What Kirk’s Death Is Teaching Us About Empathy, Conflict, and the Conversations We Can’t Avoid

Written By Dr. Alexandra Swanson

It has been five days, and there is not a single person on social media who doesn’t know who Charlie Kirk is. But for those of you who don’t know and  just happened to stumble upon this article, He was a conservative political activist who, on 10 September 2025, was shot at a public speaking engagement in front of university students in the state of Utah. He was a polarizing man to many people. The Billy Graham of the MAGA movement. To admit my positionality, I did not pay much mind to the man in his speeches during his lifetime. In almost all circumstances where I ran across videos of his debates, I found that he and I did not share the same stance on most issues. I thought his death was sad, a young father and husband, slightly famous, but no consequence to me.

But 12 hours later, I had seen the internet erupt in venom. Some people faulting the “trans” or “radical left” communities for his death. Other people saying Kirk deserved it because of things he’s said publicly.

I ultimately found myself grieving. That grief was for the American people of the United States.

It compelled me to respond as well. I wrote this to my online audience 48 hours later:

“This week has been heavy. But standing in front of the Rocky’s late-summer mountains is a reminder: peace begins with perspective. Let’s use this weekend to reset, breathe in the last days of summer, and make room for conversations that matter.

When politics turns violent, the consequences reach beyond sides—it affects us all. Division grows when we stop listening. I’ve moved between conversations on both sides, feeling fear, blame, and anger. Regardless of my beliefs, grief for Kirk deserves the same grace as my grief for Hortman. Empathy should not end at a party line. And though Kirk and I did not share most perspectives, we certainly did one - Different views do not invalidate necessary conversations.

Honest debate helps us grow and build dialogue. Debate helps us understand those with different values and seek our common ground as Americans. It isn’t easy...it isn’t always resolved... but it’s vital. It teaches us to converse for a common direction and meet people where they stand to bring them along.

Violence shuts the door.

Period.

And it fuels division.

When individuals make destructive choices—whether against Kirk, Hortman, or their families—they betray principles that we hold as Americans, that I hold as a veteran, and that everyone should hold as members of humanity.”

More influential media presences prepared remarks that were far more affluent than my own.

Now, let me be clear, the purpose of this blog post is not to get into the politics of it all. The conversation I want to have with you today is about managing confrontation. When division seeps into organizations, how do leaders navigate such a landscape? How do you keep your team together when they don’t all agree with the process, or outcome, or the maybe even the people involved?

Let’s get into it.

🔗 Reference:

II. The Real Cost of Division Inside Organizations

The outdoor recreation industry is not absolved of having opinionated differences. This can be the difference between hunters and plant-based athletes, or perhaps we can discuss how wolf population reintroduction is being debated by urbanites while affecting rural communities (I struggle to make my own decisions on the matter). When you look at the organizational level and away from outdoor-specific topics, you face the more general issues of discussion.

First, there are the societal divides among the members of your team. Social and cultural differences among diverse individuals gathered in a room to work together can foster diversity, spark extensive discussions and new ideas, and mitigate groupthink. However, if your team lacks the necessary tools to collaborate despite their differences, issues such as side-taking, silos, disengagement from individuals, and potentially eroded trust among team members may arise.

A direct quote from Forbes: “A 2020 Gartner survey found that 36% of U.S. employees avoided coworkers because of their political views, and a 2022 SHRM survey [Society of Human Resource Management] showed 44% of U.S. workers experienced political disagreements at work.”

As these circumstances continue to ignite amongst our own community, it becomes imperative that leaders take on the internal role to develop an environment of psychological safety, where candor is respected without fear of judgment, the dignity of all members of the team is respected, and room for learning & listening is integrated into the base of an organizational structure.

As situations such as

🔗 References:

III. Why Empathy Is a Core Leadership Skill

Ah, empathy. The word of the day. Kirk was not entirely accurate in stating that this is a new age term. According to Google’s Ngram Viewer, the word didn’t even begin circulating en masse until the 1940s, gaining popularity in the 2000s, which likely contributed to the assumption of “new age”. The first sources I could find date to 1921 – in fact, for The British Journal of Psychology, wherein it states on the topic of artistry aesthetics, “its psychological examination produced the various theories of Einfühlung or Empathy which reached their flowering period between 1985 and 1905.”

All this to say, empathy is a real phenomenon. One that has lasting impacts.

As a leader, Empathy is one of the greatest tools in your arsenal. It is the difference between your employees feeling like you are doing everything in your power to understand them, rather than deflecting their thoughts or emotions.

