Empathy Map Template

What This Template Is For

An empathy map is a collaborative tool for building a shared understanding of who your user is. Developed by Dave Gray at XPLANE, the format organizes what you know about a user into four quadrants: what they Say, Think, Do, and Feel. The exercise surfaces contradictions between what users tell you and what they actually do, which is where the most valuable product insights live.

Empathy maps are not a replacement for user personas. They are faster to create, require less data, and work best as a team exercise to align before deeper research. A persona describes a fictional archetype. An empathy map captures real observations about a specific user type, often built from 3-5 customer interviews. The most useful empathy maps are built collaboratively, not by a single PM in isolation.

This template includes the standard four-quadrant structure plus a facilitation guide for running empathy mapping sessions with cross-functional teams. It works well as a kickoff exercise for product discovery sprints and as a tool for aligning engineering and design around user context before writing requirements.

How to Use This Template

1. Gather your team (3-6 people: PM, designer, engineer, and optionally a customer success or sales rep).
2. Choose a specific user type. Do not try to map "all users." Pick one segment or persona.
3. Set a timer for 10 minutes. Each person writes sticky notes (or digital equivalents) for each quadrant based on their interactions with this user type.
4. Take turns placing notes in each quadrant. Read each one aloud. Group similar notes together.
5. Identify contradictions. Where does what users say diverge from what they do? These gaps are your highest-value research questions.
6. Synthesize into 3-5 key insights at the bottom of the map.
7. Photograph or save the completed map. Reference it during PRD writing, design reviews, and prioritization discussions.

The Template

Empathy Map Header

Quadrant 1: SAYS

What does this user say out loud? Direct quotes from interviews, support tickets, sales calls, surveys, and social media.

• "[Direct quote 1]" (Source: [interview/ticket/call])
• "[Direct quote 2]" (Source: [interview/ticket/call])
• "[Direct quote 3]" (Source: [interview/ticket/call])
• "[Direct quote 4]" (Source: [interview/ticket/call])
• "[Direct quote 5]" (Source: [interview/ticket/call])

Themes in what they say:

• [Theme 1]
• [Theme 2]

Quadrant 2: THINKS

What is this user thinking but not saying? Inferences from behavior, body language, hesitations, and reading between the lines of what they said.

• [Thought 1: What are they worried about that they will not admit?]
• [Thought 2: What assumptions are they making?]
• [Thought 3: What do they believe about themselves or their role?]
• [Thought 4: What are they comparing your product to internally?]
• [Thought 5: What would embarrass them if it were true?]

Themes in what they think:

• [Theme 1]
• [Theme 2]

Quadrant 3: DOES

What observable actions does this user take? Focus on behaviors you can verify, not what they claim to do.

• [Action 1: What tools do they open first in the morning?]
• [Action 2: What workarounds have they built?]
• [Action 3: How do they share information with their team?]
• [Action 4: What tasks do they repeatedly postpone?]
• [Action 5: What do they do when your product fails or confuses them?]

Themes in what they do:

• [Theme 1]
• [Theme 2]

Quadrant 4: FEELS

What emotions does this user experience related to the problem space? Look for frustration, anxiety, pride, fear, or excitement.

• [Feeling 1: What frustrates them most?]
• [Feeling 2: What makes them anxious about their job?]
• [Feeling 3: What gives them satisfaction or pride?]
• [Feeling 4: What are they afraid of (failure, looking bad, losing control)?]
• [Feeling 5: What would make them feel confident?]

Themes in what they feel:

• [Theme 1]
• [Theme 2]

Contradictions

Where does what users SAY diverge from what they DO? These contradictions are the most valuable insights.

Synthesis: Key Insights

Based on this empathy map, what are the 3-5 most important things we now understand about this user?

1. [Insight 1]. [One sentence explanation + what it means for our product.]
2. [Insight 2]. [One sentence explanation + what it means for our product.]
3. [Insight 3]. [One sentence explanation + what it means for our product.]
4. [Insight 4]. [One sentence explanation + what it means for our product.]
5. [Insight 5]. [One sentence explanation + what it means for our product.]

Next steps.

