The Teachable Leader

Listen to this article (BETA)

Preparing the reader…

Your progress: Not started

Mark Complete Start Over Reset History

▶ Listen

There is something wonderfully encouraging about a leader who can be corrected. He does not have to possess every answer, anticipate every problem, or make every decision perfectly. He does, however, need the humility to recognize that other people may see things he cannot, the wisdom to listen when they speak, and the character to act when what they say reveals something that needs to change.

That kind of leadership is not reserved for people who were naturally born with gentle dispositions or extraordinary listening skills. A decisive leader can become more patient. An impatient leader can learn to ask better questions. A defensive leader can learn to receive correction without immediately explaining himself. These changes may be difficult, especially when old habits have been reinforced by years of success, authority, or unchallenged decisions. Yet difficulty does not make growth impossible. Teachability can be cultivated.

A recent study of twelve school principals caught my attention because it explored something I have observed throughout decades of leadership development: people are more likely to offer honest feedback when their leaders demonstrate a willingness to receive it. The study was small, and we should not draw sweeping conclusions from it. Yet it raised a question worth exploring: Can a leader deliberately learn to become someone others feel comfortable telling the truth to?

I believe the answer is yes. More importantly, I believe Scripture, leadership experience, and additional research give us a practical path toward becoming that kind of leader. This article is about that path—not merely why teachability matters, but how we can develop it through deliberate practice, appropriate accountability, and consistency.

A Different Kind of Leadership Conversation

Imagine a leader concluding a staff meeting with a familiar question: “Does anyone have any concerns?”

Someone raises a hand.

The employee explains that a recent decision has created difficulties the leader may not have anticipated. As the employee speaks, the leader recognizes several things he believes are mistaken. He knows why the decision was made, understands pressures the employee cannot see, and has a perfectly reasonable explanation ready. His instinct is to begin explaining.

Instead, he waits.

He listens until the employee finishes, then asks, “Would you help me understand how this has affected your work?” The employee offers an example. The leader asks another question, summarizes what he has heard, and acknowledges that one consequence of the decision had not occurred to him. He does not necessarily reverse the decision, nor does he pretend to agree with every conclusion. Yet he thanks the employee for raising the concern, promises to examine the matter, and follows through.

Something important has happened. The leader has gained information he previously lacked. The employee has experienced what it feels like to disagree without being dismissed. Others in the room have observed a leader receiving difficult information without treating it as a personal threat. One conversation will not establish a culture of trust, but it can become one of many experiences through which trust is gradually built.

The difference between that meeting and one where everyone remains silent may have very little to do with the leader’s formal invitation to speak. It may have everything to do with what people have learned from watching him respond. People do not decide whether a leader is approachable merely by listening to what he says about himself. They learn from what happens when someone approaches him.

What Research Tells Us About Hearing the Truth

Educational leadership researchers Jill Brown, Craig M. McGill, and Maja Stojanović examined how school principals described cultivating cultures in which teachers could provide meaningful feedback. Their 2026 qualitative study involved twelve principals from two Midwestern states, each participating in two interviews and completing written reflections. The researchers identified four relational conditions—vulnerability, listening, transparency, and trust—alongside two practices: maintaining a feedback cycle and modeling the behavior leaders wanted others to demonstrate.¹

Twelve principals cannot tell us how all leaders behave, and the participants’ descriptions cannot independently establish how their teachers experienced them. This was a small, exploratory study, not a demonstration that particular leadership practices cause better organizational outcomes. Yet its observations are worth considering, especially because they align with findings from other research.

Organizational behavior scholars James R. Detert and Ethan R. Burris conducted a considerably larger study, published in 2007, involving 3,149 employees and 223 managers in a restaurant chain. They examined the relationship between leadership behavior and employee voice—employees’ willingness to offer suggestions, raise concerns, and communicate information intended to improve the organization. They found that perceived managerial openness was associated with employees speaking up, with psychological safety helping explain that relationship.²

Harvard organizational behavior researcher Amy Edmondson provided another important perspective in her 1999 study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company. Her research examined psychological safety, the shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, and found that it was associated with team learning behavior.³ People who believe they can acknowledge mistakes, ask questions, and raise concerns without unnecessary interpersonal consequences are better positioned to participate in the learning that organizations require.

These studies address related but distinct questions, and none establishes a universal formula for becoming a teachable leader. Nevertheless, together they support an important principle: people’s willingness to communicate difficult information is influenced by the interpersonal conditions in which they are expected to speak.

