choose the three perspectives to tackle. Additionally, students must use only the facts presented in the case to ascertain likely viewpoints. Prohibiting internet searches and other information sources reinforces the focus on cognitive expansion rather than topical knowledge.

Importantly, to work against self-oriented mental models, the assignment disallows the injection of students’ opinions, assessments, and judgments. Additionally, students do not receive an example to follow. Mirroring an example tends to engender mimicry and memorization rather than cognitive development (cf. Chowrira et al., 2019). Wrestling with the assignment instructions and learning expectations is an intentional and demanding “mental workout” to further students’ cognitive complexity.

Instructional Design Framework

Instructional design enables learning through four components: task novelty, variety and sequence; clarity of procedures; practice and repetition; and feedback and support (van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2018). For Perspective Papers, the design includes case selection, case progression, perspective taking question, iteration, and assignment feedback.

Case Selection. Perspective Papers purposefully utilize nonmilitary cases to place students in a contextually different learning space than their professional experiences. The selected cases also are likely to tap into intrinsic value systems, eliciting some emotional connection (e.g., Walmart and gun control, Obamacare and abortion, Edward Snowden and fundamental rights). The intentionality of case selection aids in surfacing known and unknown biases along with embedded assumptions. This surfacing facilitates mental and emotional openness to divergent views.

Case Progression. The case chosen for the first set of Perspective Papers is seemingly straightforward. There is an “obvious” right versus wrong, logical versus illogical, science versus emotion orientation. Perspective Papers, however, work to constrain the “obvious” and promote deeper thinking. The constraint heightens attention to multiple views while subverting problem-solving reflexes. The first case creates a baseline and shines a light on student belief systems and expectations. The cases then become progressively more complex with multiple issues for consideration, increased intensity and ambiguity, as well as more resonant themes. The last case in the progression—perhaps counterintuitively—lacks an obvious crisis and has fewer easily identifiable viewpoints. The absence of a targeted problem set raises the mental challenge and maximizes the cognitive stretch. The last case serves as a posttest comparison with the first-case baseline. The pre- and post-comparisons provide a measure of cognitive expansion from the student’s own frame (singular perspective) to viewing issues through multiple frames (perspective taking) (Kegan & Lahey, 2010).

Perspective Taking Question. The question chosen for each Perspective Paper assignment is central to the cognitive challenge. Rather than a question that is “answerable,” the goal is one that is likely to elicit diverse—and even contrasting—viewpoints. For example, students apply perspective taking to a case about Edward Snowden (Winig & Robuchaud, 2015), a National Security Agency contractor who released classified information to the press about government surveillance activities. For this case, the perspective-taking question is, “Are certain rights more important than others?” Notably, the question does not direct an analysis of whether Snowden’s actions were right or wrong. Rather, the question challenges students to step into the minds of others and work to understand their motivations, mindsets, and contexts to address the notion of “rights” (e.g., privacy, freedom, security) through multiple lenses, given the available information.

Iteration. Students practice perspective taking with each case and across a variety of cases. Over the course of 10 weeks, students complete Perspective Papers for six cases—articulating three different perspectives on the same question for each case—totaling 18 different perspective-taking efforts. With each set of perspective papers, students confront views that may/may not align with their own, surface their own thinking limits, and reexamine their and others’ biases. Repeated practice is necessary to overcome the inertia to revert to problem-solving, analyses, and weddedness to a singular perspective (Gerbier & Toppino, 2015).

Assignment Feedback. Feedback is key to inculcating perspective-taking capacities (Damen et al., 2021). Students receive substantive feedback from the instructor (the first author) on all three perspective-taking papers for every assignment. The focus is on student articulation of a response to the assigned question through the lens of a person, group, or organization represented in the case, as informed by case facts. Detailed feedback comments highlight whether specific sentences or paragraphs reflect the desired perspective taking or another form of written assignment (e.g., case analysis, commentary, book report). Generally, the feedback specifies whether the student’s response to the assigned question is written about a person’s perspective or from their perspective. The latter is the goal. Initially, the responses tend toward about (which is analysis). The sentence is rewritten in the feedback to demonstrate a response articulated from the person’s viewpoint using the same set of facts (which is perspective taking).

