On this page
A short mentoring conversation. Olek comes to Samuel because he is stuck and is not yet sure where the real problem lies.
— I’m stuck, and I’m not even sure what the core issue is.
— Okay, then do this: first A, then B, and you could also…
— Right.
Samuel wants to provide a useful solution as quickly as possible. Olek has not yet had time to define the question he actually needs answered.
How does Empatyzer help mentors listen before advising?
Empatyzer helps you see that the mentor wants to help and provides a solution right away. It also helps determine when good advice takes away the space to understand the problem.
Features that can help:
- Comparison: Shows where you differ in areas such as mentoring, listening, and when to give advice, which helps you understand why a "Conversation where only the mentor speaks" situation may mean different things to each of you.
- Tips: They advise how to talk to this specific person in a "Conversation in which only the mentor speaks" situation, in order to maintain the sense of the message and reduce the risk of unnecessary defense or misunderstanding.
- Talk to Em about a specific person: Allows you to describe to Em the situation "A conversation where only the mentor speaks", take into account the profile of both parties and prepare a specific version of the conversation or message before reaching out.
What really happened
Olek begins with: “I’m stuck and I’m not sure what the core issue is.” Samuel moves almost immediately into solutions. He wants to be useful and he has expertise, so he offers option after option. The problem is that he is answering a problem he has already constructed in his own head before Olek has been able to construct it for himself. Olek leaves with three possible solutions but still does not understand the source of his difficulty. The problem returns. Only when Samuel starts asking what Olek has tried and exactly where he became stuck does the conversation help Olek see the underlying issue for himself.
What the research says
Supporting another person can mean providing knowledge, but it can also mean creating conditions in which they analyze their own situation more effectively. Research on workplace coaching suggests that well-conducted coaching can improve learning and performance, although not every coaching conversation works equally well and not every situation calls for coaching (Jones, Woods & Guillaume, 2016; de Haan & Nilsson, 2023). Motivation research also suggests people generally function better when they retain room for judgment and problem solving rather than receiving only instructions (autonomy support; Slemp et al., 2018). The point is not the fashionable rule “always ask, never advise.” It is the order: understand the problem first, then decide whether the person needs a question, advice, instruction, or a decision.
How to handle it
A mentor can start with three questions: “What exactly are you trying to achieve?”, “What have you already tried?”, and “Where are you actually stuck?” Then ask: “Do you want me to help you think, or do you want my solution?” If the situation is urgent or risky, direct advice may be best. If development is the goal, a solution given too quickly removes part of the learning. The general rule is: good help is not about showing how much the mentor knows as quickly as possible; it is about increasing the other person’s ability to deal with the problem.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can show Samuel that his speed at generating solutions becomes an advantage only after the problem has been properly understood. The assessment and profile comparison may indicate that Samuel naturally thinks aloud and produces options immediately, while Olek currently needs space to clarify where he is actually stuck. Em can suggest three short questions and then the most important one: “Do you want me to help you think this through, or give you my solution?” Mentoring becomes matched to the situation rather than to the mentor’s favorite style. Team-level insights can reveal similar patterns of helping, while micro-lessons reinforce the right sequence: understand the need first, then choose a question, advice, instruction, or decision.
Sources
- 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
- Rebecca J. Jones; Stephen A. Woods; Yves R. F. Guillaume (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12119 10.1111/joop.12119
- Erik de Haan; Viktor O. Nilsson (2023). What Can We Know about the Effectiveness of Coaching? A Meta-Analysis Based Only on Randomized Controlled Trials. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 22(4), 641-661. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2022.0107 10.5465/amle.2022.0107
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.