The Quiet Superpower of Being Coachable

On a rainy Thursday afternoon, a junior engineer named Maya sat in a glass-walled conference room, staring at her laptop as if it were a courtroom verdict.

Her manager had just finished walking through her code review.

“There’s a lot to like here,” he’d said at first, which is the professional equivalent of “We need to talk.” Then the comments started scrolling by:

“This function is doing three things at once.”
“We’ve already solved this problem in payment_utils.py.”
“This variable name means something different in our domain.”

He was calm, even kind. But Maya’s body heard only one message: You’re not good enough.

She felt her chest tighten. A quiet narrator in her head started speaking up:

Of course he hates it. I knew I wasn’t cut out for this team.
He could have just fixed it himself if it mattered that much.
Everybody else probably nails this stuff on the first try.

When the review ended, her manager asked, “Any questions?”

Maya smiled the way people do when they’re trying not to cry and said, “No, this was helpful, thanks.” Then she went back to her desk, privately furious. Not at him exactly. At herself. At the situation. At the vague, gnawing feeling of being exposed.

Two desks away, another junior engineer, Luis, was in the same situation.

Also a code review. Also a long list of comments.

Luis had thought his implementation was elegant; now he was learning that “elegant” to him meant “confusing” to everyone else. His first reaction, too, was embarrassment. A brief surge of indignation. Did he even read the design doc?

But then Luis did something tiny and strange.

He took a breath.

He pinged his manager: “Could we do a quick call? I want to understand your thinking, especially around how you’d structure that main function.”

They hopped on Zoom. Luis listened. He asked why the team preferred this pattern over that one. He wrote down notes. At the end he said, “Okay, let me try rewriting it and I’ll send you a diff just for this section so you can see if I’m getting closer.”

Same kind of feedback. Same basic level of talent. Same manager. Very different trajectory.

Six months later, Maya was quietly miserable and thinking about applying elsewhere. Luis was doing peer reviews for new hires.

What changed their paths wasn’t IQ, or years of experience, or a secret GitHub stash of side projects.

It was something softer, more invisible, and much rarer:

How coachable they were willing to be when it mattered.

---

We love stories about talent and grit. About the natural genius who was “always that way,” or the relentless grinder who outworked everyone.

We talk less about what might be the most practical superpower in a chaotic, fast-changing world: the capacity to seek out, receive, and use feedback — especially when it stings.

Psychologists and management researchers have a word for this: coachability.

For a long time, it was a fuzzy compliment tossed around by sports coaches and hiring managers: “We’re looking for someone smart, driven, and coachable.”

But over the last few decades, researchers have started treating coachability as something you can actually study and measure. A 2025 systematic review in Sports Medicine looked across five decades of work in sport, business, and education and found a remarkably consistent pattern. Coachable people weren’t just compliant or eager-to-please; they showed six interlocking tendencies: they paid attention to information, were willing to learn, persisted through setbacks, sought out feedback, were receptive when they got it, and actually implemented it.(link.springer.com)

The authors proposed a simple, powerful definition that cuts through the hand-waving: coachability is an individual’s willingness and ability to seek, receive, and act on constructive feedback to foster self-development and enhance performance.(link.springer.com)

Look at that definition long enough and you realize something quietly radical:

Coachability is not something that happens to you. It’s something you do.

It’s not “I have a great mentor” or “my company invests in training.” It’s a stance toward reality. A set of habits about what you do when reality pushes back on your self-image.

It’s Luis raising his hand instead of stewing in silence. The young violinist who records every practice session and obsessively compares it to her teacher’s phrasing. The founder who spends more time asking customers what’s broken than pitching investors on what’s perfect. The nurse who double-checks a dosage even when she’s afraid of annoying the attending physician.

The world is whispering (and sometimes shouting) information about where we’re strong, where we’re weak, and where we’re just plain wrong. Some people treat that stream as noise, or as a threat. Others treat it as fuel.

