If you have a partner, friend, child, or your own self, that you want to encourage, maybe these steps will break the ice. Let's call this person, "him" (because I'm kind of talking about me).

1. Mention

   Mention the topic or project. Don’t say anything about it, this is just the raising of the subject. Like “Hey I know you’ve been interested in such and such.” Then stop, let them process not just the topic but also their feelings about it. Maybe they’ll say something, maybe they won’t. Count to three. Be sensitive to the possibility that you might be raising their hackles, getting them in a position of readiness to be defensive. We’re going to try to walk through this without getting them hostile.

2. Status.

   Ask, What's the status? Use the words, “How’s it going?” This puts the onus of judgment off of your own shoulders and allows him to be honest with his own feelings before he even talks about it. Then let him talk until he’s done. Your curiosity is precious.

3. Obstacle.

   Ask him to explain the current hurdle or blockage that is stopping him. Use the words, "What's the hardest part?"

4. Step.

   Ask him to explain the details of the next, first step. Say, "So what would be the first step?"

5. Value.

   Express the value of the project or the outcome in terms of the achievement, its significance and meaning, the positive emotions that will come out for himself and for others. The relief, the accomplishment, the doors it may open. Its tie-in to the long-term. Why exactly it will be so cool, and why others will be excited by it, too.

Do give him a place to speak. Don't speak for him, it takes away his agency. That's the whole point, to put him into an emotional state of agency, of forward movement, to encourage his agency.

There you go. Let me know if it helps.

Maybe we should write a chatbot for this.

2026 Co-Work Partnering:

Yes, when work becomes a social process, I get productive: blocks are a blink, a conversational turn away from resolution. So I asked Claude Opus 4.5 to incorporate Encouragement into Co-Work.cc by writing a CoWorker partner.

Claude says existing approaches include the GROW model and ICF Core Competencies. Let me address them both.

GROW stands for Goal, Reality, Options, Will, and everything about it is emotionally unpleasant and difficult. Maybe that's just me, but I have this unfortunate and I must admit irrational and self-destructive characteristic that as soon as I put something I want or need to do on paper, immediately I suddenly don't want to do it. Why, because I'm scanning my motivational horizons internally all the time, seeking the important and urgent internally-instigated direction, then I work hard, motivated, intense, and long, in the direction of that internal goal. It's an internal goal. Goals when you talk to others about them are External Goals. Once on paper, it is External, and it's not on my internal motivational horizon any more. Why think about it and ponder on it and try to see what it's about what it feels like and whether I can put it at my motivational center again, when it's there on paper and I can get to it later? On paper, the paper can take care of it, and thank god because I have enough to worry about with these that are in my head.

No, goals are unpleasant and difficult, in general, for a person who has a history of never achieving them. Goals are way too concrete and concrete-minded to be attractive motivators. There is nothing in the idea of a goal, a future-dated accomplishment-of-facts specification, that attaches to your emotions and brings you emotionally forward toward achieving it. No, a description of fact or circumstance may be painted gray, bleached of all emotion and attractiveness, the only thing left for you to push through with is a residue of a sense of duty to force yourself through revulsion, discomfort, confusion, to grind through something you don't want to do, that's the emotional nature of a documented externalised goal, to me. And it's certainly not as important as the long list of internally-maintained directions and priorities that I am constantly scanning through to find the nearest achieveable biggest win. So "goals": No, please no.

2nd in the GROW model is R for Reality. Really, that's what you want to move me forward with? The feeling of "Reality" is like a boat anchor, an infinity of blocking circumstances, a dread heaviness. Stop!

