Framing coaching as a punitive measure for poor performance destroys the intrinsic motivation necessary for change. It should be positioned as a developmental tool for high-potential growth and expanding impact, not as a punishment for underperformance.
Effective coaching requires a two-step process. First, directly confront an individual's flaws ('poke the zit'). Then, immediately reframe their negative self-perception by explaining they are 'hurt,' not broken. This prevents them from spiraling into self-loathing and opens them to change, turning a harsh truth into a constructive catalyst.
Feedback often fails because its motivation is selfish (e.g., 'I want to be right,' 'I want to vent'). It only lands effectively when the giver's genuine intention is to help the other person become who *they* want to be. This caring mindset dictates the delivery and reception.
Leaders misallocate time on low performers who won't improve or top performers who don't need coaching. The greatest return on coaching time comes from investing 80% of it in the solid B-players (the "six pluses") who have the raw ability to become elite A-players.
In a supportive culture, managing underperformance starts with co-authored goals upstream. When results falter, the conversation should be a diagnostic inquiry focused on removing roadblocks. This shifts the focus from the person's failure to the problem that's hindering their success, making tough conversations productive.
The belief that people fail due to lack of will leads to blame. Shifting to 'people do well if they can' reframes failure as a skill gap, not a will gap. This moves your role from enforcer to helper, focusing you on identifying and building missing skills.
Even the best coaching will fail if the company culture punishes desired behaviors. A 'firefighter syndrome' culture, which rewards heroes who solve last-minute crises, will undermine coaching aimed at fostering proactive problem-solving, rendering the investment useless.
Annual or quarterly performance reviews are high-pressure, judgmental events that create fear. A more effective approach is to reframe management as coaching. This means providing frequent, trust-based feedback focused on developing an employee's long-term potential, rather than simply rating their past performance.
A manager's highest duty is to an employee's fulfillment, not just their performance. When a top performer is not personally aligned with their role, a leader should actively help them find a better fit—even if it means using their own social capital to place them at another organization.
While rewards can remind people of expectations, they are poor at building skills. Research shows a strong negative correlation between using external rewards (e.g., money) and developing intrinsic motivation. The more you motivate externally, the more you may weaken internal drive.
Instead of dwelling on what went wrong, anchor coaching in the future ('feed forward') by planning for the next opportunity. Reinforcing positive actions with 'highlight reels,' like coach Tom Landry did, is far more effective at encouraging repeat performance than only analyzing fumbles.