Over years, that difference quietly compounds into what we call expertise, judgment, and wisdom.

And the uncomfortable truth is: you have more control over this compounding than you think.

---

If coachability is so powerful, why does nearly everyone flinch when they hear the words, “Can I give you some feedback?”

To understand that, it helps to zoom in on what, exactly, feedback threatens.

At one level, it’s obvious. Feedback can mean more work, more change, more friction. No one loves revising slides at 11 p.m. because a client saw something you missed.

But the deeper threat is to our story of who we are.

Carol Dweck’s popular work on fixed versus growth mindsets is often reduced to poster slogans, but one of her more quietly profound observations is about criticism: people with a fixed view of their abilities tend to experience criticism as an attack on their worth. Those who see abilities as developable are more likely to interpret it as information about their current performance rather than their core self.(psychologyfor.com)

You don’t need a psychology degree to see this play out. Watch two people get the same feedback:

“You lose people in the weeds when you present. You might want to simplify your slides.”

One hears, You’re not smart enough to explain this.

The other hears, Oh, my structure isn’t landing; I can experiment with a different way of telling this story.

Same sentence. Different self-story.

The trouble is, you can’t fix this just by telling yourself “I have a growth mindset now.” Large-scale studies of growth mindset interventions in schools — often short online modules teaching students that intelligence can be developed — find modest, context-dependent benefits. In a huge randomized trial of nearly 12,000 American ninth-graders, a one-time growth-mindset program improved grades mainly among lower-achieving students, and mostly in schools where the broader peer culture already supported learning.(hks.harvard.edu) It’s not magic fairy dust.

Believing that you can improve is a starting point. It doesn’t tell you how to sit in a conference room while someone calmly walks you through the ways you fell short.

That “how” lives in a messier intersection of identity, motivation, and habit.

One piece of that puzzle is what psychologists call goal orientation — roughly, whether you’re more focused on learning or proving yourself.

In a pair of classic studies in the 1990s, Don VandeWalle and Larry Cummings found that people with a learning goal orientation — those primarily interested in developing competence — were significantly more likely to seek out feedback from their managers, while those with a performance goal orientation — focused on demonstrating competence — were less likely to do so. The difference was mediated by how they weighed the perceived value versus cost of asking for feedback.(pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

If you see the world as a never-ending exam, feedback is expensive. It risks revealing you’re not as far along as others think. Better not to ask.

If you see the world as a lab, feedback is cheap. It’s data. It may sting, but not asking is even more dangerous. You’re flying blind.

Those orientations aren’t immutable traits; they’re habits of interpretation, reinforced by culture. But they matter more than we like to admit.

Research on “feedback orientation” — a trait-like tendency to view feedback as useful, welcome, and worth seeking — finds that people who score high on it tend to perform better at work, are more satisfied in their jobs, and seek out more feedback over time. In a 2023 meta-analysis, feedback orientation was one of the strongest predictors of job performance, even when controlling for other common individual differences.(sciencedirect.com)

In other words: however much raw talent you bring to the table, having your psychological doors propped open to criticism changes your trajectory.

Not because feedback is always right. It often isn’t. But because a life spent hiding from input is a life of slow, preventable stagnation.

---

Beneath all this is something even more basic, humming along in the neural machinery.

When neuroscientists talk about how animals (including us) learn from experience, they often talk about prediction errors. If you expect one thing and get another, your brain registers a kind of “error signal” that says, roughly: Update your model of the world.

A famous line of work has shown that brief bursts of activity in midbrain dopamine neurons — especially when rewards are unexpectedly better or worse than predicted — act as these error signals, driving learning about which cues in the environment actually matter. When researchers artificially triggered those dopamine bursts in rats at just the right moments, they were enough to create durable new cue-reward associations; when they dampened them, learning stalled.(pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

You can think of feedback as a social version of this. Someone tells you, “The way you handled that client demo lost us the room.” Your internal model (“I’m decent at presenting”) suddenly no longer predicts the data in front of you. That mismatch hurts — emotionally and sometimes physically. But it’s also a chance for your nervous system to rewire: Oh. Maybe I over-explain. Maybe I don’t read the room as well as I thought. Maybe I lean too hard on slides.