That should not surprise us. We have all known people with whom disagreement is relatively easy and others with whom disagreement feels costly. Some individuals invite questions and genuinely consider the answers. Others invite questions but respond in ways that teach people to become increasingly careful about what they say. The difference is not always obvious to the person holding authority.

A leader may sincerely believe he is approachable because he welcomes questions, maintains an open-door policy, or regularly asks for feedback. Yet his employees may remember interruptions, defensive explanations, dismissive expressions, or the subtle consequences that followed previous disagreements. The leader remembers his invitation. The employee remembers the experience.

Intentions matter. So does the reality other people experience.

Authority Makes Listening More Important

Authority changes the dynamics of a conversation. A supervisor may influence someone’s assignments, advancement, evaluation, or continued employment. A pastor may influence ministry opportunities, reputation, relationships, and a person’s experience within the church. A founder may possess considerable informal authority even when formal organizational structures appear collaborative. Consequently, the person offering correction may have more to lose than the person receiving it.

This does not mean leaders should automatically assume that everyone is afraid of them. Nor does it mean every complaint is justified. It does mean that responsible leaders should recognize the difference in power and deliberately create conditions in which people can speak truthfully without fearing inappropriate consequences. The greater the authority, the greater the responsibility to exercise it wisely.

Peter instructs elders to shepherd God’s flock willingly and eagerly, not domineering over those in their care, but being examples to them (1 Peter 5:2–3). Although this instruction concerns church leadership, the underlying distinction is relevant wherever authority is exercised. Leadership is not permission to treat others as obstacles to our plans. It is a responsibility to steward people faithfully.

A shepherd who cannot hear from the sheep may misunderstand the condition of the flock. An executive who cannot hear from employees may misunderstand the condition of the organization. A parent who cannot hear from children may misunderstand the condition of the family. In every setting, a leader’s knowledge is necessarily incomplete.

Faithful stewardship requires sufficient access to the reality being stewarded.

A leader cannot respond wisely to information he never receives. Nor can he assume that silence proves agreement. Sometimes silence indicates satisfaction. Sometimes it reflects uncertainty, fatigue, or the belief that speaking will accomplish nothing. A wise leader seeks to understand the difference rather than interpreting every quiet meeting as evidence of organizational health. This is why teachability is more than a pleasant personal characteristic. It is an essential part of responsible leadership.

The Unexpected Value of Our Critics

I have often told leaders to seek feedback from people they trust—and from a couple of people who hate them!

There is humor in that advice, but I mean it seriously. People who know us and love us can offer extraordinarily valuable counsel. They understand our intentions, recognize our strengths, and often have the relational credibility to tell us difficult things. Yet affection can sometimes soften criticism. Our friends may overlook behaviors they have grown accustomed to, or hesitate to raise concerns because they do not want to discourage us.

Our critics seldom feel that obligation.

They may notice weaknesses that our friends overlook. They may recognize patterns we have dismissed or identify consequences we never intended. Of course, criticism is not automatically accurate merely because it is uncomfortable. A hostile person may misunderstand circumstances, distort information, or make unfair accusations. Likewise, a trusted friend may offer the most accurate correction we will ever receive. The important distinction is between the attitude of the messenger and the accuracy of the message.

Proverbs 18:17 reminds us that the first person to present a case may appear right until another comes forward and examines it. That is one reason we need what I call the Corroboration of Reality. We should seek independent perspectives, examine the evidence, and resist the temptation to surround ourselves with people who simply confirm what we already believe.

There is another possibility here, and it is one I find particularly encouraging. Sometimes the person who dislikes us may begin to see us differently when we approach him with genuine humility. Perhaps he believes we are arrogant, defensive, or unwilling to admit mistakes. Then we ask sincere questions, listen carefully, acknowledge what is true, and demonstrate a willingness to change. We may discover something about ourselves that needs correction, while he discovers something about us that challenges his previous opinion.

Neither outcome is guaranteed. Listening does not erase past wrongdoing, and a pleasant conversation does not replace repentance or appropriate repair. Nevertheless, humility can open doors that defensiveness would have kept closed.

One of my goals in life is to make friends of my enemies.

