Features
A coaching loop, not a one-off report
Making Yourself Clear (Myc) turns your real meetings into objective feedback, concrete experiments, and measurable progress — privately, and grounded in real coaching expertise.
Objective feedback on how you really communicate
Myc analyzes your actual words in your actual meetings — not opinions and not generic advice. You get specific coaching on what you did well and what to change, tied to real moments in the transcript.
- Per-meeting analysis grounded in the evidence of what was said
- Specific strengths and growth areas, not vague impressions
- A consistent, objective lens across every meeting you bring
From feedback to measurable change
A development loop: establish a baseline from several meetings, run targeted experiments the analysis suggests, and watch your progress over time. You can see yourself getting clearer.
- Baseline Pack: a multi-transcript starting point
- Experiments: concrete behavioral changes, tracked meeting to meeting
- Progress: measurable change over weeks, not a single snapshot
Private by design. Your data, your choice.
Every transcript is PII-redacted before any AI sees it, and you can view exactly what was sent. Bring your own LLM endpoint, or fully self-host so data never leaves your infrastructure.
- Pre-LLM PII redaction (Microsoft Presidio) + a “view what was sent” panel
- OpenAI doesn’t train on your data; content encrypted at rest (AES-256-GCM)
- Bring your own LLM endpoint, or turnkey self-hosting
Built for individuals, teams, and coaches
Use it solo, roll it out across an organization with teams and roles, or offer it to your own coaching clients on a neutral, client-ready brand.
- Organizations + teams with role-based access
- Coach and team-lead views scoped to the right people
- Admin audit log, usage visibility, and per-seat billing
Inside an analysis
What you get back, every time
- 01
Executive summary
A plain-prose overview of how the meeting went — what worked and what to focus on, with no scores to decode.
- 02
Strengths & coaching themes
What you did well, and your highest-leverage growth areas — each prioritized and explained.
- 03
Pattern scores (0–100%)
Every applicable behavior scored and color-coded: strong, developing, or needs attention.
- 04
Evidence quotes
Every observation is grounded in what was actually said — quoted from the transcript with speaker and context.
- 05
Suggested rewrites
For specific things you said, concrete “next time, try…” alternatives — actionable, not abstract.
- 06
Micro-experiments
A small, specific behavior to practice next — then tracked automatically across your following meetings.
- 07
Progress over time
After a few meetings, your pattern scores plot on a trendline against your baseline, so you can see the change.
The rigor underneath
11 leadership behaviors, across two axes
Every analysis evaluates your meeting against a structured taxonomy — not vibes. And it only scores a behavior when there’s enough evidence to judge it fairly.
Task Effectiveness
How clearly and effectively you drive the work forward.
Purposeful Framing
Whether you frame topics with both a named subject and a desired outcome — when opening the meeting and at each transition. Scored on two elements: topic identification and stated outcome.
Focus Management
Whether you keep discussion aligned with stated objectives when conversation drifts. Scored on how explicitly you name the departure and redirect or sanction it.
Resolution & Alignment
Whether you close discussions with a clear statement of what was decided and an explicit check that the group agrees. Scored on two elements: named resolution and alignment confirmation.
Assignment Clarity
Whether assignments include the elements needed for success — owner, deadline, and deliverable for simple tasks, plus context and confirmation for complex ones. Scoring scales with assignment complexity.
Question Quality
Whether your questions serve a clear purpose — advancing a decision, surfacing assumptions, broadening perspective, or testing constraints — rather than being aimless or leading.
Communication Clarity
Whether your substantive contributions are clear and structured — leading with your main point, responding to the actual question, and keeping length proportionate to complexity.
Relational Effectiveness
How you make others feel heard, valued, and safe to contribute.
Active Listening
Measures whether the leader demonstrates — through verbal behavior — that they absorbed, processed, and built upon what others said. Looks for referencing, paraphrasing, building on, integrating, and following through on prior input.
Recognition
Measures whether the leader treats other participants as valued equals — acknowledging their effort, expertise, courage, or contributions as people, not merely processing the content of their input.
Behavioral Integrity
Measures consistency between words and actions — intellectual honesty, ownership vs. deflection, follow-through on commitments, and genuine engagement with expertise and evidence.
Disagreement Navigation
How you handle moments of disagreement or pushback. Scored on whether you engage with the substance, acknowledge the opposing view, maintain solution focus, and drive toward resolution.
Feedback Quality
Whether you deliver feedback using a structured approach: grounding it in a specific situation and behavior, naming the impact, offering a recommendation, and checking in with the recipient (SBI-RC).
