home / skills / coowoolf / insighthunt-skills / explorer-vs-lecturer-coaching
This skill helps managers guide 1:1s with curiosity, using questions and observations to help direct reports self-diagnose and grow.
npx playbooks add skill coowoolf/insighthunt-skills --skill explorer-vs-lecturer-coachingReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: Explorer vs Lecturer Coaching Model
description: A feedback approach where the manager acts as a curious investigator rather than an authoritarian expert, using observation and questions to help direct reports self-diagnose issues. Use during 1:1s and performance reviews.
---
# The 'Explorer vs. Lecturer' Coaching Model
> "Your job is to enable people to be their very damn best... most of management is actually exploring with someone. It is being curious." — Claire Hughes Johnson
## What It Is
A feedback approach where the manager acts as a **curious investigator** rather than an authoritarian expert. It uses observation and questions to help the direct report self-diagnose issues.
## When To Use
- During **1:1 meetings**
- **Performance reviews**
- **Debriefing** after a high-stakes presentation
- When direct reports seem **stuck or defensive**
## Explorer vs. Lecturer Comparison
| Aspect | ❌ Lecturer | ✅ Explorer |
|--------|----------|----------|
| Stance | "I know the answer" | "Let's figure this out together" |
| Method | Tell them what to do | Ask questions to help them see |
| Focus | Your expertise | Their blind spots |
| Outcome | Dependency | Self-awareness |
## Core Principles
### 1. Hypothesis-Based Coaching
Form a scientific hypothesis based on data/intuition (e.g., "I think you are avoiding this stakeholder").
### 2. Ask a Question
Open with non-threatening inquiry ("Is there something we aren't talking about here?").
### 3. Own the Observation
Use "I" statements to share your perception without judgment ("My experience of you in that meeting was that you seemed nervous").
### 4. Mirroring
Reflect physical or verbal cues back to the person (e.g., "I noticed you physically backed your chair away when we discussed this topic").
## How To Apply
```
STEP 1: Observe
└── Notice patterns, body language, inconsistencies
└── Form a hypothesis (not a conclusion)
STEP 2: Open with Curiosity
└── "I've noticed something and I'm curious..."
└── "Can we explore [topic] together?"
STEP 3: Share Observation with "I"
└── "My experience was..."
└── "I felt like..."
└── NOT: "You always..." or "You were..."
STEP 4: Mirror Back
└── "When we talked about X, you seemed to..."
└── "I noticed your voice changed when..."
STEP 5: Let Them Diagnose
└── "What do you think is going on?"
└── "Does that resonate with you?"
```
## Common Mistakes
❌ Confusing "coaching" with "teaching" (telling them exactly how to do it)
❌ Using "exploring" as a way to avoid giving direct feedback when warranted
❌ Not following through after the exploration conversation
## Real-World Example
Claire observing a direct report physically moving their chair away from the table during uncomfortable topics and mirroring that observation back to them to uncover the root cause.
---
*Source: Claire Hughes Johnson, Lenny's Podcast*
This skill describes the Explorer vs. Lecturer coaching model where a manager takes the role of a curious investigator instead of an authoritarian expert. It focuses on observation, hypothesis, and question-led conversations that help direct reports self-diagnose issues. The aim is to increase self-awareness and autonomy rather than dependency on manager solutions.
You start by observing behavior, patterns, and evidence, then form a tentative hypothesis about what might be happening. Open the conversation with curiosity, share your perception using "I" statements, mirror notable cues, and invite the person to interpret the data. The manager resists jumping to fixes and instead guides the report to name causes and propose next steps.
How is this different from giving feedback directly?
This model still gives feedback, but it does so through observation and questions so the person arrives at insights themselves. Direct correction is reserved for clear safety or compliance issues.
What if the person avoids answering or is evasive?
Name the avoidance as an observation and ask a clarifying question (e.g., "I noticed you changed the topic—what are you feeling about this?"). If avoidance continues, transition to clearer expectations and follow-up actions.