One of the top characteristics I look for in candidates is coachability.  It’s next to curiosity and analytical thinking on my list of what makes people successful.  

I used to think of coachability as openness to feedback.  And coaching as a cheerleadingly-oriented management style.  But true coaching is the skillset I’ve worked the hardest to learn in the past year, and true coachability is much more than just openness.  I believe it to be a secret power of successful teams.

To expand the idea of coachability past “openness,” the type of coachability I look for is that of a focused desire to perpetually improve, based on seeking, accepting, and applying external feedback iteratively.  It comes in equal parts from the coached and the coach.  It’s more Socratic than not.  It’s requires more vulnerability than other types of interaction.  And it’s kinda magic.

At its core, I think coaching is about teaching a person to fish.  That is, the simplest coaching is just asking, “What do you think?”  When someone brings me a problem, if I’m in coach mode (more about that in a minute) that’s my go-to first question.  Or, “Where are you stuck?” or “What have you observed so far?”  Because coaching is absolutely useless if the person being coached isn’t bought in.  

Tom Brady is not Tom Brady because Bill Belichick prescribed to him how to solve problems.  Tom Brady and Bill Belichick had a partnership where they each had an insatiable desire to get better, and they respected each other’s expertise to get there.

So the first piece of coachability is openness to it.  After that, though, I think the next piece of it is trust.  I have a lot to say about trust – probably a whole post’s worth at least – but in this context, I need to trust that my coach is completely invested in seeing me get better.  Trust is not easy, and trusting someone requires relinquishing some amount of control, and of surrendering some ego.

Now, say I’m open to being coached (I want to get better using this method), and I trust my coach.  The next component I need to be coachable is a desire to “participate in my own rescue.” That is, I’m the most responsible for my own success, even if my coach wants nothing more than to see me succeed.  Which, believe me, we whole-heartedly do.

Coaching is not prescriptive advice – it’s not “When you present, use fewer slides,” (although that’s almost universally good advice).  It’s “How can you better adapt this material to your audience?”  It’s not, “Your projects are always late, so I’m assigning a project manager to you,” it’s “Given your track record of missing deadlines, what can you try this time that could be more effective?”

Ultimately, the person being coached is seeking to get further on their own over time.  Being coachable means being both introspective and mindful. 

I said earlier that a lot of this is true, “if I’m in coach mode.”  A leader is not always coaching.  There are assignments that people are not ready for, vision that needs to be shared, tactical feedback to give, emergency situations, deadlines, and just plain old bad days.  There are plenty of good reasons not to coach every situation.   

But.  I don’t think there is ever a good reason to choose to add people to a team who are not coachable.  Not every day, not every situation, but generally, I only want people on my team who, every month, every quarter, are more invested than not in working harder to get better than doing anything else.  

For further reading, my manager suggested I read The Tao of Coaching, which I now recommend to you.