There is no serious learning without prediction errors. If everything always turns out as you expect, you’re not really stretching.

The question is not whether those error signals will show up. Life takes care of that. The question is whether you build your identity around avoiding them, or around using them.

That’s what coachability really is: a commitment to keeping the prediction-error channel open, even when every fiber of your ego wants to shut it down.

---

Watch someone who is deeply coachable and you’ll notice they move through the world differently.

A 2025 review of coachability research synthesized dozens of studies into six recurring components: attentiveness to information, willingness to learn, persistence in overcoming setbacks, feedback seeking, feedback receptivity, and feedback implementation.(link.springer.com) At first glance, this might look like one of those six-part frameworks consultants love to draw on PowerPoint.

But if you translate those sterile phrases into lived behavior, a more vivid picture emerges.

Start with attentiveness.

Truly coachable people are strangely alert to information that might refine their understanding, especially information that suggests they’ve been wrong.

In a meeting, while others are half-listening and half-composing their next point, they’re scanning: Where did the room go quiet? What did that side glance mean? Why did her tone shift when I said that?

On the tennis court, they’re not just whacking balls — they’re watching the ball’s spin off the coach’s racket, noticing exactly how it feels to keep their wrist looser, paying attention to whether the last instruction made the shot land closer to the baseline or farther away.

They’re easy to spot in classrooms: they’re still taking notes when the lecture turns from examinable content to offhand side comments like, “Most people trip on this subtle thing…”

Attentiveness sounds simple, but under pressure, most of us abandon it. Our attention collapses inward. We narrate, justify, plan our defense.

The coachable move is the opposite: a small, counterintuitive leaning outward. In the moment Maya’s manager said, “This function is doing three things at once,” her brain started drafting a rebuttal: Yes, but the requirements changed two days ago. Luis had the same impulse — of course he did — but he made space for a second one: What, exactly, are the three things he’s seeing?

That pivot from internal monologue to external curiosity is a micro-skill. It can be trained. One practical way: in your next feedback conversation, force yourself to ask at least two clarifying questions before you explain or defend anything. Not “But don’t you think…?” questions. Curiosity questions. “Can you say more about where you started to feel lost?” “What did you expect to see instead?”

You’re not agreeing yet. You’re just staying in contact with the information long enough for it to actually land.

---

Beneath attentiveness is willingness to learn — which sounds like a platitude until you look at how unevenly it shows up in real life.

In many organizations, “eager to learn” is code for “takes lots of trainings.” But true willingness to learn has sharper edges. It means being prepared to revise your map of yourself.

That’s why so many otherwise high-performing people quietly resist it.

Researchers who study feedback orientation break it down into subcomponents: how useful you believe feedback is, how responsible you feel for using it, how much social risk you think it carries, and how confident you are that you can handle it. People who score high don’t just say, in the abstract, that feedback is “important.” They have accumulated actual experiences of using feedback to get better, and those memories make it feel worth the discomfort.(econbiz.de)

They also draw their identity from being learners rather than knowers.

That might sound like semantics, but it changes how you move through the world.

If your self-worth hinges on being seen as already competent, every piece of feedback is a threat. If your self-worth hinges on being someone who can grow, every piece of feedback is, at least in theory, a resource.

This is one of the reasons you often see top performers — athletes, artists, executives — maintain a kind of disciplined humility even after decades of success. They’re not humble because they underestimate themselves. They’re humble because their entire career has been built on a cycle of try, get critique, adjust, repeat. They’ve experienced enough long-term gains from being corrigible that it becomes part of who they are.

