The Art of Being Coachable
Read Time: 10 minutes
Author: Jamie Scott
Why Wanting Results Isn't Enough
There's a peculiar paradox in the coaching world: the people who most desperately want coaching are sometimes the least ready for it.
They'll pay premium fees, express genuine motivation for change, and articulate perfectly reasonable goals. Yet within weeks, the relationship becomes a cycle of crisis management and frustration that benefits no one.
If you've ever wondered why some people achieve remarkable transformations through coaching while others seem to struggle despite having access to the same expertise, the answer usually lies not so much in the quality of guidance they receive (though that can certainly be a factor), but in their readiness to engage with the coaching process.
Wanting results and being coachable can be two entirely different things.
What Coachability Actually Looks Like
True coachability isn't about being compliant or never struggling with recommendations. Instead, coachable clients demonstrate several key characteristics that create the conditions for genuine progress.
They distinguish between explanation and excuse-making. Everyone encounters obstacles—work stress, family demands, unexpected challenges. Coachable clients present these as problems to be solved rather than reasons why change is impossible. They might say, "I struggled with meal prep this week because of work deadlines—what strategies can I put in place for busy periods?" rather than "I can't meal prep because work is too demanding."
They take ownership of outcomes. When progress stalls or setbacks occur, coachable clients look first at their own behaviour rather than external factors. They understand they are the primary agent of change in their own lives. This doesn't mean they should blame themselves for everything, - far from it. But they recognise their role in both successes and struggles.
They embrace experimentation over perfectionism. Rather than needing to understand every detail before taking action, coachable clients are willing to try approaches even when skeptical. They understand that progress comes through doing, not endless analysis (and subsequent paralysis). When something doesn't work perfectly, they see it as useful information rather than failure.
They maintain appropriate boundaries. Perhaps most importantly, coachable clients understand the difference between coaching support and emotional therapy. They can discuss challenges without turning every interaction into a crisis that requires immediate emotional rescue.
Common Patterns That Hinder Progress
While everyone faces challenges in making changes (coaches included), certain patterns can make the coaching process ineffective. Recognising these patterns—in yourself or others—helps determine whether someone is ready for coaching or might benefit from addressing other areas first.
The Evolving Excuse Pattern
Some people demonstrate what might be called "excuse evolution"—when one barrier is addressed, a new one immediately emerges. This might begin with practical concerns: limited time, budget constraints, or logistical challenges. When solutions are provided for these issues, new barriers immediately surface: confusion between systems, social pressures, or scheduling conflicts. Eventually, the explanations may evolve to more complex frameworks.
A particularly draining variation involves clients presenting ideas and opinions from social media (or AI) - whether from qualified experts or influencers - as sources of "confusion" that prevent them from following recommendations. While coaches are open to discussing legitimate questions about their approach, this often becomes a distraction tactic that forces the coach into lengthy explanations about why random internet opinions don't apply to the client's specific situation.
This creates what's known as Brandolini's law: the amount of energy needed to refute misinformation is an order of magnitude greater than that needed to produce it. Coaches can quickly find themselves spending more time debunking irrelevant content than focusing on actual behaviour change.
The key distinction is between collaborative problem-solving and persistent justification for inaction.
The Knowledge-Implementation Gap
One particularly challenging pattern involves people who claim extensive knowledge of a topic while demonstrating poor outcomes. Someone might state "I know all about nutrition" (it is very common to hear this), while simultaneously rating their eating habits as poor, and not displaying any of the skills that are consistent with application of knowledge in a given domain. Or they respond to guidance with "I know that" while consistently not applying the information.
This often reflects overconfidence in areas where competence is lacking—a version of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Professional backgrounds in teaching or helping roles (such as nursing) can sometimes make this pattern more pronounced, as these individuals may find it difficult to shift from being the expert to being the student.
Easy access to Artificial Intelligence makes this implementation gap worse. People use these tools diagnostically, and are more likely to ask “what” questions rather than “how” questions.
Data as Distraction
The proliferation of wearables, continuous glucose monitors, genetic panels, hormone testing, and direct-to-consumer health diagnostics has created a new pattern: the client who is always one test away from unlocking the answer.
On the surface, this looks like genuine engagement. But there is often a function beneath it: if the answer lies in the next test result, the client does not yet need to commit to the uncomfortable behavioural changes their coach is recommending. The search for the perfect data point becomes a sophisticated form of procrastination.
This is especially visible when every data point collected confirms the same conclusion the coach has already come to (for example, that the client needs to eat more), yet the client continues testing in the hope that something will emerge which justifies the approach they are more comfortable with. When every result tells the same story and the response is to order another test, the testing itself has become the avoidance behaviour.
A useful self-check: if you find yourself thinking "I just need to see what this test shows before I commit to the plan," ask yourself honestly whether any result would actually change what your coach is recommending. If the answer is no, the test is serving a psychological function, not a clinical one.
