On this page
Team meeting. Anna points out that Maja has made the same kind of mistake twice that week.
— Maja, this is the second time we’ve had the same error. Please keep an eye on it.
— Okay.
A few days later, Maja speaks less and asks to leave the project. Anna starts wondering whether her public comment caused it.
How does Empatyzer help choose the right format for public feedback?
Empatyzer helps you see that one public sentence can have a greater effect than the sender assumes. This makes it easier to understand how the form of feedback changes behaviour.
Features that can help:
- Talk to Em about a specific person: Allows you to prepare a conversation with a specific person around the "I said one sentence" situation based on your differences and the current context, instead of starting with a generic solution.
- Tips: They help you choose the tone, level of directness and the way of formulating the expectation in the situation "I said one sentence" to this person, instead of using one message for everyone.
- You vs. the team: Provides a reference point for the "I said one sentence" situation: shows whether you are similar to the team or clearly different from it in areas such as public feedback, sensitivity to evaluation and directness.
What really happened
Anna sees two events in sequence: first she gave Maja public feedback; then Maja became quieter and wanted to step away from the project. A natural story appears: “I caused this.” That story may be true, but the sequence alone does not prove it. Maja may have several other reasons Anna knows nothing about. The important move is to separate the observation from the explanation. The observation is: her behavior changed after the conversation. The explanation is: it changed because of the conversation. The second claim needs more evidence.
What the research says
People readily explain others’ behavior from what they can observe and may give too little weight to situational factors or missing information — a pattern known as correspondence bias (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). In this scene, Anna has not fully fallen into that trap because she stops and considers alternative causes. There is also a basic logic principle worth keeping in mind: “after this” does not automatically mean “because of this” — the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc error. Establishing causality requires more than a sequence of events.
How to handle it
Start by separating two columns: “what I know” and “what I suspect.” Then test the hypothesis with the person involved: “I’ve noticed you’ve been speaking less since that conversation. I don’t know whether the two are connected. How do you see it?” That allows you to be empathetic without writing the other person’s story for them. The general rule is: a change in behavior is information; its cause remains a hypothesis until you have better evidence.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer is particularly useful when an observation can easily become an untested explanation. The assessment may show Anna that her management style creates a strong need to find a cause quickly and regain control, but Em should not confirm her theory about Maja without evidence. Instead, it can help her prepare a conversation that separates fact from hypothesis: “I’ve noticed you’ve been speaking less lately; I don’t know whether that is connected to the earlier situation — how do you see it?” Maja’s profile can help Em choose a way of asking that does not add unnecessary pressure. If similar reactions appear across a group, team-level data can provide broader context without guessing the reason for any one person. Micro-lessons reinforce the habit of checking an interpretation with the person before using it as the basis for a decision.
Sources
- Daniel T. Gilbert; Patrick S. Malone (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.