On this page
Office, at the start of two similar assignments. Anna gives Tomasz and Olek the same highly detailed checklist.
— Here are the steps and the acceptance criteria.
— Great — says Tomasz.
— Okay… — says Olek.
Tomasz sees clarity and reassurance. Olek feels someone has just removed his chance to think for himself.
How does Empatyzer tailor support without taking away autonomy?
Empatyzer helps you see that the same checklist can help one person and take away another's autonomy. It also allows you to check why equal does not always mean accurate.
Features that can help:
- Comparison: Compares your preferences in areas such as the need for structure, autonomy and individualization of support, making it easier to separate differences in style from ill intent in a "Same Checklist" situation.
- You vs. the team: Compares how you operate with your team in areas such as the need for structure, autonomy and individualization of support, making it easier to see where the "Same checklist" misunderstanding comes from.
- Tips: Offer practical guidance for the "Same checklist" situation: what to say directly, what could be misunderstood and how to conclude the conversation with clear next steps.
What really happened
Anna gives Tomasz and Olek exactly the same detailed instruction. Tomasz experiences it as support: he knows what to do and what “done” looks like. Olek experiences it as a loss of autonomy: if every step has already been chosen, why is his judgment or expertise needed at all? Anna can honestly say, “I’m treating you equally,” while both employees can honestly say they received something psychologically very different. Equality of form does not guarantee equality of effect.
What the research says
At work, autonomy, competence, and good relationships are important psychological needs, and leaders who support autonomy are associated with stronger motivation and a range of positive outcomes (self-determination theory; Deci, Olafsen & Ryan, 2017; Slemp et al., 2018). At the same time, too little structure can also be a problem. Research on empowerment shows that when leaders give more discretion than employees expect, role ambiguity can increase; what matters is the fit between expectations on both sides (Humborstad & Kuvaas, 2013). There is therefore no universal number of steps that is always “supportive.”
How to handle it
First define the outcome, the boundaries, and the quality standard. Then agree how much freedom the person needs in choosing the method. Tomasz may want the full checklist. Olek may prefer: “Here are the acceptance criteria; choose your own way of getting there.” That does not have to be unfair if the expected result is equally clear. The general rule is: standardize the standard, not the instruction; different people may need different levels of structure to deliver the same good result.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can show Anna that “fair” does not always mean “identical.” The assessment may indicate that Tomasz works better with more structure and explicit criteria, while Olek has a stronger need for autonomy and room to choose his own method. Comparing profiles with the role and task allows Em to prepare two different messages around the same performance standard: Tomasz can receive a detailed checklist; Olek can receive the goal, boundaries, and acceptance criteria. If the team varies widely in how much structure people need, group-level insights help the leader see that without reducing anyone to a label. Micro-lessons reinforce the ability to adjust the level of guidance to the person and situation, so personalized management increases the chance of the same strong outcome rather than creating unfairness.
Sources
- Edward L. Deci; Anja H. Olafsen; Richard M. Ryan (2017). Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
- Gavin R. Slemp; Margaret L. Kern; Kent J. Patrick; Richard M. Ryan (2018). Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion, 42(5), 706-724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9698-y 10.1007/s11031-018-9698-y
- Sut I Wong Humborstad; Bård Kuvaas (2013). Mutuality in leader–subordinate empowerment expectation: Its impact on role ambiguity and intrinsic motivation. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.003 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.003
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.