I certainly have not always succeeded, but I believe it is a worthy ambition. When someone dislikes me, I want to understand why. Perhaps I have wronged them. Perhaps they have misunderstood me. Perhaps both are true. Yet if I can approach that person with genuine humility, listen carefully, and acknowledge whatever truth they bring, I may accomplish more than improving my leadership. I may gain a friend. Even if I do not gain a friend, I may still gain wisdom.

Jesus commands us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44). Romans 12:18 instructs us to live at peace with everyone, as far as it depends upon us. Those commands do not promise that every relationship will be restored. They do establish our responsibility to treat others with love, humility, and a sincere desire for peace.

We cannot make someone become our friend. We can, however, become the kind of person with whom friendship is possible.

We must never use vulnerability as a technique for manipulating someone into liking us. We listen because the person is worthy of love and because he may be telling us something true. Friendship may be the fruit. It should never be the manipulation.

Listening to Content and Condition

Good listeners learn to hear two things at the same time: content and condition.

Content concerns what the person is communicating—the facts, observations, concerns, questions, and interpretations being offered. Condition concerns what may be happening within the person while communicating: apprehension, frustration, disappointment, uncertainty, exhaustion, or the difficulty of discussing something that feels personally costly. Both deserve attention.

A leader who listens only for content may overlook the courage required for someone to raise a difficult concern. A leader who focuses only on emotion may fail to examine the substance of what is being said. The objective is to understand the whole conversation without assuming that we already know the other person’s motives or internal experience.

This requires patience. An employee may describe a genuine problem awkwardly. A church member may become emotional while explaining a painful experience. A colleague may express frustration after several unsuccessful attempts to communicate. None of those circumstances automatically establishes that the concern is accurate, but neither does poor delivery automatically make the information false.

Proverbs 18:13 warns against answering before hearing, and James 1:19–20 instructs believers to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger. These are not merely suggestions for appearing courteous. They are disciplines of wisdom and self-control. The leader who is determined to understand must resist the temptation to prepare his defense while the other person is still speaking.

Understanding comes before evaluation. Evaluation comes before response.

Because listening well does not always come naturally, we need to learn how to practice it.

The Seven Practices of a Teachable Leader

Understanding the importance of feedback is one thing. Learning to receive it faithfully is another. A leader may recognize his own weaknesses, agree with everything we have discussed, and sincerely desire to improve. Yet when the next difficult conversation arrives, he may discover that understanding a principle does not automatically give him the ability to practice it. Old habits can reappear with remarkable speed, particularly when the criticism feels unfair, the timing is inconvenient, or the person offering it is someone with whom he already has a strained relationship.

This is where intentionality must become action. We need practical disciplines that can be learned, repeated, and strengthened over time. The following seven practices are not a scientifically validated formula. They are a coaching framework informed by Scripture, leadership experience, and the research we have examined. Each begins with a principle, then offers a practical path from where you are toward where you ought to be.

1. Prepare Your Heart Before Inviting Feedback

Before asking, remind yourself: My goal is to discover what is true, not to prove that I am right. Pray for humility and the willingness to recognize your own mistakes. Decide beforehand that you will not punish someone for respectfully telling you something difficult.

How to Get There from Here

Preparation begins before the conversation, because the middle of a difficult conversation is rarely the easiest place to develop a new habit. Consider how you ordinarily respond when someone questions your judgment. Do you interrupt? Become impatient? Explain too quickly? Ask questions that sound more like cross-examination than genuine curiosity? Perhaps you remain outwardly calm but become distant afterward. These behaviors can be difficult to recognize in ourselves, so ask someone who knows you well to identify what happens when you feel challenged.

Choose one response to practice changing. If you interrupt, resolve to let the other person finish and then wait several seconds before answering. If you become defensive, commit to asking two sincere questions before offering an explanation. If you feel anger rising, acknowledge that you need a moment to consider what has been said rather than allowing that anger to govern your response. Small disciplines, practiced repeatedly, can help interrupt reactions that have become nearly automatic.

For the Christian leader, preparation also includes prayerful self-examination. Psalm 139:23–24 asks God to search the heart and reveal any offensive way within us. That is an appropriate prayer before receiving correction, particularly when we suspect that the conversation may expose something we would rather not acknowledge. We should invite God to examine our hearts before assuming that the problem lies entirely with the person confronting us.

The goal is not to become emotionally unaffected by criticism. It is to become sufficiently governed by humility and self-control that our emotions do not determine whether we receive the truth.