Jake Weiss and Maureen Merrigan, who have spent the last few years formalizing the idea of “employee coachability” in management science, argue that we should pay as much attention to this willingness-to-be-coached as we do to the quality of coaching itself. In a 2021 study of employees across organizations, they found that three behaviors — proactively seeking feedback, being receptive to it, and implementing it — predicted job performance, adaptability, and promotability even more strongly than measures of how effective their managers’ coaching behaviors were.(scribd.com)

In other words: even great coaching bounces off a closed door. A truly open door amplifies even mediocre coaching.

That’s uncomfortable news if your story about your career is, “No one has invested in me.” It might still be true; many organizations are lousy at developing people. But at some point, you have to turn the spotlight around and ask a harder question: Am I actually giving the world anything to work with?

---

Then there’s persistence in overcoming setbacks — the least glamorous, most essential part of coachability.

Anyone can nod thoughtfully the first time they get constructive criticism. The real test is what happens on the fourth or fourteenth iteration of the same conversation.

This is where the literature on deliberate practice becomes relevant. K. Anders Ericsson and colleagues spent decades studying how experts in fields like music, chess, and sports train. Their core claim — later poked and prodded and partially contested, as all good scientific claims are — was that world-class performance is less about innate talent and more about prolonged, structured, feedback-rich practice focused on weaknesses.(researchgate.net)

In their original violin studies, even among students at elite conservative academies, the best performers had quietly accumulated thousands more hours of solitary, teacher-guided practice than their less accomplished peers. Later replications found that deliberate practice, while not explaining everything, still accounted for a substantial (if smaller than originally claimed) chunk of the variation in performance.(pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Strip away the arguments about exactly how many hours and you’re left with a simple pattern: people who get really good at hard things spend an absurd amount of time being gently — and sometimes not so gently — told where they’re falling short, and then trying again.

Deliberate practice is coachability made concrete.

Think about what it takes to sit in a practice room, playing the same passage badly on purpose because that’s where your teacher circled the difficulty. To keep asking, What, exactly, do I need to change in my bow hand? rather than, Can we please move on to the fun part?

You won’t always have a literal teacher. But you can import that stance into almost anything: sales calls, therapy sessions, board meetings, parenting. You pick one aspect of your performance to focus on, you solicit specific feedback on that aspect, you try again. Then again.

Coachability is what allows you to stay in that loop long enough for your brain and behavior to reorganize, rather than flinching back into familiar patterns after the first uncomfortable jolt.

---

So far, we’ve talked mostly about what happens when feedback comes to you.

But highly coachable people don’t just wait for critique to arrive. They have a steady, sometimes startling habit of going out to get it.

The research term here is feedback-seeking behavior.

For the last 30-plus years, organizational psychologists have been asking: who asks for feedback, from whom, how often, and what happens when they do?

Frederik Anseel and colleagues synthesized this entire line of research in a large 2015 meta-analysis. They found that people who proactively seek feedback from supervisors and peers tend to be younger, newer to their roles, and higher in learning goal orientation and self-esteem. They’re also more likely to have transformational leaders and high-quality relationships at work. Crucially, feedback seeking was positively related — albeit modestly — to performance and adjustment over time.(smusg.elsevierpure.com)

In plain English: people who go ask, “How am I doing?” instead of guessing, do better.

The courage to ask is not evenly distributed. If you’re from a group that’s already under more scrutiny — women in male-dominated fields, junior employees in hierarchical cultures, anyone who’s been burned by biased or abusive criticism — the cost side of the equation looms larger. You’re not imagining that risk.

This is why coachability is not about becoming a doormat.

It’s about turning feedback from a passive, occasional ambush into an active, intentional part of how you operate, with as much control as you can feasibly get over the who, when, and how.

There’s a world of difference between “My manager surprised me with a laundry list of complaints in my annual review” and “Every month, I ask three colleagues, ‘What’s one thing I did last month that made your life harder?’ and ‘What’s one thing I did that really helped?’”

The former is roulette. The latter is a primitive but powerful feedback system.

And remember that Sports Medicine review: feedback seeking was one of the core components of coachability that stayed stable across sport, business, and education.(link.springer.com) It’s not a soft extra. It’s structural.