Importantly, in providing feedback, the instructor must acknowledge and set aside their own biases and belief systems to keep the focus on the cognitive challenge of perspective taking rather than dis/agreement with an articulated viewpoint. To this end, assignments do not receive a numerical or letter grade. Moreover, the absence of a grade is an additional cognitive hurdle for our competitive senior service college students.² Intentionally withholding grades works against the “just tell me what I need to do” tendency, which promotes mimicry rather than cognitive expansion. The dissonance between competitiveness and desired affirmation provokes discomfort that elevates students’ determination and cognitive stretch to “figure this out.”

Perspective Paper Example

Table 1 and Figures 2–4 present an example of a student’s submission for the first Perspective Paper assignment in the course. Table 1 lists the case, the perspective-taking question, and the three perspectives from the case chosen by the student. The examples in Figures 2–4 demonstrate the student’s effort to address the designated question from three different perspectives other than their own. The callouts show the accompanying instructor feedback that the student received as comments in the body of the document. The feedback provides substantive challenge to the students’ default analyses and opinions, along with reframed perspective-taking examples to guide the students’ learning.

¹ https://www.hbsp.harvard.edu/product/W16150-PDF-ENG?Ntt=children%27s%20hospital

 

Student Impact and Transferability

Student Experience

Reflection is a key component of learning and development (O. Johnson, 2020; Kolb & Kolb, 2009). Students regularly reflect on their perspective-taking journeys throughout the 10-week course. The reflections consistently indicate the frame shifting they experience. For example, in an end-of-course reflection assignment, one student wrote,

Writing the perspective papers for the Children’s Hospital case was so frustrating, not knowing what the expectations were and how to get out of the case what we were supposed to be learning. I know now that the frustrating and lack of guidance was part of the point, but that didn’t help at the time. Reading the feedback was tough (despite all the warnings that it wouldn’t be easy to read!) but also made sense.

… Once I could understand perspective taking as not just a nice-to-have for discussion, but also as a tool that I can use in my personal and professional life, it was like a lightbulb went off. In the future, when I’m in a leadership role in an organization, I can use perspective taking to see things from the viewpoint of other organizations, other stakeholders, and critics or detractors in order to find a way to better understand their desires and goals and reach consensus.

As I got more comfortable with the concept of perspective taking, it became apparent how this is an incredibly useful (and fast) way to teach empathy. That this approach to understanding others is critical for anyone in a leadership position—why isn’t this included in any formal professional military education curriculum as a baseline requirement? (Major, U.S. Air Force)

Students also highlight their own cognitive growth throughout the course. Consider this unsolicited email from one student about seven weeks into the course. As with many students, this officer wrestled mightily with subjugating their own opinions in the first several Perspective Papers assignments. His excited testimonial points to the impact of iteration, his cognitive expansion, as well as the sustainability of the thinking habit.

I’m excited to tell you that shortly after I finished these papers, I turned on the TV and noticed that Edward Snowden was giving a talk on CSPAN about his newly released book (over video teleconference of course). I can say with 100% confidence that prior to my acceptance in the [Senior Military College] program and completion of this latest round of perspective papers I would have NEVER thought of watching that program. Not only did I watch it, but I also feel like I viewed it with a good appreciation for his perspective while not entirely agreeing with it. (Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps)