2. Deliberately Seek Different Perspectives

Ask people who know and trust you, people affected by your decisions, and at least one or two credible critics. Do not simply ask, “How am I doing?” Ask, “What is something I do that makes it harder for you or others to work with me?”

How to Get There from Here

Begin by identifying three people who can offer meaningfully different perspectives. Choose someone who knows your character and is willing to tell you difficult truths, someone who regularly experiences the consequences of your leadership, and someone who has disagreed with you or expressed dissatisfaction with your decisions. Contact each individually and explain that you are intentionally working to become a better listener. Ask for one or two specific observations, then give the person time to consider the question rather than demanding an immediate answer.

The quality of the question matters. “Do you think I am a good leader?” invites a broad judgment and may encourage a reassuring answer. “Can you remember a time when my response made it harder for you to speak honestly?” directs attention toward observable behavior. “What is something I could change that would make your work easier?” gives the person a practical starting point. If someone initially says that everything is fine, do not pressure him to invent a criticism. Thank him, invite him to think about it, and leave the opportunity open.

Be particularly thoughtful when approaching people whose employment, opportunities, or reputations may depend on your approval. They may have legitimate reasons to be cautious. In some circumstances, a confidential process or independent facilitator will produce more candid information than a private conversation with the person who holds authority over them. Inviting honesty includes considering what honesty may cost the person being invited.

Remember, too, that the goal is not to collect criticism for its own sake. It is to gain a more complete understanding of reality. The people who affirm us may possess important truths. So may the people who oppose us. Wisdom requires examining both.

3. Listen for Both Content and Condition

Listen to what the person is telling you, while also noticing what the conversation is costing them emotionally. Do not interrupt, explain, correct, or prepare your defense. Ask questions that help you understand. “Can you give me an example?” is often more useful than “Why would you think that?”

How to Get There from Here

Practice listening with two questions in mind: What is this person telling me? and What might this person be experiencing while telling me? The first directs your attention toward facts, examples, observations, and concerns. The second reminds you that communication takes place between people, not merely between competing arguments. Someone who has spent weeks gathering the courage to raise a concern may need more patience than someone discussing a routine operational problem.

If the person appears nervous, you might say, “I realize this may not be an easy conversation. I appreciate your willingness to talk with me.” If the person becomes emotional, resist interpreting that emotion as proof that the concern lacks merit. Likewise, avoid assuming you know why someone is upset. Ask questions rather than assigning motives. A person may be angry because he has been treated unfairly, because he has misunderstood something, or because several circumstances have converged. You will not know until you listen.

One useful discipline is to take brief notes, with permission, while deliberately postponing your response. When the person finishes, ask, “Is there anything else I need to understand?” That simple question often creates room for information that might otherwise remain unspoken. A leader who begins defending himself too early may never hear the concern that mattered most.

Listening to condition also requires remembering that the person may be watching you while you listen. Your expression, posture, tone, and patience communicate whether you are receptive. A leader who says, “I am listening,” while sighing, looking impatient, or repeatedly glancing at the clock may unintentionally communicate something quite different.

Good listening pays attention to the whole person while remaining humble about what the listener does not yet know.

4. Confirm That You Understood Before Evaluating

Repeat the concern in your own words and ask whether you have understood it correctly. Separate observable facts from interpretations and assumptions. Understanding what someone believes happened does not require agreeing with every conclusion.

How to Get There from Here

Before explaining your position, summarize the concern as accurately and fairly as possible. You might say, “Let me see whether I understand. During Tuesday’s meeting, I interrupted you several times, and you came away feeling that your input was unwelcome. Is that accurate?” Then allow the person to correct your summary. You may discover that what you initially understood as a complaint about the meeting was actually a concern about a recurring pattern of behavior.

When the feedback includes an interpretation of your motives, distinguish the observation from the conclusion without dismissing either. For example, someone may say, “You interrupted me because you do not respect my opinion.” You might respond, “I understand that my interruptions communicated disrespect. I want to take responsibility for examining what I did. I would also like to understand what led you to conclude that I do not value your opinion.” That response does not require agreeing with the interpretation of your motives, but it demonstrates a willingness to examine the behavior that prompted it.

This practice can be especially difficult for leaders who think quickly and are accustomed to solving problems immediately. Their instinct is to identify what seems mistaken and correct it before the person finishes. Yet premature correction can prevent discovery. Proverbs 18:13 warns against answering before hearing, and the principle applies even when the leader believes he already understands the situation.

