Empathy, as a matter of my concern, finds contradictory definition. In its origin of 1903, "empathy" was a translation from German, to mean "in-feeling". The term described how we, as human beings project ourselves onto the outside world. We look at an architectural column and feel ourselves stretching upward through it. We see strokes of paint on a canvas and imagine or feel the physical movement of a brush that made it. That "aesthetic empathy" is such a beautiful concept to me, even though it's divided from the definitions we use today.
Over time, as applied to modern psychology, "empathy" has shifted toward person-to-person relationships. It isn't any long a way of defining how we project ourselves, but rather how we successfully understand someone else, without contamination. It is divided into parts like a machine (emotional contagion, emotional disconnection, and cognitive empathy). I think, also, that we have a socially accepted fourth part - "behavioral empathy". And so it becomes a cycle that originates from you, through me, and back to you. Your experience is contagious, and so I feel it myself. But I won't be overwhelmed, and so disconnect myself from the full intensity of your feelings. Then I process what I detect in you - cognitively rationalizing, objectifying, and mentalizing your human experience. And if I've done those three things successfully, I can imagine what you need from me in response. And so, my behavior reflects not a mirroring of your emotional experience but a helpful act instead.
Taken across time, from when it was coined, I imagine the concept of "empathy" speaking to a much deeper and more organic aspect to humankind. We, as divided and distinct minds are not human on our own. That is, my thoughts and feelings are only a part of who and what I am. The rest of me is something like an extension into the space I occupy. Remember aesthetic empathy - my identity includes the things I see and the natural world around me. Not only do I experience the influence of others through those things, but I also can cause experience for others through my actions. Forward in time, to empathy in its current definition, I also exist in a constant cycle of perception with my neighbors. So long as I am in community, I perceive the experiences of others (good, bad, otherwise). That gives me opportunity to process my neighbors, understand their needs, and provide reciprocal interaction. We become something more like one person than many.
So, I believe that while the idea of "empathy" has changed and will change over time, that even if it passes in popularity, we are going to be drawn toward some other way of describing this natural continuity. Our focus of work and societal development can rest on that continuation. And we should develop fundamental ideas and behaviors that raise up mundane life. And more, I believe operations and business design are an opportunity for systemic empathy.