---

Of course, it’s one thing to seek feedback. It’s another to actually take it in.

Christopher Waples’ work on feedback receptivity gives a useful window into why this is so uneven. In his dissertation, he examined how the sign of feedback (positive or negative), its specificity, and people’s goal orientations interacted to shape how willing they were to accept and use it.(krex.k-state.edu)

For people with a strong performance orientation, specific positive feedback (“Here’s something you did well, concretely”) produced high receptivity. It confirmed their desired self-image. Specific negative feedback, on the other hand, triggered the strongest resistance.

For those with a mastery (learning) orientation, specificity was almost uniformly good: detailed feedback, whether positive or negative, was associated with high receptivity. It was all grist for the mill.

You can probably feel this difference in yourself. When someone says, “You’re great,” it’s nice but not particularly actionable. When they say, “You handled that skeptical question in the client meeting beautifully by pausing, acknowledging the concern, and then reframing it as a shared problem,” you have something to build on.

Likewise on the negative side. “You’re bad at communicating” is a character assassination. “When you send agenda emails five minutes before the meeting, I feel unprepared and frustrated” is painful but much easier to work with.

Coachable people are not those who enjoy hearing they’ve screwed up. They’re those who, in the moment after that first inner “Ouch,” can lean toward specificity.

They ask, “Can you give me an example?” They resist the urge to litigate the delivery until they’ve extracted the pattern.

This doesn’t mean swallowing abuse. Some feedback is weaponized, biased, or lazy. A crucial part of coachability is developing a strong filter. But the filter should operate after you’ve understood the content, not before you’ve allowed yourself to hear it.

Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen, who have spent decades teaching negotiation and conflict resolution at Harvard, argue that most of us are over-indexed on learning to give feedback and under-trained in how to receive it. Their book Thanks for the Feedback calls receiving feedback “the leadership skill of the twenty-first century” and offers a framework for working with three common “triggers” — truth, relationship, and identity — that make us shut down.(microsoft.com)

What their work makes clear is something simple and liberating: you don’t have to agree with feedback to learn from it. You only have to get curious about why it landed the way it did.

---

And then, finally, there is feedback implementation — the part we all claim to do and almost no one does reliably.

If attentiveness, willingness, persistence, seeking, and receptivity are the mental and emotional scaffolding of coachability, implementation is the part where you actually change something in your behavior.

In Weiss and Merrigan’s study, this was one of the three core behaviors that defined employee coachability: not just seeking and listening, but consciously trying to apply constructive feedback in future work. Employees who scored higher on this triad of seeking, receptivity, and implementation were rated higher in adaptability and promotability even when you accounted for how good their managers were at coaching.(scribd.com)

Implementation is easy to fake at the level of language. “That’s really helpful; I’ll definitely keep that in mind” might mean, “I will change,” or it might mean, “This conversation is now over.” The only reliable test is: Did your behavior look different the next time a similar situation came up?

One of the more intriguing recent findings in the learning sciences comes from a study on large language model–generated feedback (yes, the irony is not lost on me). Researchers compared three groups of people going through online scenario-based training: some got only minimal corrective feedback; some were offered optional, on-demand explanatory feedback generated by an AI model; some declined that optional feedback. After carefully adjusting for initial differences, they found that when learners chose to access and use the richer feedback, their performance improved noticeably on some lessons, without taking extra time. When they ignored it, the fancy AI made no difference.(arxiv.org)

The bottleneck wasn’t access to feedback. It was the decision to engage with it and experiment.

That’s coachability in a nutshell.

The good news is that implementation doesn’t require dramatic reinvention. In fact, trying to overhaul your personality based on every passing comment is a recipe for burnout and inauthenticity.

What works is much more modest: picking one specific behavior at a time, designing a tiny experiment, and then checking the results.