A helpful personal rule is this: Do not begin evaluating the concern until you can explain it in terms the other person recognizes as fair.

That does not mean you must agree. It means you have listened well enough to understand what you are being asked to consider.

5. Corroborate Reality

Examine the feedback carefully. Look for evidence, patterns, and independent perspectives. Ask whether other people have raised similar concerns. Do not automatically accept criticism because it hurts—or dismiss it because it comes from someone who dislikes you. Determine what is true.

How to Get There from Here

After the conversation, separate what you know from what you suspect. Record the specific behaviors or events described, the interpretations attached to them, and the questions that remain unanswered. Where appropriate, review relevant communications, decisions, or records and seek additional perspectives from people with direct knowledge. Avoid turning this into a campaign to recruit supporters or discredit the person who raised the concern. Corroboration is not an exercise in assembling a defense. It is an effort to understand what actually happened.

Consider whether the concern describes an isolated incident or a recurring pattern. If several people independently report that you interrupt them during meetings, the similarity deserves attention. If one person reports a particular event differently from everyone else, examine the evidence rather than automatically dismissing the minority account. Multiple people can share a mistaken understanding, and a single person can recognize something others have overlooked.

This is where feedback from critics can be particularly valuable. Someone who dislikes you may describe a genuine weakness with unnecessary harshness, while someone who loves you may describe the same weakness gently. Their attitudes differ, but the underlying observation may be substantially the same. When independent perspectives converge, pay attention. When they conflict, investigate rather than selecting whichever account best protects your self-image.

Serious allegations of abuse, retaliation, or misconduct require appropriate independent review rather than an informal investigation controlled by the accused leader. Confidentiality, fairness, protection from retaliation, and proper oversight matter. Corroboration of Reality is not the pursuit of agreement. It is the disciplined pursuit of what is actually true.

6. Respond with Accountability and Action

Acknowledge what is true. Repent where necessary. Explain respectfully where you disagree. Make a specific commitment to change what needs changing. When harm has occurred, pursue appropriate repair. Do not substitute an apology for changed behavior.

How to Get There from Here

Identify the portion of the feedback for which you are genuinely responsible, then state that responsibility plainly. Avoid conditional apologies when you have established that your conduct was wrong. “I am sorry if you felt hurt” may communicate that the real problem was the other person’s reaction. A more responsible response would be, “I interrupted you repeatedly and dismissed your concern before understanding it. That was wrong, and I am sorry.”

Then explain what you intend to change. “I will try to do better” may be sincere, but it provides little basis for accountability. “In future meetings, I will allow people to finish, summarize what I heard, and ask questions before responding” identifies behaviors that can be observed. If you struggle with interruptions, invite a trusted colleague to point them out. If you have excluded someone after a disagreement, restore appropriate access and opportunity. If your conduct caused material harm, consider what restitution or repair may be necessary.

Sometimes the feedback will be partly accurate and partly mistaken. You can acknowledge the truth without accepting every conclusion. “You are right that I responded impatiently, and I need to correct that. I do not agree that I was attempting to embarrass you, but I understand why my response could have communicated disrespect.” That kind of answer preserves both accountability and accuracy.

Remember that explanation is not exoneration. Stress, fatigue, workload, or personality may help explain why a leader behaved poorly. They do not automatically excuse the behavior or remove the responsibility to change it.

For Christian leaders, repentance must be more than a carefully worded apology. It involves turning away from wrongdoing and pursuing what is right. Where appropriate, those affected should eventually be able to observe the difference. An apology acknowledges the need for change. Consistent action demonstrates whether the commitment was genuine.

7. Return and Ask Again

Follow up after enough time has passed for your behavior to be observed. Ask, “Have you noticed any improvement? What am I still missing?” People learn that feedback is safe when they see you receive it, act on it, and return willingly for more.

How to Get There from Here

Before concluding the initial conversation, agree on a reasonable time to revisit the concern. Thirty days may be appropriate for a communication habit that occurs frequently, while more substantial organizational changes may require longer. Record your commitment and schedule the follow-up rather than trusting your memory or good intentions. The willingness to return is itself meaningful because it demonstrates that the conversation was not merely an uncomfortable event you hope everyone will forget.