A quick summary from this excellent video explanation by Brene Brown

Now, as a military veteran, I get that there is a time and a place where someone has to do the job, regardless of their thoughts and feelings. There is a mission to uphold. But making a daily practice of showing empathy to an employee is the difference of them trusting you for those moments where they too – may not understand your why.

But how does this help your team or organization as a whole?

“Rarely a response can make something better. What makes something better is connection.” – Brene Brown

First, you serve as a role model for your organization. If you show your employees how to approach and navigate difficult conversations with grace and respect, you have set a standard of expectation that is communicated through your actions. You must show them hard convesations are welcomed. When setting those expectations verbally, your example brings merit to your words. And they are lessons that can be taught when there is an example to follow.

🔗 References:

IV. Tools for Having Hard Conversations

I can hear the dissenters in the room “well, you’re never going to change so-and-so’s mind. That one is a [insert]-ist”

You are correct. There will always be some that just can’t budge. If they won’t work well with you as the leader of the team, and you’ve tried the interpersonal approach, it is time to muster some bravery and use the administrative tools at your disposal. Sometimes, you will have someone who is not a good fit for your team or organization, and you must be brave enough to dismiss them with grace and timeliness.

But for those cases where you know your team is just hitting a wall between themselves. Sometimes you need to be the mediator.

While there are many ways to manage hard conversations in the workplace - from maintaining curiosity, self-resets before walking into difficult situations, and interest-based problem solving. Today, the focus will just be on one tool, which is the most effective tool a leader has to get people to talk when division is strong, but trust is developed with an empathetic leader.  

The Three Conversations Framework

Separate

(1) What happened, from

(2) feelings, and

(3) identity.

This tactic is often used in relational dialogues – Harvard Law School references it in the context of family and divorce law in their Program on Negotiation. The idea is that you are retraining our team members to separate the intention of the work from their interpersonal conflicts.

This separation is defined in the Accordion below:

  • “What Happened” remains a surface-level discussion of the specific facts and events. Understanding each members’ interpretation of the facts can delineate where misunderstandings might have developed, and identify where assumptions or blame may have been given.

    📌 To Focus on “What Happened” Pro Tip Box:

    • Listen to Understand, not respond

    • Name your intent, ask for theirs.

    • Focus on shared values (mission, team goals)

  • Identifying “feelings” can address the emotions involved. Discussing these with you as the mediator (or an HR representative) can allow the opportunity for those feelings to be addressed. This is not about collecting apologies, which aren’t always on the table. It’s about promoting understanding so that each party can learn about the other and resolve the issue in present or future engagements. It is easier to resolve issues when parties continue to communicate, rather than ignoring each other’s efforts, which can lead to stalls due to silence.

  • The “identity” conversation is more of an introspective element that the leader should ask each team member to reflect on. Each member should be able to answer what this situation reveals about them: their performance, attitude, ability to navigate difficult dynamics, and triggers. Essentially – metacognition. What can I learn from this experience to either reduce, eliminate, or navigate conflict resolution in the future?

The Key to ALL of this: Dialogue. Dialogue enables us to build a culture that allows conflict without growing division. And teaches our team and organization valuable life lessons on how to navigate conflict through their speech, both inside and outside their careers, as well as throughout their lives.

🔗 References:

“Three Conversations” – Harvard Law School

“Difficult Conversations” – Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, Sheila Heen, & Roger Fisher

V. Conclusion: After Kirk, Choose Dialogue Over Division

Charlie Kirks’ death was a stark reminder of what happens in a society when people begin to devalue the importance of speech, conversation, and dialogue. True that most conversations in the office aren’t as substantial as the topics that Kirk debated. But sometimes it can be. And when the workplace is where most people spend 80% of their lives, Monday through Friday, we as leaders must do our best to educate people on how to continue the dialog when things seem most dire, most difficult, or most out of reach.

True leadership is about guiding people through the conflict, not away from it, and not to build it. Building a team with empathy at the forefront fosters trust, even in times of dissent. It allows us to have a world where hunters and hippies can be friends. Dare I say, a world where Democrats and Republicans can even have a beer.

But when the conflict is hard. When you’re feelings and identity feel most stressed.

Step back. Breath. Then step back in – ready to listen. You just might learn something yourself.

And may every organization, institution, and society we belong be a better place for it.

📚 Optional Further Reading

Dr. Alexandra Swanson
Next

The Value of Small Wins - The Psychology of Growth and How to Influence Big Change