Role-aware scoring
Coaching that knows whether you ran the meeting or attended it
Myc scores you against what your role actually called for — chairing a decision, presenting, or contributing as a participant. The same words mean different things depending on the seat you were in, and no other tool conditions its coaching on your role.
Real output
See the quality for yourself
Real coaching from Myc analyses, shown verbatim. Participant names are fictional test personas.
Summary
You were not vague about your standards in this meeting; the gap was that you often stopped at the standard instead of helping Noor see a credible way to meet it. That matters because your directness is an asset when it is paired with specificity and problem-solving, and it becomes frustrating when the other person is left to reconcile conflicting demands on their own. The contrast inside this same conversation is useful: your Kendrick feedback was precise, evidence-based, and instructive, while the pipeline and SDR sections became abstract and harder to act on. The next level for you is not softening the message. It is making sure a hard message stays grounded in facts, tradeoffs, and next-step clarity.
What You Did Well
You can give highly specific positive feedback when you slow down enough to describe what you saw
Your debrief on the Kendrick presentation was your best leadership moment in this meeting. You named exactly what Noor did, why it worked with that client, and the commercial result it created. That kind of specificity does two things at once: it builds confidence and it teaches a repeatable standard.
What You Did Well
“You should. I was in the room and I want to tell you specifically what worked. When you opened, you didn't start with our product or our slides. You started with Kendrick's distribution problem. You'd clearly done your homework — you referenced their Q3 earnings call where the CFO talked about warehouse throughput being flat, and you connected that to the workflow bottlenecks their ops team had described in the discovery call. By the time you got to our solution, you'd already framed the entire conversation around their pain point. The client wasn't evaluating our product in a vacuum — they were evaluating whether we could solve a problem they'd already acknowledged.”
Key Coaching Themes
When you push a hard message, you need to turn it into a workable path, not just a performance standard
In the pipeline discussion, you were clear about the gap and eventually named a target, but Noor had to keep pulling the specifics out of you: what exactly, how many, and by when. Later, when Noor challenged the math and the competing demands, you stayed at the level of 'be hungrier,' 'figure it out,' and 'balancing' rather than working the tradeoffs with her. That leaves the other person carrying the problem alone after you've named it.
What worked and what was missing
Your strongest developmental edge here is moving from diagnosis to joint problem-solving. When Noor said she could not double pipeline in three weeks because of the sales cycle, that was the moment to recalibrate the ask or co-design leading indicators, not restate that she should have started earlier. Senior leadership feedback lands better when the standard is tough but the path is credible.
For example, in this meeting you said
Noor
“Taylor, I can't double my pipeline in three weeks. Even if I tripled my outbound activity starting tomorrow, the sales cycle is six to eight weeks. First meetings don't become opportunities overnight.”
Taylor (Coachee)
“I understand the cycle. But you should have been building this pipeline two months ago. The fact that you're behind now means you need to move fast. And look, if you're struggling with the outbound side, I can pair you with Marcus for a couple sessions. He's really good at high-volume prospecting.”
Next time, try something like
“You're right that active opps will lag the activity. So for the next three weeks, let's separate leading indicators from lagging ones. I still want us aiming toward 3x coverage, but for this month I want a concrete outbound plan: number of first meetings, number of SDR follow-ups, and two blocks on your calendar each week for prospecting. Let's build something that matches the actual sales cycle.”
When the facts are fuzzy, your credibility drops quickly
The SDR conversation lost traction because you brought Noor a complaint without a firm fact base, then became progressively less precise. You started with 'rumblings' and 'a sense,' and after Noor offered concrete counter-evidence, you ended at 'I don't know, I just know there's friction.' Once you are asking someone to change behavior, you need cleaner sourcing and a sharper statement of what you actually observed.
What worked and what was missing
This is less about being nicer and more about being accountable for the quality of your case. If you want Noor to change how she works with SDRs, bring one or two concrete examples, name whose experience you are representing, and separate the relationship issue from the lead-quality issue. Otherwise the conversation turns into confusion about your logic instead of action on the behavior.
For example, in this meeting you said
Taylor (Coachee)
“So I've been hearing some rumblings. About how you work with the SDRs. Or don't work with them, I guess.”
Noor
“What do you mean?”
Taylor (Coachee)
“Like, there's a sense that you're not really engaging with the leads they pass you. Or that you're being selective about which ones you take.”
Next time, try something like
“I've heard similar feedback from two SDRs, and I want to bring it to you cleanly. They said that when leads are declined, they understand the reason in the note, but the interaction still feels transactional and they don't know how to improve next time. I'd like us to solve that specific gap: how they get clearer calibration from you without you wasting time on poor-fit leads.”
See it on one of your meetings
Start free — one baseline pack and two analyses, no card required.