• ☐ [Research question to investigate further]
• ☐ [Product hypothesis to test]
• ☐ [Design experiment to validate]

Filled Example: Enterprise Procurement Buyer

Empathy Map Header

SAYS (Filled)

• "We need SOC 2 Type II before we can even start the evaluation." (Interview #2)
• "Your product looks great but I cannot justify the cost to my CFO without a clear ROI model." (Interview #4)
• "We already have three tools that do parts of this. I need to consolidate, not add another one." (Interview #1)
• "The pilot went well but rolling out to 500 users requires a migration plan I do not have bandwidth to write." (Interview #5)
• "Your competitor gave us a dedicated implementation engineer for free." (Closed-lost review #7)

Themes: Cost justification is the primary blocker. Consolidation narrative matters more than new features.

THINKS (Filled)

• "If this implementation fails, my reputation is on the line. I was the one who recommended it."
• "The PM tool market is overwhelming. I do not have time to evaluate 10 vendors properly."
• "My boss does not understand the difference between these tools. They all look the same to her."
• "I wish the vendor would just tell me exactly what ROI to put in my business case."
• "If I pick the wrong tool, we will be stuck with it for 3 years."

Themes: Fear of making the wrong choice. Desire for vendor to reduce their personal risk.

DOES (Filled)

• Requests 3-5 vendor demos but only deeply evaluates 2 (typically the one they already know and the cheapest).
• Forwards the security questionnaire to InfoSec before watching the demo.
• Creates a spreadsheet comparing features across vendors, but the spreadsheet is 80% checkboxes and does not capture workflow differences.
• Asks for customer references in the same industry and company size.
• Delays final decision by 2-4 weeks after the "final" evaluation call.

Themes: Evaluation is driven by risk reduction, not feature comparison. The spreadsheet is a CYA artifact, not a decision tool.

FEELS (Filled)

• Frustrated that every vendor claims to be "all-in-one" but none actually replace all existing tools.
• Anxious about implementation timeline. Previous software rollouts took 3x longer than planned.
• Proud of their ability to negotiate pricing and contract terms.
• Afraid of picking a vendor that gets acquired or pivots away from their use case.
• Relieved when a vendor proactively addresses security and compliance without being asked.

Themes: Anxiety about risk dominates the emotional state. Relief and trust come from vendors who anticipate concerns.

Contradictions (Filled)

Synthesis (Filled)

1. Enterprise buyers optimize for risk reduction, not feature maximization. Our sales process leads with features but should lead with security, compliance, and implementation support.
2. The real decision maker is often not in the evaluation meetings. The CFO or CIO makes the final call based on a business case they never saw our demo for. We need to arm the buyer with ROI materials.
3. "Consolidation" is the winning narrative. Buyers do not want another tool. They want fewer tools. Our positioning should emphasize what we replace, not what we add.
4. Implementation fear is the silent deal killer. Buyers who experienced a bad rollout in the past project that anxiety onto every new purchase. A guaranteed implementation timeline with a named engineer reduces this fear.
5. The feature comparison spreadsheet is performative. It exists to justify a decision that was mostly made on trust, brand recognition, and perceived risk. We should provide the spreadsheet for them, pre-filled.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Filling in all four quadrants from a single data source. If your empathy map is built entirely from interviews, the "Does" quadrant will be weak. Combine interview data (Says, Thinks, Feels) with behavioral analytics and session recordings (Does) for a complete picture.
• Mapping "all users" instead of a specific type. An empathy map for "our users" is useless. Map a specific segment: "Engineering managers at Series B SaaS companies who adopted our product in the last 90 days." Specificity produces actionable insights.
• Treating the empathy map as a deliverable. The map is a thinking tool, not a presentation artifact. Its value comes from the team discussion during creation, not from the final document. If you are spending more time formatting the map than discussing it, you have missed the point.
• Skipping the contradictions section. The contradictions between Says and Does are the most valuable part of the exercise. If you do not have any contradictions, either your data is too thin or you are not looking hard enough.
• Running the exercise without data. An empathy map built on assumptions is just a shared guess. Do at least 3-5 interviews or review 10+ support tickets before running the session. The Voice of Customer framework can help structure your data collection.

Key Takeaways

• The contradictions between what users say and what they do are the highest-value insights
• Run the exercise with 3-6 people from different functions. Solo empathy maps miss critical perspectives
• Use real data from interviews, support tickets, and behavioral analytics. Assumption-based maps are just shared guesses
• Create one map per distinct user type. "All users" is too broad to be useful
• The value is in the team discussion, not the final document. Spend more time talking than formatting

About This Template

Created by: Tim Adair

Last Updated: 3/4/2026

Version: 1.0.0

License: Free for personal and commercial use