top of page
Helping heuristics

Helping heuristics

Helping Heuristics are simple, practical tools that help individuals gain insight into their own interaction patterns and make better choices in how they support others. They offer a structured way to reflect on and improve helping behaviors in real time.
What It Makes Possible:
  • Self-Awareness: Participants recognize their default helping habits and how those affect collaboration.
  • Intentional Change: Encourages people to shift from automatic responses to more thoughtful, effective helping strategies.
  • Quick Decision-Making: Heuristics act as mental shortcuts that guide people in new or uncertain situations.
  • Productive Interactions: A series of short exchanges reveals simple, actionable “rules of thumb” for offering help that is actually helpful.
How It Works:
  • Participants engage in brief, structured conversations that surface their helping patterns.
  • They experiment with alternative approaches and reflect on the impact.
  • Over time, they build a personal toolkit of heuristics for more generative collaboration.

  • Time needed

    15 minutes

  • Preparation

    Offline format Online format
    Prepare pieces of paper for participants Prepare virtual whiteboard template to collect ideas (for example Miro Board Template)
    No chairs or tables Prepare breakout rooms for groups of three

  • Set the stage

    1. There will be 4 rounds of 1–2-minute improvised interactions. Groups choose one member to be a “client (brings a real challenge they genuinely care about),” another a “coach (responds according to the pattern of the round),” with the third acting as “observer (watches interaction patterns, keeps time, takes notes).” Roles can stay the same or change from round to round.
    2. Examples: 
      • “Let’s explore how we ask for and offer help, so that we can unblock work faster without burning out the same few people.”
      • “We’ll practice short conversations that transform ‘Can you fix this for me?’ into ‘Can you help me learn how to do this?’”
    3. Make it explicit that:
      • This is about mutual learning, not performance evaluation.
      • Everyone will be both help-seeker and helper in practice rounds.

  • Step-by-step and timing

    1.  Introduce the concept (3 min)
      • Explain the idea of the roles:
        • Client – brings a real challenge they genuinely care about
        • Coach – responds according to the pattern of the round
        • Observer – watches interaction patterns, keeps time, takes notes 
      • Roles can stay the same or change from round to round
      • Explain four short rounds (1–2 minutes each) followed by a debrief. During each round, the Client shares a challenge they care about. The Observer listens closely, while the Coach responds using a different interaction pattern in each round.
    2. Round 1 (2 min)
      • The response is "Quiet presence" - the Coach accepts all offers with compassionate listening
    3. Round 2 (2min)
      • The response is "Guided Discovery" - the Coach accepts all offers, guiding inquiry for mutual discoveries
    4. Round 3 (2 min)
      • The response is "Loving Provocation" - the Coach interjects advice, accepting and blocking as needed when the Coach sees something that the Client does not see
    5. Round 4 (2 min)
      • The response is "Process Mindfulness" - The Coach and Client accept all offers, engage fully, and observe how this acceptance amplifies new and unexpected possibilities
    6. Debrief with the whole group (5 min)
      • Discuss impact of all response patterns as experienced by Clients, Coaches and Observers

  • Hints

    1. Hints for the Client:

    • Own the Problem. Describe your goal, not just the error.
      • Example: “I’m trying to reduce response time on this API endpoint; I’ve tried X and Y.”
    • Show Your Work. Share what you’ve tried, what you observed, and where you’re stuck.
      • Example: “I profiled the endpoint, saw most time in DB calls, added an index, but latency only improved slightly.”
    • State the Kind of Help You Want. Advice? Pairing? Sanity check? Explanation?
      • Example: “I’d like 15 minutes to think through possible DB bottlenecks with you, not for you to rewrite the query.”
    • Limit the Ask. Time-box the request and be specific.
      • Example: “Can you spend 20 minutes reviewing this PR with me?”
    • Follow Through & Close the Loop. Confirm what you learned and what you’ll do next.
      • Example: “I’ll try the three options we discussed and update you in Slack by end of day.”

    2. Hints for the Coach:

    • Clarify Ownership. Keep responsibility with the help-seeker.
      • Example: “I can help you think it through, but it’s your decision. What options do you see?”
    • Ask Before Telling. Start with questions, not solutions.
      • Example: “What do you think is causing the latency spike?” “What have you ruled out so far?”
    • Offer Just-Enough Help. Don’t take over; offer manageable next steps.
      • Example: “How about we sketch a quick query plan together, then you try implementing the change and ping me if still stuck?”
    • Make Thinking Visible. Explain how you reason, not just what to do.
      • Example: “When I see CPU spikes like this, I first check X, then Y, because…”Time-Box and Check Consent
    • Be explicit about your limits.
      • Example: “I have 15 minutes now. Is that enough for you to get a next step? If not, let’s book 30 minutes later today.”
    • Avoid Swooping In. Don’t grab the keyboard and fix it (unless it’s life-or-death incident).If you must take over, narrate everything and hand it back quickly.

     

     

     

  • Examples of use

    1. Example 1 – Agile Team Retrospective. 

      • Context: A Scrum team is struggling with recurring production bugs.

      • Client: QA engineer explains frustration and pressure

      • Round 1 helps the engineer feel heard without immediate “fix it” responses

      • Round 2 surfaces that unclear acceptance criteria are a root issue

      • Round 3 introduces the idea of pairing on story refinement

      • Outcome: The team leaves with shared understanding, not just a list of actions.

    2. Example 2 – Senior–Junior Developer Mentoring

      • Context: A junior developer asks for help with a complex refactoring.

      • Senior dev resists jumping straight into code advice

      • Guided questions reveal the junior already understands most dependencies

      • A single well‑timed provocation reframes the problem

      • Outcome: Confidence grows, and future help requests become clearer.

    3. Example 3 – Product Owner Peer Coaching

      • Context: POs across teams struggle with stakeholder pushback.

      • Helping Heuristics reveals how often POs default to “defending” instead of exploring needs

      • Quiet Presence uncovers unstated constraints

      • Provocation introduces alternative negotiation approaches

      • Outcome: POs report calmer, more productive stakeholder conversations.

  • Link with other Liberating Structures

    Link with:

    Appreciative interviews

    Improv prototyping

    Heard, seen, respected

    Simple Etnography

    Troika Consulting

    What I need from you

    Wise crowds

  • Link to Liberating Structures page

    Helping heuristics

  • Link to virtual whiteboard template (Miro)

bottom of page