Transferability to the Operational Environment

Whether students apply learning beyond the classroom is a critical question for all educators. This is certainly true within professional military education (Hennessey, 2020). In this arena, there are limited opportunities for postcourse and postgraduation in-the-field research to assess transferability of learning. However, we can gauge some degree of application from unsolicited communications once students return to their operational environments. At times, such communications offer broad instances of application; for example, “Since my graduation, I have used the [perspective taking] skills I gained regularly while on active duty on the J7 [Joint Staff].” Other times, leaders share general appreciation or revelation; for example, “[Your course] definitely challenged me well beyond the classroom; to a personal level that I hope has helped me become a more deliberate decision-maker - by arduously, and often times uncomfortably, analyzing and understanding the environment/context that I think I know.” Even more instructive are the unsolicited communications that point to specific indications of increased cognitive complexity and sustained frame shifting 3, 5, and 10 years after leaders have engaged in the Perspective Papers learning process.

When I took your class [10 years ago], it significantly changed the way that I thought as a leader. Specifically, when we looked at the South African case study that viewed the issues from the perspectives of the different groups of stakeholders, it focused my thought processes to try to examine issues, both on and off the battlefield, from the viewpoint of the other participants. This helped me throughout my time as a department head, on the joint Task Force, and as a Commanding Officer to always consider the perspective of the other people in the conversation, allowing me to either include their thoughts in the decision-making equation, or anticipate their potential responses and be prepared to counter them when necessary. Of every class that I ever took, that one lesson probably did more to shape my thoughts than any other training or education that I received in the Navy. (Captain, U.S. Navy)

Recommendations for PME

Educator Application

The instructional method described above occurs in a 10-week graduate course and is nested within a leader development curriculum. We recognize that this structure may not be an option for all PME educators. Nonetheless, educators can still leverage the instructional principles and strategies to facilitate strategic empathy and perspective taking across disciplines and within existing courses. Fundamentally, Perspective Papers require students to address questions through someone else’s lens. Students can experience these processes through facilitated discussion, group exercises, as well as different types of written assignments. The source material might include historical cases, security strategies, situational reports—any circumstance that can be viewed from multiple perspectives. Moreover, the faculty can provide real-time feedback and iteration (see Table 2 for alternatives).

Additional considerations might emphasize cross-cultural and multinational application for joint/coalition settings. PME educators might utilize cases with multinational actors and cultural perspectives. The expanded sociocultural space elevates the requirement to shift mental frames and expand students’ cognitive complexity. For example, cases centering on contracts using U.S. funding awarded to host-nation companies can engage diverse ethical and cultural perspectives that may differ from students’ own viewpoints and experiences.

Finally, although the elective described in this paper is offered to field grade officers, the instructional approach would be effective at any level of military education. At military academies and other undergraduate settings, “trying on” different lenses and looking at situations from multiple points of view could build cognitive habits earlier in students’ professional careers. Indeed, for young adults, practicing perspective taking may feel less disruptive than the destabilizing experience of more seasoned leaders.

Faculty Development

Effectively implementing perspective-taking learning methods requires PME educators to employ student-centered instruction. For some, this may mean a shift from faculty-centered knowledge transfer to learner-focused cognitive development (Haber-Curran & Tillapaugh, 2015). In particular, the learning and feedback processes described above require eschewing traditional evaluative approaches that promulgate a “right answer” and adopting a scaffolding approach that prods student progress through iterative questions (cf. Jin et al., 2024). Moreover, instructors must create a psychologically safe learning environment that supports vulnerability for the students (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Another consideration is that instructors themselves must get comfortable with creating and allowing discomfort; for example, giving students space to openly wrestle with a response while resisting the urge to jump in and provide an informed answer.

The implication is that specific faculty development may be useful. Professional development on scaffolding strategies, adult learning (andragogy), reflective practices, and formative (vice summative) assessment would position PME educators to effectively leverage the Perspective Papers instructional method (cf. Belland et al., 2014; Johnson, 2020; Knowles et al., 2014; Kruiper et al., 2022). Notably, both the faculty development and the instructional method become perspective taking experiences for the instructor. Each requires faculty to view the learning process through the lens of the student rather than the viewpoint of the subject-matter expert.

