“You’re Asking Again?” — Frequent Feedback or Lack of Independence?

At Jonas’s desk. Olek asks him once again for a quick check that his work is heading in the right direction.

— Got a minute? Can you tell me if I’m on the right track?
— Sure.
— And now?
— Olek, don’t you trust your own judgment?

Olek treats frequent feedback as a way to learn faster. Jonas starts to read the same frequency as a lack of independence.

What really happened

Olek comes back to Jonas several times for a quick sense-check. For Olek, this is efficient learning: he would rather correct course after an hour than discover at the end of the day that he has spent hours going in the wrong direction. Jonas sees the other side. Each new question can look as though Olek is handing responsibility for judgment to the more experienced person. Jonas begins to suspect that Olek does not trust himself. Only when Olek explains why he keeps checking in does it become clear that both of them value independence — they simply have different ideas about how often outside feedback should be used on the way there.

What the research says

People do not have to wait passively for feedback. They can actively seek it to reduce uncertainty, check progress, and learn faster — a process known as feedback seeking (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Later research shows that this strategy brings informational benefits but can also carry social costs: people may worry that asking too often will make them look less competent (Ashford, De Stobbeleir, & Nujella, 2016). Olek’s behavior is therefore not evidence of dependence by itself, and Jonas’s concern is not entirely irrational. The useful question is whether the feedback is helping Olek become better at judging his own work or whether it is gradually replacing his judgment.

How to handle it

A good compromise is to improve the quality of the questions and agree on a rhythm. Olek can come with a view of his own: “I would choose option B for two reasons. I see one risk. Can you check whether I’m missing something?” Jonas then sees the thinking, not just a request for a verdict. If constant interruptions are costly, questions can also be collected for one short daily review. The general rule is: feedback supports independence best when it calibrates a person’s own judgment rather than substituting for it.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Empatyzer can help Olek and Jonas see that frequent requests for feedback serve different functions for each of them. Olek uses quick consultations to learn and correct course; Jonas may interpret them as evidence that Olek does not trust his own judgment. Diagnosis and profile comparison let Em name the mismatch without casting either person as the problem. Before they work together, Em can suggest a clear rhythm — for example, one checkpoint after the first attempt, followed by independent work until an agreed milestone. Olek still gets the information he needs to learn quickly, while Jonas is not pulled into constant micro-checking. At team level, Empatyzer can also show whether the pattern appears mainly among people who need fast calibration. Micro-lessons reinforce the idea that good feedback should increase independence, not become a substitute for it.