There is also the issue of overwhelm. Every new data stream creates noise. When a client is simultaneously running multiple monitors, trackers, and panels, the signal-to-noise ratio drops, and the coach's time is consumed by data analysis and synthesis rather than the behaviour change work that actually produces results. If your coach tells you the data you already have is sufficient and the priority is implementation, that is worth listening to.
Information Withholding
This is not the same as forgetting to mention something trivial. It refers to situations where a client is actively doing things that influence the outcomes their coach is analysing, but does not disclose these actions. For example, a client might be taking supplements, following dietary strategies, or engaging in habits specifically designed to influence the metrics they are sharing with their coach, without ever mentioning them. When the coach builds an analysis on the data provided, the conclusions may be sound based on the available information but wrong in practice because of the undisclosed variable.
Sometimes this is unintentional. The client may not realise that a particular habit is relevant, or may consider it so routine that it does not occur to them to mention it. But sometimes the withholding is more deliberate, even if not consciously so. Clients who are running their own parallel protocol alongside their coach's programme may not disclose the parallel work because they sense it conflicts with what the coach is recommending, or because they want to maintain a sense of control over part of the process.
Whatever the reason, the effect is the same: the coach is working with incomplete information, and the quality of their guidance is compromised as a result.
The practical implication is straightforward. Your coach can only work with what you give them. If you are doing things that affect the data you are sharing, whether that is taking supplements, following additional dietary protocols, or engaging in practices specifically designed to influence health metrics, your coach needs to know. Not because they will necessarily ask you to stop, but because it changes the interpretation of the data and may change the recommendations that follow.
If you find yourself hesitant to disclose something to your coach, it is worth asking why. The hesitation itself is usually informative.
Crisis Creation and Boundary Confusion
Some people consistently turn coaching challenges into emotional crises that redirect the coaches focus from helping with behaviour change to providing emotional support. This might involve an individual making decisions about their programme without consultation with their coach, then presenting the results of this decision in ways that create drama. Or by repeatedly crossing communication boundaries (which can be both under and over communicating) while positioning these violations as evidence of their need for support, or perhaps as evidence of the coach not providing enough support.
While coaches naturally provide some emotional support as part of helping clients navigate change, when every interaction becomes about managing emotional crises rather than building practical skills, coaching becomes ineffective. Clients who find themselves in constant emotional distress about their health journey may benefit from working with a qualified therapist or counsellor alongside or before engaging in health coaching.
Solution Resistance
Perhaps the most challenging pattern involves individuals wanting outcomes without being prepared to make corresponding lifestyle adjustments. This might look like expecting “the process” to magically happen on the back of receiving a plan without the clients investing the time in setting up systems, demanding flexibility in their plan while being unwilling to modify any life areas, or seeking strategies that require no schedule adjustments, skill development, or habit changes - effectively expecting a specific outcome based on almost no change in what they currently do.
This reflects magical thinking about how change actually happens.
A particularly difficult version of this emerges when the change a coach recommends directly contradicts a client's identity. Someone who has spent years or decades associating discipline with restriction and eating less will experience a recommendation to eat more not as guidance, but as a threat to who they are. The same applies when the recommendation is to train less. For someone whose self-worth is partly defined by training intensity, scaling back can feel like becoming a lesser version of themselves, even when the data clearly shows their current approach is causing harm.
In these situations, the client may intellectually accept the recommendation while behaviourally resisting it. What follows is often a cycle of partial compliance and gradual redirection of focus toward symptoms (body composition, aesthetics, performance metrics) rather than the underlying cause (inadequate recovery, insufficient fuelling, excessive stress).
When a coach's recommendation conflicts with something fundamental about how you see yourself, pay attention to that tension. The discomfort you feel is not evidence that the recommendation is wrong. It may be evidence that it has found the exact thing that needs to change.
How You Respond to Feedback
When your coach provides a report, a plan, or feedback that you disagree with or do not fully understand, the way you respond is one of the clearest indicators of coachability.
There are two fundamentally different responses, and they lead to very different outcomes.
The first is clarification-seeking. This sounds like: "I'm not sure I understand the connection you're making between X and Y — can you walk me through that?" or "This doesn't match my experience of Z — what am I missing?" Clarification-seeking is collaborative. It assumes the coach may have a perspective or insight the client has not considered, and it invites explanation. It keeps the conversation open and productive.
The second is defensive correction or dismissal. This sounds like: "That's not correct — the real reason is..." or "You've got this wrong because..." or “That doesn’t apply to me because…”. Defensive correction/dismissal is adversarial. It assumes the client's interpretation is right and the coach's is wrong, and it closes the conversation down. It puts the coach in the position of having to defend their analysis rather than refining it collaboratively.