One recommendation is a two-part faculty development process that would precede use of the Perspective Papers method. First, faculty development in the adult learning and assessment practices described above would help all PME instructors, regardless of instructional method. Second, faculty should practice perspective taking themselves. They could, for example, select opinion articles that diverge from their viewpoint and employ the Perspective Papers method—addressing a question through the opinion writers’ lenses, without judgment. Another option is for faculty to practice by shifting their mental frame from instructor to that of students asked to use this method. Taking the perspective of students will help prepare faculty to support them in overcoming barriers to learning with this developmental approach.

Cautions

Stereotyping and projection of one’s own views often form the initial basis of perspective taking attempts. This may be exacerbated given the Perspective Papers’ case-information-only restrictions. The instructor must therefore identify when these biases may be shaping students’ efforts. Acknowledging the biases and providing feedback will help broaden the learning aperture. Along the same lines, while practicing perspective taking increases learners’ motivation to consider others’ points of view, it does not ensure accuracy. Researchers Eyal et al. (2018) have noted that perspective taking carries the risk of increasing confidence while failing to increase accuracy.

In practice, effective application of perspective taking should be combined with subject-matter expertise. Additionally, there must be a willingness to update one’s own perspective as more information becomes available. This is particularly important when applying perspective taking in operational spaces that demand understanding the cognitions and perspectives of our adversaries. Pairing perspective taking abilities with contextual information provides greater accuracy and strategic empathy. To improve accuracy, instructors can encourage students to pair their perspective taking efforts with reflection. Questions like “How would I determine whether my understanding of the actor’s viewpoint is accurate?” or “What further information would help to confirm or disconfirm my understanding of the actor’s viewpoint?” can offer insightful checks on biases and accuracy.

Conclusion

Operational design requires analysis of actors in the operational environment, including their capabilities and intent, psychological characteristics, decision-making, and relationships with other actors (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2020, pp. IV-9-IV-10). Perspective taking enables this analysis, making it less dependent on observer biases. Joint planning guidance suggests that perspective taking may be particularly important for center of gravity analysis, noting, “A rational decision in the threat’s perspective may appear irrational from the friendly perspective” (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2020, p. IV-24). As these human elements can be quite dynamic in the operational environment, perspective taking should be recurring rather than relegated to a singular step in a checklist or sequence. This further highlights PME educators’ responsibility to facilitate the capacity for perspective taking in our instructional spaces.

Indeed, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 1810.01, Outcomes-Based Military Education Procedures for Officer Professional Military Education (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2022), specifies six joint learning area (JLA) capabilities for PME. At least three (if not more) of the six JLAs point to requirements to further complex cognitive skills to include perspective taking abilities for joint officer development (Enclosure G, Appendix A). For example, JLA 1 requires that joint officers “evaluate perspectives and demonstrate the ability to distinguish reliable from unreliable information to reasoned decisions” (p. G-A-1) Likewise, JLA 6 recommends “intellectual agility” as a “cognitive skill” needed to “rapidly adapt to disruptive change across all domains of competition and war” (p. G-A-6). Thus, advancing military leaders’ cognitive capacity for strategic empathy and perspective taking through applicable instructional design directly addresses needed capabilities.

Applying this to a current security challenge, Ukraine’s incursion into the Kursk region of Russia offers relevant context for application of complex cognition and the requirement to apply perspective taking. In August 2024, Ukrainian armed forces established control of Russian territory in the Kursk region, advancing the conflicts from Ukraine’s drone attacks across the border to the presence of ground forces (Abishev & Bennett, 2024; Khvostunova, 2024). Determining a U.S. response required understanding Ukraine’s intent, internal domestic perspectives within Ukraine and those of its partners, including NATO and member nations, along with Vladimir Putin’s perspectives and those of his domestic audiences.