When the time arrives, resist beginning with a list of everything you have done correctly. Ask the other person what he or she has observed. “Have you noticed any improvement?” is useful, but “Where am I still falling short?” may be even more revealing. Listen carefully, acknowledge remaining problems, and adjust your approach where necessary. If the person reports little improvement, do not treat that answer as ingratitude. Ask for specific examples and consider whether your understanding of the original concern was incomplete.

Trust may return slowly, particularly when previous experiences have taught people to be cautious. A leader who has spent years discouraging disagreement should not expect a few gracious conversations to erase those experiences. The appropriate response is neither discouragement nor pressure. It is continued faithfulness.

This final practice turns feedback from an isolated event into an ongoing relationship. It also provides a way to measure whether the leader’s intentions are becoming observable behavior. Consistency is what eventually distinguishes a sincere commitment from a passing emotional reaction.

Never Expose the Problem Without Showing the Path Forward

There is a danger in writing about leadership failures, even when the observations are accurate and the warnings are necessary. A reader may recognize himself in the description, feel the weight of his mistakes, and begin remembering conversations he mishandled, relationships he damaged, or people he failed to hear. We should not minimize those realities. Genuine growth requires an honest acknowledgment of what is wrong. Yet if we leave him there, surrounded by the evidence of his shortcomings without showing him how to begin changing, we have not completed the work of helping him.

Our goal is not merely to help people recognize what is wrong. It is to help them begin doing what is right.

In 1 Corinthians 10:13, Paul reminds believers that God is faithful in temptation and provides a way to endure it. The passage does not promise an effortless escape from every painful circumstance, nor does it excuse the consequences of previous wrongdoing. It does remind us that temptation need not be treated as an irresistible command. By God’s grace, faithful obedience remains the proper response.

There is a meaningful distinction between helping someone escape accountability and helping someone escape the destructive behavior for which he must be accountable. The first protects the problem. The second helps the person confront it.

This distinction becomes even more compelling when we consider God’s kindness. Romans 2:4 teaches that God’s kindness leads toward repentance. Paul is addressing people who presume upon God’s patience while continuing in sin, so the passage certainly does not suggest that kindness means ignoring wrongdoing. God’s patience is not indifference, and His kindness is not approval of evil. Rather, His kindness provides an opportunity and summons for repentance.

Paul gives us an especially practical expression of this principle in 2 Timothy 2:24–25. The Lord’s servant is instructed to be kind, patient when wronged, and gentle when correcting opponents, recognizing that God may grant repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. Notice the combination: kindness, patience, teaching, correction, truth, and repentance. Scripture does not require us to choose between gentleness and candor. It joins them.

That has profound implications for leadership. When we confront someone who has become defensive, impatient, arrogant, or unwilling to receive correction, we can identify those failures truthfully without treating the person as though growth were impossible. We can explain what a better response looks like, help him practice it, hold him accountable for following through, and encourage genuine progress without excusing continued wrongdoing.

Galatians 6:1–2 instructs believers to restore someone caught in transgression with gentleness, while remaining watchful over themselves and bearing one another’s burdens. The objective is restoration, not humiliation. That does not eliminate appropriate consequences, and serious wrongdoing may require formal discipline or removal from authority. Nevertheless, even necessary consequences should be administered truthfully, justly, and without needless cruelty.

Kindness does not get in the way of accountability. Properly understood, kindness helps us pursue accountability for the good of the person being corrected.

We cannot manufacture repentance in another person’s heart. God alone can grant the repentance that brings genuine spiritual transformation. Yet we are responsible for the manner in which we speak, the example we provide, and the opportunities we offer others to understand and practice what is right. Perhaps the leader who experiences that kind of correction will begin extending the same kindness to others.

Consistency. Always Consistency.

In the 1952 musical Singin’ in the Rain, Donald O’Connor’s character, Cosmo Brown, invokes the supposedly immortal words of Samuel J. Snodgrass: “Dignity. Always dignity.”

I have occasionally been tempted to borrow Mr. Snodgrass’s authority and substitute another word.

Consistency. Always consistency.

The humor makes the point memorable, but the principle is serious. A single gracious response may improve a conversation. A month of gracious responses may begin rebuilding confidence. Years of consistently receiving correction with humility may change a leader’s relationships and the culture of an entire organization.

This is where many otherwise promising efforts fail. Leaders attend seminars, read books, acknowledge weaknesses, and make sincere commitments to improve. They may practice a new behavior for several days or weeks. Then pressure increases, old habits return, and the improvement gradually disappears. The problem is not necessarily that the leader failed to understand the principle. He may simply have failed to practice it deliberately, accountably, and persistently enough for it to become a reliable habit.

