Performance Lab
    Start here: PCI
    assessment

    Manager Coaching Rubric

    C.O.A.C.H. (Create, Observe, Assume, Connect, Highlight): Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers, developed with CHOP PolicyLab for care-coordination coaching; SBI: Center for Creative Leadership; Skill/Will Matrix: Max Landsberg, The Tao of Coaching (2003); SMART goals: George T. Doran; psychological safety research: Amy Edmondson; Active Listening: Carl Rogers and Richard E. Farson (1957).

    Coaching capability self-assessment

    A comprehensive 15-dimension rubric that evaluates manager coaching effectiveness across Diagnosis, Dialogue, and Development. Novice, Practitioner, and Master are self-assessment levels, not certification results. A self-scored result cannot certify; course completion earns a certificate of completion; self-assessment levels are not professional credentials. Use the related Coaching to KPI Integration Template to keep behavior call scores and business KPIs separate.

    Purpose

    Enable managers to self-assess coaching capability and identify development areas. Practitioner and Master scores are self-assessment levels; a self-scored result cannot certify. Course completion earns a certificate of completion; self-assessment levels are not professional credentials.

    Training Enrichment

    Core Insight

    Effective coaching requires mastering the balance between diagnosing issues accurately, engaging in meaningful dialogue, and driving development through actionable plans.

    Real-World Challenge

    Imagine a manager, Sarah, who struggles with her team's performance metrics. Despite her efforts, team members seem disengaged and defensive during feedback sessions. Sarah feels frustrated and overwhelmed because her attempts to improve the situation are met with resistance, leading to poor team morale and declining results.

    Actionable Guidance

    • 1If feedback is met with defensiveness, start by building psychological safety: use phrases like 'I'm here to support your growth' to set a positive intent.
    • 2For Skill and Will classification, select one observable behavior within the rep's control and most connected to the result the rep is missing. Use call review, role-play, or pipeline evidence, and rate Skill and Will separately from 1 to 5 for that behavior. Scores 1 to 2 are low, 4 to 5 are high, and a 3 requires one more observed instance. Do not classify the person.
    • 3If behaviors compete, choose the one the rep most readily agrees is a problem. Record the evidence and keep the coaching focus to one behavior at a time; do not apply a numeric prioritization rule.
    • 4Record one ACT Tracker row per coaching conversation with manager, rep, date, coaching focus, Analyze, Coach, Transform, follow-up date, and status (Open, In Progress, Closed). Record Ownership Score from 1 to 5 per rep per weekly 1:1 alongside Engagement and Execution, asking whether the rep drives their own development without being pushed.
    • 5For the selected behavior, agree on one SMART practice action. Keep that behavior through its six-call baseline and remeasurement across the next six calls, then choose exactly one Verification Loop outcome.

    Coaching Prompts

    • ?What one observable behavior is connected to the result the rep is missing, and what evidence supports that focus?
    • ?If behaviors compete, which one does the rep most readily agree is a problem?
    • ?What call review, role-play, or pipeline evidence supports separate Skill and Will ratings for this behavior?

    Application Drill(5 minutes)

    Engage in a 5-minute role-play with a peer. Choose one observable behavior connected to a missing result, record evidence, and rate Skill and Will separately from 1 to 5 for that behavior.

    Success Criteria:

    • ✓The selected behavior is observable, within the rep's control, and supported by evidence.
    • ✓The manager records separate Skill and Will ratings and applies the 1-2 low, 4-5 high, 3 additional-observation rule.
    • ✓If competing behaviors are present, the manager uses the rep-agreement tie-break and records the evidence.

    Examples

    • •New manager self-assessing to identify development priorities
    • •Enablement leader using an observed or peer-scored rubric session in a certification process
    • •Executive evaluating coaching capability across leadership team

    Exercises

    • 1Complete full self-assessment across all 15 dimensions-what's your overall score?
    • 2Identify your lowest-scoring dimension-create 30-day development plan
    • 3Have your manager or peer score you-compare to identify blind spots
    • 4Re-assess quarterly and track improvement trends over 12 months

    Tags

    coaching-rubric
    self-assessment
    manager-development
    coaching-certification
    capability-measurement

    Related Artifacts

    Quotes

    "Most managers think they're better coaches than they are. The rubric provides the mirror."

    - Chad T. Dyar

    Expected Outcomes

    • ✓Clear assessment of coaching capability across 15 dimensions
    • ✓Identified development priorities and action plan
    • ✓Quarterly tracking of coaching skill improvement
    • ✓Self-assessment levels: Practitioner (3.5+) and Master (4.5+); a self-scored result cannot certify