Understanding these multiple and diverse perspectives requires seeking more information and, of course, access to current intelligence. Possessing the cognitive agility to shift between differing lenses and navigate differing interests is equally imperative. Although the incursion did not substantially affect the course of the war in the short term, it highlights the importance of engaging complex cognition when a pattern break or operational surprise occurs (Shore, 2014). Expanding leaders’ cognitive capacity to consider a range of views before such a pattern break occurs helps prepare them to better respond to adversary behavior in crisis or conflict.

---

Notes

1. First, Second, and Third Person Point of View, https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/point-of-view-first-second-third-person-difference.
2. Senior Service College (SSC) students generally have 15-22 years of military service and hold the rank of Major, Lieutenant Colonel, or Colonel for the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force; Lieutenant Commander, Commander, or Captain for the Navy. Attendance at in-residence SSC is highly selective.

 

References

Abbe, A. (2023). Understanding the adversary: Strategic empathy and perspective taking in national security. Parameters, 53(2), 19–38. https://www.doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.3221

Abishev, I., & Bennett, T. (2024, August 31). Russia pushes on key Ukraine city while Kyiv’s Kursk incursion slows. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c984g10e22lo

Belland, B. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 505–518). Springer.

Cavallaro, L., & French, B. (2021). The impact of graduate education on the mental complexity of mid-career military officers. Journal of Adult Development, 28, 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-021-09377-1

Cavallaro, L., & Johnson, O. E. (2023). Peer coaching as a leader development tool in professional military education. Journal of Military Learning, 7(3), 62–73. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Journal-of-Military-Learning/Journal-of-Military-Learning-Archives/JML-October-2023/Peer-Coaching/

Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2022, April 1). Outcomes-based military education procedures for officer professional military education (CJSC Manual 1810.01). https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Library/Manuals/CJCSM%201810.01.pdf

Chowrira, S. G., Smith, K. M., Dubois, P. J., & Roll, I. (2019). DIY productive failure: Boosting performance in a large undergraduate biology course. npj Science of Learning, 4(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0040-6

Damen, D., van Amelsvoort, M., van der Wijst, P., Pollmann, M., & Krahmer, E. (2021). Lifting the curse of knowing: How feedback improves perspective taking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(6), 1054–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820987080

Decety, J. (2005). Perspective taking as the royal avenue to empathy. In B. F. Malle & S. D. Hodges (Eds.), Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others (pp. 143–157). Guilford Press.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Workman, K. (2012). A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviews and leadership development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 997–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028244

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305

Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000115

Gerbier, E., & Toppino, T. C. (2015). The effect of distributed practice: Neuroscience, cognition, and education. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 4(3), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2015.01.001

Haber-Curran, P., & Tillapaugh, D. W. (2015). Student-centered transformative learning in leadership education: An examination of the teaching and learning process. Journal of Transformative Education, 13(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614559947

Hennessey, M. J. (2020, August 3). How can we know if professional military education works. War on the Rocks. https://warontherocks.com/2020/08/how-can-we-know-if-professional-military-education-works/

Hill, M. E., Cromartie, J., & McGinnis, J. (2016). Applying neuroplasticity to educating agile-thinking managers. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(1), 39–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.01.003

Hinck, R. S., & Cullen, S. (2024) Decoding the adversary. Æther: A Journal of Strategic Airpower & Spacepower, 3(1), 81–94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48766063

Hui, P. P., Chiu, W. C. K., Pang, E., Coombes, J., & Tse, D. Y. P. (2022). Seeing through and breaking through: The role of perspective taking in the relationship between creativity and moral reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04876-3

Jin, Z., Yin, J., Pan, Y., Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Xu, X., & Luo, J. (2024). Teach a man to fish: Hyper-brain evidence on scaffolding strategy enhancing creativity acquisition and transfer. NeuroImage, 297, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120757

Johnson, O. E. (2020). Creating space to think: The what, why, and how of deliberate reflection for effective leadership. Journal of Character and Leadership Development, 7(1), 20–32. https://jcldusafa.org/index.php/jcld/article/view/102

Johnson, P., Daniels, K., & Huff, A. (2001). Sensemaking, leadership, and mental models. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: understanding the performance imperatives confronting today’s leader (pp. 79–103). Jossey-Bass.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2004). The history of mental models. In K. Manktelow & M. C. Chung (Eds.), Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives (pp. 189–222). Psychology Press.

Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2020, December 1). Joint planning (Joint Publication 5-0). https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp5_0.pdf

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2010). Adult development and organizational leadership. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 769–787). Harvard Business School Press.

Khvostunova, O. (2024, September 12). What Ukraine’s Kursk incursion tells us about Putin’s Russia. Foreign Policy Research Institute. https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/09/what-ukraines-kursk-incursion-tells-us-about-putins-russia/

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2014). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Routledge.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In S. J. Armstrong, C. V. Fukami, A. Y. Kolb, & D. A. Kolb (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 42–68). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021038.n3

Krämer, U. M., Mohammadi, B., Doñamayor, N., Samii, A., & Münte, T. F. (2010). Emotional and cognitive aspects of empathy and their relation to social cognition—an fMRI-study. Brain Research, 1311, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.11.043

Kruiper, S. M. A., Leenknecht, M. J. M., & Slof, B. (2022). Using scaffolding strategies to improve formative assessment practice in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(3), 458–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1927981

Laureiro‐Martínez, D., & Brusoni, S. (2018). Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision‐making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers. Strategic Management Journal, 39(4), 1031–1058. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2774

McMaster, H. R. (2020). Developing strategic empathy: History as the foundation of foreign policy and national security strategy. Journal of Military History, 84(3), 689–697.

Mumford, M. D., Watts, L. L., & Partlow, P. J. (2015). Leader cognition: Approaches and findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.005

Parker, S. K., Atkins, P. W. B., & Axtell, C. (2008). Building better workplaces through individual perspective taking: A fresh look at a fundamental human process. In G. Hodgkinson & K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 149–196). Wiley.

Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x02000018

Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1985). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.349

Shore, Z. (2014). A sense of the enemy: The high stakes history of reading your rival’s mind. Oxford University Press.

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. (2021). What we need to learn: Lessons from twenty years of Afghanistan reconstruction. https://www.sigar.mil/Reports/Article-Display/Article/4000123/what-we-need-to-learn-lessons-from-twenty-years-of-afghanistan-reconstruction/

Tillmanns, T., Holland, C., & Filho, A. S. (2017). Design criteria for visual cues used in disruptive learning interventions within sustainability education. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 8(2), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/dcse-2017-0011

Todd, A. R., Galinsky, A. D., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2012). Perspective taking undermines stereotype maintenance processes: Evidence from social memory, behavior explanation, and information solicitation. Social Cognition, 30(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.94

U.S. Strategic Command [stratcompa]. (2024, August 14). 2024 USSTRATCOM deterrence symposium - keynote: Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py38eaAj0Zc

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2018). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Vowell, J. B., & Evans, C. (2022, November 16). Operationalizing strategic empathy: Best practices from inside the first island chain. Strategy Bridge. https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2022/11/16/operationalizing-strategic-empathy

Whittard, D., Green, E., Shareef, M. S., & Ismail, I. (2022). The multidimensional model of the one-minute paper: Advancing theory through theoretical elaboration. International Review of Economics Education, 41, Article 100248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2022.100248

Williams, J. S., & Nowack, K. M. (2022). Neuroscience hacks to enhance learning agility in leaders. Consulting Psychology Journal, 74(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000231

Winig, L., & Robuchaud, C. (2015). Hero or traitor? Edward Snowden and the NSA spying program. Harvard Business School Press. https://case.hks.harvard.edu/hero-or-traitor-edward-snowden-and-the-nsa-spying-program/

Yorke, C. (2023). Is empathy a strategic imperative? A review essay. Journal of Strategic Studies, 46(5), 1082–1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2022.2152800

 

Back to Top

September 2025