Applied knowledge repeated consistently becomes transformation.

That does not mean every habit changes quickly or that persistent effort guarantees every desired outcome. Nor does it suggest that human effort replaces God’s transforming grace. Rather, understanding must become action, and action must be repeated faithfully if it is to produce enduring change. Intentionality leads to action, action requires accountability, accountability supports consistency, and consistency sustained through difficulty becomes persistence. Over time, these disciplines can contribute to genuine transformation.

The seven practices are therefore not intended as a one-time exercise. They are disciplines to be revisited throughout a leader’s life. Each difficult conversation becomes another opportunity to practice humility, listening, discernment, accountability, and kindness. Each follow-up provides an opportunity to demonstrate that the commitment was genuine.

Consistency is not merely how we demonstrate that we have changed. It is an essential part of how we learn to change.

A Thirty-Day Beginning

A leader who wants to begin immediately does not need to reorganize his entire institution or launch an elaborate feedback initiative. He can begin with three conversations and one specific commitment. The objective is not to become a completely different person in thirty days, but to begin practicing a different response to correction and establish a process that can continue well beyond the first month.

During the first week, identify three people whose perspectives differ meaningfully: a trusted friend, someone directly affected by your leadership, and a credible critic. Ask each for one thing you do that makes working with you more difficult. Explain that you are trying to improve your ability to receive correction, and give them time to respond without pressure.

During the second week, listen carefully, confirm your understanding, and begin examining the evidence. Look for recurring patterns and distinguish genuine problems from misunderstandings. Do not expect every conversation to be comfortable or every concern to be accurate. The objective is to become more informed, not merely more agreeable.

During the third week, identify one behavior you need to change and begin practicing the appropriate replacement. If you interrupt, practice waiting. If you become defensive, practice asking questions. If you explain away concerns, practice acknowledging the impact of your conduct before discussing your intentions. Ask someone trustworthy to help hold you accountable.

During the fourth week, return to the people who offered feedback. Explain what you have learned, acknowledge what you have changed, and ask whether they have observed any improvement. Where trust has been damaged, do not demand that it be restored immediately. Continue demonstrating trustworthy behavior.

Thirty days will not repair every damaged relationship or transform every leadership weakness. It may, however, establish a meaningful beginning. A leader who previously interrupted may begin listening. One who instinctively defended himself may learn to ask questions. One who avoided critics may discover that a difficult conversation can produce valuable understanding.

You do not have to finish now, but you do have to start now.

The Leader You Can Become

Imagine returning to the meeting with which we began. Once again, the leader asks whether anyone has concerns. Once again, someone raises a hand and offers information that challenges a decision.

This time, however, the leader does not need to manufacture an appearance of openness. He has been practicing it. His people have watched him listen, acknowledge mistakes, reconsider decisions, apologize when necessary, and follow through on commitments. They have observed that disagreement does not automatically damage relationships and that respectful correction is treated as an opportunity to learn rather than a threat to authority.

The leader is still imperfect. He may occasionally become impatient, misunderstand a concern, or respond poorly. Yet when he recognizes those failures, he acknowledges them and returns to the work of becoming more teachable. His people are not being asked to believe that he will never make another mistake. They are learning that he is willing to recognize and correct the mistakes he makes.

That is a far more credible foundation for trust than the appearance of perfection.

The teachable leader understands that authority does not grant omniscience, that good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes, and that people affected by his decisions may recognize aspects of reality he cannot see from his position. He knows that listening does not require agreement, that humility does not eliminate responsibility, and that kindness does not excuse wrongdoing.

He has also discovered something deeply encouraging: receiving correction well is not a gift reserved for a fortunate few. It is a discipline that can be cultivated.

Scripture calls us to receive instruction, pursue wisdom, speak truth in love, correct with gentleness, and remain humble before God. Research helps us understand why the interpersonal conditions created by leaders influence whether people speak honestly. Practical disciplines give us a way to begin. Consistency helps those disciplines become established habits.

Perhaps the most beautiful outcome is not simply that the leader becomes better informed or that the organization becomes healthier, although both matter greatly. Perhaps the leader also discovers that people who once hesitated to approach him now speak more freely. Relationships strained by defensiveness begin to improve. Those who previously disagreed with him discover that their concerns can be heard without their dignity being diminished.

