What's inside
- 30-minute session structure (numbers review, deal review, skill focus, commitments)
- Section A: activity & pipeline health leading indicators
- Section B: 5 skill-execution criteria (discovery, objection handling, multi-threading, value articulation, negotiation/closing)
- 1–4 rubric with a written descriptor for every score level
- Section C: deal-specific review fields (next step, champion, mutual action plan, risk flag)
- Section D: development loop that checks last 1:1's assigned focus and action against this period's evidence
The specific numbers and skill signals a manager should walk into every 1:1 with — scored against a rubric instead of eyeballed, so coaching quality doesn't depend on how sharp the manager happens to feel that week.
Session Structure (30 minutes)
| Segment | Time | Content |
|---|
| Numbers review | 5 min | Walk the metrics below, rep talks first |
| Deal review | 10 min | Top 3 deals + any at-risk deal |
| Skill focus | 10 min | One named skill, tied to a real call/moment |
| Commitments | 5 min | One action the rep owns, one action the manager owns, both written down |
Section A — Activity & Pipeline Health (leading indicators)
| Metric | This period | Trend vs. last period | Score (1–4) |
|---|
| Activity volume vs. plan (calls/emails/meetings) | | | |
| Pipeline coverage ratio (open pipeline ÷ quota) | | | |
| Stage velocity (days in stage vs. team benchmark) | | | |
| Forecast accuracy (last period's committed vs. actual) | | | |
Section B — Skill Execution (scored from a real call or deal, not self-report)
| Skill | Evidence (which call/deal) | Score (1–4) |
|---|
| Discovery quality — uncovers real budget/authority/need/timeline, not surface pain | | |
| Objection handling — addresses the real objection instead of talking past it | | |
| Multi-threading — actively engaging more than one stakeholder on active deals | | |
| Value articulation — ties the solution to the buyer's own stated business outcome, not a feature list | | |
| Negotiation & closing — drives toward a clear, dated next step, not an open-ended "let me know" | | |
Rubric — Score Definitions (apply to every row in Section B)
| Score | Label | Description |
|---|
| 1 | Not evident | Skill did not show up in the reviewed call/deal; no attempt observed |
| 2 | Emerging | Attempted but inconsistent — works in easy moments, breaks down under pressure or with senior stakeholders |
| 3 | Proficient | Reliably executes this skill to the bar expected for their level/tenure |
| 4 | Advanced | Executes at a level worth recording as a peer example for the rest of the team |
Section C — Deal-Specific Review
| Deal | Next step defined & dated? (Y/N) | Champion confirmed? (Y/N) | Mutual action plan in place? (Y/N) | Risk flag |
|---|
| Top deal 1 | | | | |
| Top deal 2 | | | | |
| Top deal 3 | | | | |
| At-risk deal | | | | What changed since last review: |
Section D — Development Loop (closes the loop from last 1:1)
| Question | Answer |
|---|
| Skill focus assigned last 1:1 | |
| Did it show up in this period's calls? (Y/N + evidence) | |
| Practice/action assigned last 1:1 | |
| Was it completed? (Y/N) | |
| New skill focus for next period | |
| New action, owner, and due date | |
How to Use the Rubric Score Over Time
Track the Section B scores across consecutive 1:1s per rep. A skill stuck at 2 for three consecutive periods despite being the assigned focus area is a signal to change the method of development (shadowing, roleplay, formal training) rather than repeating the same coaching conversation a fourth time.
How to use it
Fill out Sections A-D before each 1:1 using real call/deal evidence for Section B rather than self-report, and carry Section D's commitments forward as the first line of the next 1:1.