In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans were overwhelmed by grief for the multitude of lives lost. The injustice of innocent lives being snuffed out in an instant fueled anger and frustration.
Airline executives, fearing potential lawsuits for negligence from victims’ families, sought to assign blame for the tragedy. They worried that a successful lawsuit could bankrupt the airlines and wreak havoc on the economy by severely limiting transportation capacity. To avoid such catastrophic consequences, the airlines collaborated with the attorney general’s office and proposed an out-of-court settlement, funded by US taxpayers. Attorney Kenneth Feinberg and his firm, known for their expertise in calculating damages and negotiating agreements in high-profile cases, meticulously examined actuarial tables and salary data of the deceased. Their aim was to devise a compensation formula based on legal precedents, estimated future earnings, and survivor benefits.
The film Worth delves into the story of the law firm tasked with the daunting challenge of determining how to distribute the funds and gaining the approval of the affected families. Congress set a two-year deadline for the firm to accomplish this mission, with a target of 80% of families accepting the deal. Failure would result in prolonged legal disputes for the families and severe damage to the economy. However, convincing the 9/11 families to participate proved incredibly challenging. Unlike similar cases the law firm had handled, where years had passed and the families had processed their grief, the shock of 9/11 remained fresh.
Feinberg’s well-crafted plan faced widespread skepticism and resistance. While some families with lower incomes expressed gratitude for the proposed amounts, wealthier families hired their own attorneys to pursue larger settlements. For many families in the middle, the notion of reducing their loved ones to a mere monetary value was an affront to their dignity and minimized their immeasurable loss.
Eventually, Feinberg and his team managed to break through by engaging with each family individually, acknowledging their grief. In cases with valid concerns, he made adjustments to the compensation amounts, even if symbolic, to demonstrate that this was a deeply personal matter and not just business. Although they couldn’t bring back the loved ones, they could show empathy and recognize their shared humanity.
This story illustrates how our idealistic and rational solutions can sometimes backfire, hindering our ability to achieve positive outcomes for those we aim to serve. Feinberg’s initial attempt to remain objective and task-oriented jeopardized the mission itself. He only achieved resolution by embracing discomfort and viewing the situation from the families’ perspective. Feinberg adjusted his approach, tapping into empathy to fulfill the mission successfully.
In contrast, Joab, King David’s nephew and general, missed an opportunity for empathy in his dealings with David. Joab’s determination to accomplish his objectives led him to compromise the mission assigned by David, resulting in irreparable damage to their relationship.
The context was Absalom, King David’s son, launching a furious rebellion that threw the nation into chaos and toppled the kingdom (2 Samuel 15). David sent Joab to lead the troops in battle and restore order. Aware of Joab’s inclination for war and unwavering precision, David pleaded with him to be gentle with Absalom for David’s sake. The battle against his own son was emotionally agonizing for David.
However, Joab harbored personal vendetta against Absalom, who had burned Joab’s fields to gain his attention and persuade him to intervene with David (2 Samuel 14:28-33). When news reached Joab that Absalom was immobilized and vulnerable, his hair caught in an oak tree, Joab seized the opportunity for revenge and a decisive victory (2 Samuel 18).
Despite their triumph, the returning troops were met with shame, as though they had suffered a bitter defeat. David was consumed by grief for his son. He couldn’t celebrate the victory as he had when leading men to triumph over the nation’s enemies (Psalm 21).
Joab rebuked David, accusing him of favoring those who hated him and despising those who loved him. Joab felt David had shown that the commanders and their men were of no significance. Joab suggested that David would have been pleased if Absalom were alive while all of them were dead (2 Samuel 19:5-6). Joab encouraged David to uplift the men, so David positioned himself at the gateway where the men could approach him and sense his appreciation for their sacrifice, despite his grief. The victory was bittersweet.
Joab fell into the same trap as Feinberg did initially in the movie: he prioritized the task at hand while neglecting the people involved. For David, the central issue was the gradual disintegration of his family compounded by devastating loss. For the 9/11 families, the issue was reducing the senseless deaths of their loved ones to statistics and financial transactions.
What lessons can we learn from these stories?
Our mission always revolves around people, and people are complex. While executing tasks with excellence is crucial, we mustn’t lose sight of our own humanity in the process. Often, tapping into our emotions and understanding those around us helps us achieve victories that would otherwise elude us.
Are there individuals in your home or workplace who need to know that you empathize with them? Do you need to set aside a task to uncover the underlying issues troubling people and hindering your team’s progress toward their goals?
Have you unintentionally alienated the very people you rely on because they perceive you as out of touch? If so, what steps can you take today to embrace discomfort and create space for vulnerability?
You may be surprised by the breakthrough that awaits you.