Someone he once regarded as an adversary may even become a trusted friend.

We cannot guarantee that outcome, and we should never make friendship the price of being heard. Yet we can become people with whom honest relationships are increasingly possible.

The leader who welcomes the truth gains an opportunity to grow. The leader who consistently acts upon it gives others a reason to trust him.

He may gain wisdom. He may gain a friend. By God’s grace, he may gain both.

Summary

Teachability is not merely a personality trait or a willingness to hear agreeable suggestions. It is a cultivated habit of receiving, examining, and responding faithfully to information that may challenge our understanding, decisions, or behavior. Research suggests that managerial openness and psychological safety are associated with greater willingness to speak up and learn, while Scripture repeatedly connects wisdom with humility, listening, correction, and self-control.

The Seven Practices of a Teachable Leader provide a repeatable path: prepare your heart, seek different perspectives, listen to content and condition, confirm understanding, corroborate reality, respond with accountability, and return to ask again. These practices do not require leaders to agree with every criticism or surrender their authority. They help leaders exercise that authority with greater wisdom and responsibility.

Kindness and accountability belong together. We should tell people the truth about where they are while helping them see a faithful path toward where they ought to be. Through deliberate practice, appropriate accountability, and consistency, leaders can develop habits that make honest communication increasingly possible. The goal is not perfection. It is faithful, observable growth.

---

Five Questions to Ask Yourself

These questions are not intended to produce quick answers or comfortable conclusions. They are invitations to examine the reality of your leadership with humility and candor. Resist the temptation to answer according to what you intended, what you believe about yourself, or what you hope others would say. Consider instead what people have actually experienced, what your behavior has communicated, and what faithful change may require.

1. If I asked the people most affected by my leadership whether it is safe to disagree with me, what would they say when I was not in the room? What specific experiences have I given them that would justify their answers, and am I willing to hear those answers without defending myself?

2. Who has stopped bringing concerns to me, and what part might my previous responses have played in their silence? Have I mistaken the absence of criticism for the presence of trust? What would it take to make an honest conversation possible again?

3. When someone I dislike or distrust criticizes me, do I examine the accuracy of the criticism—or dismiss it because of the person delivering it? What might I discover if I separated the messenger’s attitude from the message’s truthfulness and sought independent corroboration?

4. When I recognize that my leadership has harmed someone, do I merely explain why I acted as I did, or do I take responsibility for what I actually did? What specific act of repentance, repair, or changed behavior might be necessary, and what has prevented me from taking that step?

5. If someone observed my leadership for the next thirty days, what consistent evidence would convince that person I am becoming more teachable? Which of the seven practices do I most need to develop, who will help hold me accountable, and when will I return to ask whether anything has truly changed?

---

Endnotes

1. Jill Brown, Craig M. McGill, and Maja Stojanović. “Relational Conditions and Leadership Practices in Cultivating a Culture of Feedback: A Phenomenological Study of School Principals.” Journal of Research on Leadership Education (2026). https://doi.org/10.1177/19427751261489611. The study used interviews and written reflections from twelve principals in two Midwestern states. Its themes included vulnerability, listening, transparency, trust, feedback cycles, and leader modeling. As a small qualitative study relying on principals’ accounts, it is useful for exploring how leaders understand feedback cultures, but it cannot establish causation, prevalence, or the experiences of teachers independently.

2. James R. Detert and Ethan R. Burris. “Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open?” Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 4 (2007): 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183. This study examined 3,149 employees and 223 managers in a restaurant chain. Perceived managerial openness was associated with employee voice, with psychological safety helping explain that association. Its larger sample provides complementary evidence to the principals study, although the findings should not be interpreted as proof that openness alone causes employees to speak up.

3. Amy Edmondson. “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44, no. 2 (1999): 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999. Edmondson studied 51 work teams in a manufacturing organization, examining the relationship between team psychological safety and learning behavior. The research supports the importance of interpersonal conditions in team learning, while its observational design does not establish that psychological safety is sufficient for organizational effectiveness.

Scripture references: Proverbs 18:13, 18:17; Psalm 139:23–24; James 1:19–20; 1 Peter 5:2–3; Matthew 5:44; Romans 12:18, 2:4; 1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Timothy 2:24–25; Galatians 6:1–2. Scripture quotations and references follow the Berean Standard Bible (BSB).

---