You Gave Me Exactly What I Didn’t Know I Didn’t Want

By: Tyler Dewey | August 3rd, 2026

So much of the advice we give lands badly. But then so much of it lands well. It makes you wonder...what was different about that advice?

For a long time, when someone came to me with a problem, I assumed they wanted my advice. I would listen, think through the situation, and tell them what I believed they should do. Sometimes that helped. Sometimes it didn't. Sometimes the person wanted me to understand them, not solve the problem. Sometimes they wanted to explore the options together. Sometimes they wanted the autonomy to reach their own conclusion. And sometimes they did not need emotional acknowledgment at all. They just needed a fix to the problem.

I have had all of these reactions myself. Why are you telling me what to do? Why didn’t you explore the options with me? Why are we talking about my feelings when I just need an answer? The same person can need something entirely different depending on the moment.

That is why I so enjoyed reading Harvard Business Review’s new article, “What to Consider Before Giving Advice on a Global Team,” by Namrata Goyal and Krishna Savani. Their research explores three broad approaches to advice across the United States, India, and China. Americans often value advice that protects autonomy. Indians may value direct advice that communicates care and investment. Chinese colleagues may value advice that examines the full context and the different ways a situation could unfold. These are cultural tendencies, not rules about every individual, but having worked closely with people from all three countries, and having close friends and family from all three, I recognize a lot of what the authors describe.

I see both the value and the limitations of all three approaches. In the United States, I often see managers and leaders give direct advice because something needs to be done quickly. But the middle managers and staff receiving it may want autonomy. They want to understand the goal, use their own judgment, and decide how to get there. That creates a difficult leadership conundrum. Speed may require direction, while trust may require space.

With many of my Indian colleagues, I have seen direct advice offered as an act of care. Saying, “This is what I think you should do,” can communicate real investment in another person’s success. But sometimes that advice is shared quickly, before the individual has had the autonomy to think it through or the opportunity to provide all of the context they are carrying.

With many of my Chinese colleagues, I have seen a deep understanding of context, including the relationships, history, timing, competing interests, and different ways a situation could unfold. That can lead to wiser and more thoughtful decisions. But there are also moments when a direct recommendation might have helped us decide sooner and move faster.

All three approaches have positive values. All three have limitations. So perhaps the question is not which culture has the best way of giving advice. Perhaps the better question is what this particular person needs from me in this particular moment.

And country is only one dimension. Religion, gender, generation, personality, organizational role, power, and lived experience all shape how someone gives and receives advice. The multicultural dimensions of a relationship form a complicated matrix very quickly.

So what are we supposed to do? The funny part is that I am now going to give you advice on how to give advice, without first asking how you would like to receive it. ;)

Ask first.

Do you want me to listen and understand? Do you want my direct recommendation? Do you want to explore the context and different possibilities together? Or do you want emotional acknowledgement and the autonomy to work through the decision yourself?

I used to assume I knew what the other person wanted and needed from me. Now I try to begin with the assumption that I don't know. When I slow down, ask, and genuinely seek to understand, the way forward usually presents itself clearly. My advice becomes more useful. The other person has more of a voice in how they are supported and my relationships have improved.

Studying Buddhism, and especially the Zen practice of maintaining a beginner’s mind, has helped me make this shift. The beginner’s mind asks us to let go of the assumption that we already understand another person and it asks us to remain curious about who they are, where they come from, and what they need from us in that moment.

The question is no longer simply, how do I usually give advice? It is, how does this particular person want to receive it?

The most important thing may be remaining open to a different way and letting go of some of our own rigidity. In that sense, neuroplasticity can be part of a more loving and open mind. It is our ability to change, remain curious, and adapt how we relate to people whose experiences and ways of communicating may be different from our own.

As consultants, we are paid for our advice - but the quality of the advice is only part of what matters. What matters as much, and sometimes much more, is whether or not we understand how the person wants the advise to be given.

For our clients, this is ultimately what the work is about: helping people and organizations do more good in the world, together, across cultures and differences, with greater trust, openness, and understanding.

Written by Tyler Dewey, Principal at Strong Road Strategy Group