3rd in GROW is O for Options. Like I don't know my options, I need to make them all concrete and externalized, so that each now has the unattractive aspect of a Goal by itself. No, please. In truth I know what the options are, I don't have to enumerate them, I just have to get over the hump of being blocked on the whole thing. If I can take one tiny step forward, then I'm rolling, I'm moving, things all shifted into the possible and needs immediately clarified into what the tools in my hands can do now to bring things forward. So no, I don't need or want to erect an array of blockages in front of me called "Options". I need to start rolling in a way that the path rolls forward below and in front of it, that I find achieveable and attractive, the goldilocks path. Then Options will be carried out, one after the other, once I'm started, I bang through every obstacle. So O, No, let's not make a list of options, unless you really really don't know what you are facing. Which for me is hardly ever. Even then it's not Options that need enumeration but Aspects or Parts of the problem that need to be dealt with. Usually there's a sequence of development, minimum viable product, easiest achieveable milestone, foundational structure building, and everything falls into a natural order of work such that there aren't so many options at a given moment, the issue is to roll, not to increase blocking directions. Maybe if you're quite enthused about it, you can write down the first next steps in each simultaneously initiatable direction, and that might get you going. Not me.

4th in GROW is W for Will, What will you do? Well isn't that exactly the problem. The commitment to doing something is a big nasty deal, it is a negotiation with an external locus of responsibility, parent, teacher, partner, such that they can hold it over your head and shake it at you like a stick. You say you WILL do something so DO it, lazy boy! No, that's not a motivating attractor.

See how touchy and difficult is the inner motivational center? I agree, very!

Another established framework is called "ICF Core Competencies" which breaks things down into relationship creation (great if applicable), cultivating learning and growth (great, but limited only for school type activities), and building accountability through ownership (questionable). Ownership: Who is the owner, the accountability partner who then humiliates you with your failures, or you yourself within the flow of internal motivational direction-setting. If the first, then no, please. If the second, then yes, that's wise and great.

Whereas here we have MSOSV, for Mention, Status, Obstacle, Step, Value, and these are non-threatening, they assert and assume the subject's maturity, responsibility, capability, and attentiveness are already there, and by doing so the subject does immediately have them.

They are emotionally tolerable.

• A Mention doesn't put the coach into a superior status, but makes them a curious onlooker and makes the subject a worthy subject of curiosity. A mention can only be made of something the subject has indicated they already want to do, so by itself it is supportive.
• A Status inquiry doesn't prejudge the imminent success or failure of the project, it remains open interpersonally and therefore gives the subject space to evaluate it themselves and contemplate the relevant details and take an overview of the landscape, which they themselves are going to have to take responsibility for dealing with.
• An Obstacle inquiry naturally acknowledges that every action path has obstacles; this reduces the temperature of self- and other-judgement and frames and sorts the circumstances by priority and pathways such that the leading present obstacle can be conceptualized as circumventable. This is actually emotionally supportive and respectful, and it helps the person who needs to implement the solution think in an open, shared conversation about the essence of the problem and naturally also about the keys to its solution.
• Step brings the subject into readiness for immediate and concrete action in the context of a desired pathway. It is empowering rather than blocking. If still blocking then the step is too large, we need a smaller step. Finally,
• Value reconnects the path to its desireability. If the Subject desires it, that emotion competes with the garage-dwelling slackeration motive to just give up or spin out or avoid to do something more fun, and Value helps progress win because the Subject actually desires it, perhaps even more. And then they perfuse the task with its attractiveness and desireability.

After touching base with these kinds of diplomatic and supportive encouragements, then it's more about getting out of the way than about imposing Boomer structured commitments onto the subject.

Now, it's Go get 'em!

Claude Summary:

• MSOSV works because it keeps the locus of motivation internal throughout. The coach never takes ownership - they're just helping the subject access what's already there. GROW inadvertently transfers ownership to the coach (who now holds the goal, the reality assessment, the options list, and the commitment).

• The essay makes the agent design clearer: Coach must never claim authority over the subject's goals or commitments. Just gentle inquiry that helps them find their own forward motion.

	Your thoughts?
Name+:
Email*:	(will not be shared or abused)
Comment:
	Feedback is welcome.