Coachability vs Conviction
While the notion of being “coachable” has emerged as among the most sough-after traits in founders, there is such a thing as being “too coachable” and it may explain why some leaders feel lost when faced with feedback.
A clever solution to a vexing problem.
A capable team with something to prove.
A massive opportunity in an underserved market.
Yet when the moment comes for investors, advisors and even new employees to commit to this promising venture, each of them decides to pass. What gives?
As a coach and advisor to a broad cross-section of entrepreneurs I’ve witnessed an interesting trend which I believe is doing a disservice to founders, investors and the innovation ecosystem. When startup accelerators recruit new companies and investors consider which founders to back, one particular attribute has emerged as being of paramount importance: Coachability.
Coachability refers to a founder’s capacity to thoughtfully consider and incorporate feedback. Given its status as one of the most sought-after attributes among teams and individuals, there is considerable pressure on a founder to be perceived as coachable, which can often cause them to indulge potentially uninformed ideas, often at the expense of their limited bandwidth.
Despite occasional headwinds, venture capital remains at historically high leIn historical terms, venture capital Despite a recent dip, venture capital has risen to record levels. As a result, investors possess tremendous influence not only over which innovations receive critical funding, but also on the future of leadership, as their opinions regarding what makes a good leader reverberate among startup founders.
In recent years, there has been a noticeable shift in terms of the key attributes of great leaders. While the stereotype of a founder as a hard-driving genius, as embodied by individuals like Apple’s Steve Jobs and now Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, we have also seen attributes like courage, resilience and compassion emerge as desirable traits, particularly among the latest crop of young talent graduating from universities. As a result, it would seem that the notion of being coachable, with its emphasis on openness and affability, would fit it neatly with current trends, however, I think we need to be more thoughtful in testing this generalization.
While it’s true that being coachable enables you to discover blind spots and leverage the wisdom and experiences of others, I believe a strong sense of conviction in one’s beliefs and the ability to stay the course is equally critical in order to succeed.
When you’re building something truly novel, you’re seeking to make a persuasive case for a world that doesn’t exist yet; a world many cannot understand, nor imagine. This implies that a lot of people won’t “get it” or that it might rub up against a worldview that currently serves them quite well. If a founder bends too often to the criticisms of those who don’t understand their vision they risk drifting away from their path, ending up lost amid a flurry of opinions. While insightful advice and challenging questions can be instrumental in refining one’s idea and approach, it must be filtered through a founder’s own lens based on domain expertise and their own data set.
As a result, I view Coachability along a spectrum: from being overly coachable to demonstrating total conviction. When I consider getting involved with a founding team in some capacity, whether as a coach, investor or an advisor, I seek to locate them on the spectrum and determine whether they have the curiosity and temerity to move along it.
Gender tends to play a role in terms of the polarities along the spectrum from coachability to conviction. In my experience, female founders tend to be eminently coachable, making them open to feedback and eager to try new ideas. At the same time, however, this openness can leave them struggling to select a path to follow and execute against. Conversely, male founders tend to be less open to feedback, choosing to forego valuable advice and investment dollars in favor of trusting their gut and doing things their own way. For many of them, this ability to forge their own path is the primary reason they decided to launch a company in the first place, and some of them come to see their commitment to their vision as a badge of honor.
I believe the ideal founder possesses a balance between these two attributes: coachability and conviction, and I would likely err on the side of sticking to your guns more often than you listen to others. In addition, it’s important that founders weigh the advice they’re given against the data they already have. Many of them decided to take a leap of faith on an idea because they possess specific insights and expertise they could not dismiss. As a result, relevant feedback should serve to illuminate the areas where they do not have sufficient data to proceed with confidence, whether that relates to their team, product, market, or any number of the key areas that must be mastered in order to bring an idea to fruition.
One final factor worth considering when weighing the value of advice is: skin in the game. Those who are invested in a founder’s success in some form, whether through existing relationships, financial investment, or other strong ties such as a vested interest in the innovation succeeding will tend to offer counsel that is more thoughtful than those who are eager to offer their perspective. The old adage “talk is cheap” is particularly appropriate when people lack any real skin in the game, therefore, strong ties to the outcomes of a founder’s efforts should be considered particularly relevant when weighing which advice to follow and which to dismiss.