The distinction is subtle but significant, especially in written communication where tone is easily lost. A message that reads as a factual correction to the sender can land as a dismissal to the receiver. When a coach has invested significant time in analysing your data and preparing recommendations, a response that immediately seeks to correct and/or dismiss rather than understand can be deeply demoralising, even if that was not the sender's intent.
A useful self-check before responding to coaching feedback: am I about to explain why the coach is wrong, or am I about to ask a question that helps me understand their reasoning? If it is the former, consider whether you have fully engaged with the material first. Skimming a detailed report and reacting to the parts that challenge you is not the same as reading it thoroughly and then raising genuine points of disagreement.
Your coach will not always be right. But the way you engage with their work when you think they are wrong determines whether the relationship produces growth or friction.
The Environmental Factor
Sometimes the issue isn't lack of coachability but environmental challenges that make change extremely difficult for an individual. Consider someone whose partner routinely criticises their food choices, or someone surrounded by social and cultural messages that prioritise appearance over health.
The key distinction is whether people can acknowledge these environmental challenges and work to address them (which can require some very difficult decisions at times), or whether they use them as permanent barriers to action. Coachable clients in difficult environments seek solutions: setting boundaries with unsupportive family and friends, finding alternative social support systems, or addressing poor relationship dynamics directly.
The Readiness Factor
True readiness for coaching requires the ability to implement basic recommendations consistently—not perfectly, but definitely consistently.
It's about engaging with the process of behaviour change rather than fighting it.
Readiness also means having the psychological resources for ongoing communication and feedback. People who are genuinely overwhelmed by life circumstances may desperately want the outcomes which can result from good coaching support but lack the bandwidth for the process and relationship involved with that support.
This isn't a character flaw—sometimes life circumstances genuinely preclude the sustained attention that effective coaching requires.
Red Flags Worth Recognising
Certain early patterns can indicate coachability challenges:
Extensive excuse-making that evolves when practical barriers to change are addressed
Claiming knowledge while simultaneously not applying it
Perfect readiness to change scores but with no recent change attempts
Boundary violations around communication and professional limits
Wanting outcomes while being unwilling to modify factors which will contribute to those outcomes
Defensive responses when presented with challenging feedback
Collecting extensive data and testing while resisting the conclusions that data supports
Withholding information about parallel protocols, supplements, or habits that affect the data being shared with your coach
Framing the coach's boundaries or emotional responses as the coach's problem to manage rather than reflecting on the behaviour that might have prompted them
These aren't permanent character flaws—they're indicators that someone may need to address other areas before coaching becomes effective.
The Coach's Role in Supporting Coachability
Good coaches help develop coachability by setting clear expectations, providing education about the change process, and addressing unproductive patterns when they emerge. Sometimes the most valuable thing a coach can do is pause a relationship when fundamental requirements cannot be met, allowing clients to address underlying barriers before resuming coaching.
This collaborative approach recognises that coaching works best when both parties understand their roles and responsibilities.
Making an Honest Assessment
Many coaches will use some version of a Ready, Willing, and Able framework to assess coachability. This typically involves rating yourself on a scale of 1-10 across three dimensions:
Ready: How prepared are you mentally and emotionally for the change process? This isn't just wanting results—it's about being psychologically prepared for the inherent ups and downs of actual behaviour change.
Willing: How committed are you to doing what it takes, even when it's inconvenient, uncomfortable, or challenges your existing beliefs? This includes willingness to modify your schedule, habits, and approach based on professional guidance.
Able: Do you have the practical resources—time, energy, support systems, and life stability—to engage consistently with the coaching process?
The threshold for successful coaching is typically around 8 out of 10 across all three of these domains.
However, people who desperately want coaching often overstate their scores, rating themselves as perfectly ready when they haven't attempted significant changes recently, or claiming complete willingness to change but then being unwilling to modify any aspect of their current lifestyle when challenged to do so by their coach.
The key here is brutal honesty with yourself: Are you rating based on how much you want results, or based on your actual demonstrated capacity for making sustained behaviour change?
Coachability isn't a fixed trait—it's a skill (or rather a suite of skills), and like all skills, they can be learned and developed over time. Some people arrive ready to engage fully with the coaching process and a more direct path to the outcomes they want, while others will need to take a more indirect path, and develop these skills through experience (read as: trial and error) and self-awareness.
The most successful coaching relationships happen when clients understand that sustainable change requires engaging with discomfort, adapting approaches based on feedback, and taking genuine ownership of their transformation process.
The difference between people who use coaching to create lasting transformation and those who cycle through multiple coaches without significant change often lies in their approach to the process itself. Understanding that wanting results isn't enough—you must also be willing to engage with the sometimes uncomfortable process that creates those results—is the first step toward making coaching work effectively.
True coaching isn't about having someone fix you—it's about learning to change yourself with expert guidance. Your readiness to engage with that process determines everything that follows.
