It’s practically gospel now that, counter to the attitude of the go-go 80s, an effective leader is one who demonstrates empathy. There are good reasons for that: The professional workforce is less tolerant of being treated like a fungible widget, workplace environments are more attuned to who we are as people as well as job roles, and social media can rapidly identify leaders who are distressingly hard-charging, if not outright toxic jerks.

But the insistence that leaders be more “empathetic” isn’t always effectively paired with what that looks like in a work environment. And the demand for empathy can cause a lot of needless anxiety in leaders who fear they’re not demonstrating enough emotion, or the right kind of emotion.

The solution isn’t to replace empathy with ruthlessness. It’s to fake empathy. 

That’s the argument that business scholar Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic makes in a recent Fast Company article advocating for “performative empathy.” This seems on its face like a cynical piece of guidance, the kind of stuff that “How do you do, fellow kids?” memes are made of. But his point is rooted in some common-sense principles: Not everybody is naturally empathetic, and leaders aren’t often selected for their capacity for empathy. Other skills take priority: “ambition, competitiveness, resilience, political skill, confidence, and the ability to outperform rivals.”

And those are all good things, in moderation. But people still want to feel like they’re seen by the people who lead them. So, Chamorro-Premuzic writes, leaders need to develop a capacity for “rational compassion,” a skill as meaningful as goal-setting and board management. It doesn’t mean becoming robotically fake. Rather, it “allows leaders to behave in caring and prosocial ways without becoming emotionally consumed by every interpersonal fluctuation around them.”

Better still, the tools for demonstrating rational compassion aren’t especially sophisticated. The advice Chamorro-Premuzic recommends to leaders tip-toeing into performative empathy largely boil down to matters of attentiveness and patience. Listen to what people are telling you. Be patient. Acknowledge emotions. Be candid about your own perspective. Know your people as people. “A leader who asks thoughtful questions and pays attention already appears dramatically more empathetic than competitors,” he writes.

I’m disinclined to think this approach is meaningful in every situation—there are crises moments in every organization where a more genuine kind of authenticity will matter. Empathy sometimes gets jettisoned for the good of the order. But I respect the idea of making basic engagement a meaningful practice for an organization, as essential as balancing the books, even if it’s not wholly heartfelt. “Authenticity matters less than people think, and behavior matters more.” Chamorro-Premuzic writes. “Employees do not need leaders to feel every emotion deeply. They need leaders who act with enough consideration, dignity, and restraint to make working life tolerable and occasionally even inspiring.”

Lots of leaders get this balance: Not long ago, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella noted that “Empathy requires us to understand the context a little better but at the same time not be too dogmatic on the two ends.” But association leaders are better positioned to understand and employ this than other organizations: They’re by definition conveners, running events and experiences that are built on acknowledging their needs and challenges. Taking the time to understand those needs and challenges is essential. Even if you have to fake it a little.