Your manager says, “You bury the lead in emails.” Okay. For the next week, you can try writing the conclusion in the first sentence of every important email: “Short version: I recommend we delay the launch by two weeks.” Then you notice: do people respond faster? Do they ask fewer confused follow-ups?

Your partner says, “When I vent, you immediately go into problem-solving and I feel unheard.” For the next three conversations, you can try mirroring back what they said before offering any solutions. Then you watch: does the tension go down? Do they report feeling more understood?

If you’re not sure whether you’ve actually implemented anything, try this litmus test: could a third party — someone watching you on mute — see a difference?

If not, you probably haven’t crossed the bridge from insight to practice.

---

So far, this has all been about the individual.

But there’s a reason some environments seem to produce coachable people like mushrooms after rain, while others turn even keen learners into guarded cynics.

That reason is psychological safety — the shared belief in a team that it’s safe to take interpersonal risks: to admit mistakes, ask questions, and offer half-baked ideas without being punished or humiliated.

Amy Edmondson’s seminal 1999 study of work teams in a manufacturing company put this concept on the map. She found that teams with higher psychological safety reported more learning behaviors — speaking up about errors, asking for help, seeking feedback — and, as a result, performed better. Interestingly, simply having high “team efficacy” (shared confidence in the team’s abilities) didn’t predict learning once you accounted for safety.(dash.harvard.edu)

A later meta-analysis of over 22,000 individuals and nearly 5,000 groups across 136 samples reinforced this: psychological safety was robustly associated with better task performance, creativity, and citizenship behaviors, even when controlling for factors like positive leader relations and work engagement.(digitalcommons.odu.edu)

Safety is not about being nice. It’s about making it possible for coachability to show up.

Edmondson’s TEDx talk “Building a psychologically safe workplace” opens with three sobering vignettes: a nurse who notices a dosage that seems too high but decides not to page the doctor because of his previous disparaging comments; a young pilot who spots a senior officer’s mistake but says nothing; a newly hired executive who has grave reservations about an acquisition but feels too much like an outsider to speak up.(amara.org)

These are failures of coachability at the organizational level — not because the individuals were weak or stupid, but because the social cost of surfacing their concerns felt catastrophic.

In cultures like that, telling people to “be more coachable” borders on cruel. It’s like telling a soldier to “be more vulnerable” in a minefield.

If you’re in any kind of leadership role, this is where your responsibility kicks in. You cannot demand coachability from others while punishing it in practice.

The simplest diagnostic I know comes from Edmondson: if you’re not hearing bad news, be worried. People either believe you can’t handle it, or that they can’t handle the consequences of telling you.

Creating an environment where people can be coached — and coach you — doesn’t require beanbags or off-sites. It starts with how you respond the first time someone points out your blind spot.

If your direct report tells you, “I felt dismissed in that meeting when you laughed at my suggestion,” and you rush to explain yourself, minimize, or retaliate, you have just trained them (and everyone watching) that coachability is unsafe here.

If instead you say, “Ouch. Okay, say more — I clearly missed how that landed,” and you actually change something the next time, you’ve opened a door.

It’s not about being endlessly self-flagellating. It’s about modeling what you claim to value.

---

There’s a shadow side to all this talk of coachability that’s important to name.

In some organizations, especially those with sharp power imbalances, “being coachable” becomes code for “never challenging authority” or “quietly absorbing unfair treatment.” Feedback is framed as a benevolent gift when it’s really a blunt instrument enforcing conformity.

Marginalized employees, in particular, often get flooded with feedback that’s less about their performance and more about other people’s discomfort with their existence: their tone, their hair, their ambition. Being endlessly receptive to that kind of “coaching” is not virtuous. It’s corrosive.

So let’s be clear: coachability is not about believing every piece of feedback. It’s about being able to hear any piece of feedback without losing the ability to think.

The filter still matters. It just comes after curiosity, not before.

One pragmatic way to filter is to ask three questions:

• Does this person see me in enough contexts to have a real sample of my behavior?
• Do they have expertise or perspective I don’t?
• Do they have my long-term interests even somewhat at heart?