    Content Structure

    Manager Coaching Rubric Framework

    THREE CORE DIMENSIONS: 1. DIAGNOSIS (5 criteria) • Data Collection • Root Cause Analysis • Skill vs. Will Assessment • Priority Identification • Success Metrics Definition 2. DIALOGUE (5 criteria) • Psychological Safety • Socratic Questioning • Active Listening • Feedback Delivery (SBI) • Ownership Transfer 3. DEVELOPMENT (5 criteria) • Action Planning (SMART) • Accountability Systems • Progress Tracking • Iteration & Refinement • Capability Building SCORING SYSTEM: Novice (1-2): Inconsistent, relies on instinct Practitioner (3-4): Systematic, uses frameworks Master (5): Effortless, adapts fluently HOW TO USE: 1. Score yourself on each of 15 dimensions 2. Calculate average across each core dimension 3. Identify gaps (scores <3) 4. Create development plan targeting lowest areas 5. Re-assess quarterly. METHOD RULES: Classify Skill and Will for one behavior, not per person. Rate Skill and Will separately from 1 to 5 using call review, role-play, or pipeline data. Scores 1 to 2 are low, 4 to 5 are high, and a 3 requires one more observed instance. Choose one observable behavior within the rep's control and connected to the result the rep is missing; if two compete, select the one the rep most readily agrees is a problem and record the evidence. After remeasurement choose exactly one outcome: Advance, Continue, Escalate, or Stop, with at most two Continue rounds before Escalate or Stop. If the rep will not commit, check Will and system causes, shrink the commitment, then use Q3 Direct with a stated expectation and time-boxed trial if still refused. Repeated refusal of a clear expectation goes to the formal path. Involve HR and legal before any formal PIP. Log each step in ACT Tracker.

    DIMENSION 1: DIAGNOSIS (Data → Root Cause)

    1.1 DATA COLLECTION NOVICE (1-2): • Relies on gut feeling or anecdotes • No systematic data review • Vague observations ('not performing well') PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Reviews CRM data, call recordings, metrics • Identifies specific behaviors with evidence • Uses SBI framework for observations MASTER (5): • Proactively tracks leading indicators • Correlates behavior patterns to outcomes • Anticipates issues before they compound 1.2 ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS NOVICE (1-2): • Treats symptoms, not root causes • Jumps to solutions without diagnosis • Misses underlying patterns PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Uses Skill/Will Matrix for diagnosis • Asks 'Why?' multiple times to find root cause • Distinguishes knowledge, skill, will, focus MASTER (5): • Instantly diagnoses complex performance issues • Sees systemic patterns across team • Connects gaps to systemic causes 1.3 SKILL VS. WILL ASSESSMENT NOVICE (1-2): • Assumes all issues are skill-based • Doesn't differentiate 'Can't Do' vs. 'Won't Do' • Applies same intervention for all gaps PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Classifies Skill and Will for one behavior, not the person • Rates Skill and Will separately from 1 to 5 using call review, role-play, or pipeline evidence • Uses 1 to 2 as low, 4 to 5 as high, and gathers one more observed instance for a 3 • Tailors the approach to that behavior MASTER (5): • Diagnoses evidence for each behavior • Addresses Will first in Q3, then rebuilds Skill • Adapts the intervention based on new evidence 1.4 PRIORITY IDENTIFICATION NOVICE (1-2): • Tries to coach multiple behaviors at once • No clear prioritization • Overwhelms rep with feedback PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Selects one observable, controllable behavior connected to the result the rep is missing • If competing behaviors remain, selects the one the rep most readily agrees is a problem • Records the evidence • Focuses practice on that behavior MASTER (5): • Selects and sequences one practice-focused behavior at a time 1.5 SUCCESS METRICS DEFINITION NOVICE (1-2): • No clear success criteria • Relies on 'we'll know it when we see it' • Can't measure improvement PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Defines specific, measurable outcomes • Sets clear before/after behavior measures • Uses data to validate behavior change MASTER (5): • Links coaching metrics to business outcomes • Tracks leading and lagging indicators • Measures behavior change using the ACT Tracker, 1:1 scores, and the Verification Loop. RRR (Recruit, Retain, Revenue) is a common framework many SaaS companies use to frame business impact, not a Performance Lab invention or a measurement rubric.

    DIMENSION 2: DIALOGUE (Safety → Ownership)

    2.1 PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY NOVICE (1-2): • Jumps straight to criticism • Creates defensive reactions • Frames coaching as corrective only PRACTITIONER (3-4): • References C.O.A.C.H. (Create, Observe, Assume, Connect, Highlight), credited to Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers and developed with CHOP PolicyLab for care-coordination coaching • States developmental intent clearly • Creates safe space for honest dialogue MASTER (5): • Balances safety with accountability • Builds trust that enables tough conversations • Creates a culture where feedback is welcomed 2.2 SOCRATIC QUESTIONING NOVICE (1-2): • Tells answers instead of asking questions • Uses leading or closed questions • Doesn't build the rep's thinking capability PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Asks open-ended questions consistently • Uses the five supplied C.O.A.C.H. (Create, Observe, Assume, Connect, Highlight) labels without adding definitions • Guides the rep to self-diagnose MASTER (5): • Asks open-ended questions that invite the rep to think independently • Knows when to ask versus tell • Builds problem-solving capability 2.3 ACTIVE LISTENING NOVICE (1-2): • Interrupts frequently • Formulates a response while the rep talks • Misses non-verbal cues PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Paraphrases to confirm understanding • Notices energy and emotional shifts MASTER (5): • Hears what's not being said • Picks up patterns across sessions • Uses silence productively 2.4 FEEDBACK DELIVERY (SBI) NOVICE (1-2): • Vague or judgmental feedback • No specific examples • Focuses on the person, not behavior PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Uses SBI consistently • Delivers objective, behavioral feedback • Cites specific data or examples MASTER (5): • Delivers SBI smoothly • Balances positive and developmental feedback • Avoids personal judgment 2.5 OWNERSHIP TRANSFER NOVICE (1-2): • Manager provides all solutions • Rep leaves session dependent • No sense of ownership PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Rep defines the solution • Rep commits to a specific action • Records Ownership Score from 1 to 5 per rep per weekly 1:1 alongside Engagement and Execution, asking whether the rep drives their own development without being pushed MASTER (5): • Rep takes ownership unprompted • Builds self-sufficient problem-solvers

