What Coaches/Mentors Can Learn from Big Magic
Coaches and mentors often develop a new exercise, framework, or way of structuring a session that departs from their usual method, and hold it back because using it on a paying client feels like an unauthorized experiment rather than legitimate practice. The habit of only ever using well-worn material keeps a coach's own development stalled even while they push clients to grow.
The whole book, compressed
This edition works through 4 core lessons — take them one at a time, not all at once.
What's different for your conditions
Tap whichever ones sound like you. Nothing here is sent or saved — it's just for your own noticing.
0 of 4 selected
The core lessons, applied to you
Show up for the work on a regular basis, fear included
For a coach, the fear often sounds like "I need to fully validate this method before I use it with a real client," a bar that's nearly impossible to clear in private.
A career coach has drafted a new goal-setting framework they believe is stronger than the one they've used for years, but keeps rehearsing it alone rather than trying it in an actual session, telling themselves each week that it still needs more refinement.
Choose one specific upcoming session with a client you already trust, and commit to using the new framework in that session rather than refining it in isolation any further.
Treat a spark of inspiration as something to collaborate with, not a verdict on your worth
An idea for a new exercise or way of framing a client's problem is worth trying out and adjusting, not a test of whether this coach truly has what it takes.
A mentor comes up with a promising new way to structure feedback sessions, tries it once, gets a confused reaction from a single mentee, and quietly retires the idea for good, treating one person's confusion as proof the whole approach — and their instincts as a mentor — were off.
After trying a new approach with one client, ask a second client to try a lighter version of it before deciding whether the idea works, so the verdict isn't based on a single data point.
Give yourself permission to create without waiting for outside validation first
A coach doesn't need a certifying body's blessing or a senior peer's endorsement to develop and use a method that fits within their existing practice and ethical boundaries.
A mentor has developed a useful new intake questionnaire but keeps using the old, weaker one with new clients, waiting to see if a more established colleague adopts something similar first before trusting their own version.
Use your own developed material with the next new client by default, and treat any adjustment afterward as normal refinement rather than evidence it shouldn't have been used yet.
Finish and share the work imperfectly rather than holding out for ideal conditions
A new framework, exercise, or way of running sessions will typically need real client interactions to reveal its rough edges, and those edges are the useful information, not a reason to keep it in reserve. Using the current version with actual clients and adjusting it session by session builds a far better method over a year than a theoretically perfect version drafted alone and never tested.
Consistency builds a client's trust in a coach's process, but never varying that process can eventually make sessions feel stale for both coach and client. The practical answer is to keep the overall session structure stable and predictable while treating specific exercises within it as an ongoing, disclosed area of experimentation.
Name one thing, honestly
What is one method or exercise you've developed but haven't used with a real client yet, and what's stopping you from trying it in your very next session?
Good. Now look back at the "Try this" line under whichever lesson feels most connected to what you just wrote, and treat that as this week's actual assignment — not all 4 at once.
The practices from this edition
0 of 3 selected
Run this for seven days
Use your own developed material with the next new client by default, and treat any adjustment afterward as normal refinement rather than evidence it shouldn't have been used yet.