If the answer is “no” to all three, their feedback might still contain data (even enemies sometimes point out real flaws), but you should weight it lightly.

If the answer is “yes” to at least one, it’s usually worth more careful attention — even if you ultimately disagree.

Great jazz musicians are a useful metaphor here. They absorb an enormous range of influences — dozens of players’ styles, harmonic vocabularies, rhythmic feels. They listen obsessively to criticism from bandleaders, audiences, their own recordings. But they don’t become shapeless. They filter, season, recombine.

Coachability is jazz, not karaoke. You’re not giving away authorship of your life. You’re becoming more sophisticated in the material you draw from.

---

At this point, you might reasonably ask: Okay, but what am I supposed to do with all this tomorrow morning?

The temptation here is to serve up a neat list: “Five Steps to Becoming Ultra-Coachable.” That would miss the spirit of the thing.

Coachability is not a checklist; it’s an orientation you reinforce through small, repeated choices at the edges of your comfort zone.

Still, it can help to have a few concrete experiments to run — not as commandments, but as invitations.

You could start as small as rewriting the script in your head the next time someone says, “Can I give you some feedback?” Instead of defaulting to, Here we go, what did I mess up this time?, you can try, Okay, this is going to trigger my defenses. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. What’s the 5% here that might be useful?

You could, sometime this week, ask one person you trust a question that makes you slightly nauseous, like: “What’s something I do regularly that makes your life harder?” And then, crucially, resist the urge to explain it away. Just say, “Thank you. Let me think about that,” and follow up later with what, if anything, you experimented with.

If you lead others, you might open your next team meeting with a simple admission and an invitation: “I’m trying to get better at hearing bad news and hard feedback without getting defensive. If you see me reacting poorly, will you tell me? I promise to treat that as a favor, not a betrayal.”

Then pay attention to whether anyone takes you up on it. If not, that’s feedback too.

You might look at a domain in your life where you’ve been plateaued for a while — your writing, your relationships, your public speaking — and ask a blunt, uncomfortable question: When was the last time I asked for detailed critique from someone good at this? When was the last time I recorded myself, watched it back, and took notes like a coach would?

If the answer is “longer ago than I’d like to admit,” that’s not a moral failing. It’s an opportunity.

None of these moves require you to adopt a new identity all at once. They’re just tiny reps in the gym of staying open.

The point is not to become a person who likes being wrong. It’s to become a person who is less enslaved by the fear of being wrong.

Because here’s the quiet paradox at the heart of coachability:

The more willing you are to see your current self accurately — flaws, blind spots, and all — the less those flaws actually define your future.

The people who cling hardest to being seen as competent now often end up trapped at their current level. The ones who are oddly relaxed about being a work-in-progress, who solicit and metabolize critique as a matter of habit, tend to grow into the kind of competence they once felt they had to fake.

Luis, the junior engineer from our opening scene, didn’t become a staff engineer overnight because he was nice about code reviews. He became the kind of person his manager could trust with bigger challenges because, over and over, he demonstrated that when reality gave him information — from a bug report, a customer complaint, a teammate’s offhand comment — he would not waste it.

He sought, received, reflected, and acted.

Maya eventually found a better-fitting team and, after a painful but honest conversation with a mentor, realized that she had been treating every critique as a test of whether she deserved to be in the room. Once she shifted to treating her job more like a craft than a referendum on her worth, feedback went from being a spotlight of shame to something closer to stage lighting: harsh sometimes, flattering other times, but fundamentally in service of making the performance clearer.

Both of them were always smart. The question, for each, became: How much more of that smartness am I willing to let the world shape?

That’s the question in front of you, too.

You may never be the tallest person at the table, or the one with the fanciest degree, or the one who writes symphonies in their sleep.

But you can, starting now, decide to be the person who learns fastest from whatever happens next.

In a volatile world, that might be the closest thing we have to a real unfair advantage.