    DIMENSION 3: DEVELOPMENT (Plan → Mastery)

    3.1 ACTION PLANNING (SMART) NOVICE (1-2): • Vague action items • No clear success criteria • Unmeasurable commitments PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Co-creates SMART actions • Chooses one clear behavior to practice • Sets specific, measurable, time-bound actions MASTER (5): • Actions are atomic and achievable • Sequences practice toward mastery • Rep leaves with clarity 3.2 ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS NOVICE (1-2): • No follow-up or tracking • Commitments forgotten by next session PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Logs one row per coaching conversation in the ACT Tracker • Schedules follow-up verification • Reviews execution in the next 1:1 MASTER (5): • Accountability is integrated into the coaching rhythm • Rep self-reports without prompting • System supports follow-through 3.3 PROGRESS TRACKING NOVICE (1-2): • No documentation of coaching • Can't track behavior change over time • Repeats the same conversations PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Records the Ownership Score from 1 to 5 per rep per weekly 1:1, alongside Engagement and Execution • Reviews behavior evidence and outcomes MASTER (5): • Uses data to inform coaching strategy • Identifies patterns across the team • Measures behavior change with the ACT Tracker, 1:1 scores, and Verification Loop 3.4 ITERATION & REFINEMENT NOVICE (1-2): • One-and-done coaching • Doesn't adjust practice based on evidence PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Uses the Verification Loop: one behavior, baseline mean across six calls, remeasure the next six, then choose exactly one outcome • Changes the practice action for Continue, not just the effort • Allows at most two Continue rounds before Escalate or Stop MASTER (5): • Iterates from observed evidence • Escalates or stops when the loop calls for it 3.5 CAPABILITY BUILDING NOVICE (1-2): • Solves problems for the rep • Creates dependency PRACTITIONER (3-4): • Builds the rep's thinking skills • Transfers frameworks and tools • The coaching approach matches the current Skill/Will classification for each behavior MASTER (5): • Builds self-directed, self-sufficient problem-solvers

    Scoring & Development Planning

    HOW TO SCORE YOURSELF: 1. Rate each of 15 coaching-rubric dimensions (1-5) 2. Calculate averages: • Diagnosis Average (5 dimensions) • Dialogue Average (5 dimensions) • Development Average (5 dimensions) • OVERALL COACHING SCORE 3. Interpret the result for self-assessment only: • <2.5 = Novice (needs intensive development) • 2.5-3.5 = Developing (on the path) • 3.5-4.5 = Practitioner (systematic coaching) • >4.5 = Master (coaching excellence). Practitioner and Master are self-assessment levels, not certification results. A self-scored result cannot certify. DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES: IF DIAGNOSIS IS LOWEST: → Focus on data collection and root cause analysis → Practice Skill/Will classification on one observed behavior at a time, rating Skill and Will separately from 1 to 5 with call review, role-play, or pipeline evidence; 1-2 is low, 4-5 is high, and 3 requires one more observed instance → Use ACT Framework to build diagnostic rigor IF DIALOGUE IS LOWEST: → Master C.O.A.C.H. (Create, Observe, Assume, Connect, Highlight) methodology → Practice Socratic questioning → Record sessions and self-audit IF DEVELOPMENT IS LOWEST: → Implement one ACT Tracker row per coaching conversation → Create one SMART practice action for the selected behavior → Build follow-up habits QUARTERLY ASSESSMENT: • Re-score yourself every 90 days • Track improvement trends • Celebrate progress • Identify new development areas PEER ASSESSMENT: For calibration, have a peer or your manager score you. Compare scores to identify blind spots. SELF-ASSESSMENT LEVEL GUIDANCE: • Practitioner: 3.5+ overall • Master: 4.5+ overall • All dimensions must be ≥3.0 (no critical gaps). These are self-assessment levels, not certification results. A self-scored result cannot certify. Course completion earns a certificate of completion; self-assessment levels are not professional credentials.

    Authors

    Chad T. Dyar

    Target Audience

    managers
    coaches
    enablement-leaders

    Duration

    30 minutes for initial assessment

    Difficulty

    intermediate

    Mark as Complete

    Ready to move forward? Mark this complete to track your progress.

    Was This Helpful?

    Your feedback helps us improve the Performance Lab experience for everyone.