How to use it
Pull the listed evidence first, score all 6 criteria independently before totaling, then use the band and the single lowest-scoring criterion as the focus of your next coaching conversation with that manager.
What's inside
- What this scorecard measures (and what it deliberately doesn't)
- 6 scored criteria with 1-4 level descriptors each
- Evidence sources to pull from per criterion
- Scoring sheet and total-score bands
- Calibration guidance for using this across multiple managers
- Manager self-scoring version
This scorecard rates the manager's coaching behavior, not the team's sales results. A manager can have a strong-performing team and be a weak coach (inherited good reps, or coasting on a hot market), and a manager can be an excellent coach on a team still building toward its numbers. Score the behavior you can actually observe or find evidence of, not the scoreboard.
What to Pull as Evidence Before Scoring
- 2-3 recent 1:1 notes or recordings
- The manager's coaching cadence log (see the Manager Time-to-Coach Ratio Calculator)
- One ride-along the manager did themselves, observed or debriefed with you
- Any PIP or feedback documentation the manager has written in the last quarter
The 6 Criteria
1. Consistency: Does coaching happen on a predictable cadence, protected from being cancelled?
| Score | Descriptor |
|---|
| 1 | Coaching is ad hoc; 1:1s are frequently cancelled or skipped under pressure |
| 2 | A cadence exists on paper but is inconsistently held |
| 3 | Cadence is mostly held; occasional justified exceptions, always rescheduled |
| 4 | Cadence is fully protected; rarely cancelled, and reps can predict when their coaching time is |
2. Specificity: Is feedback anchored to a named skill and a specific observed moment, or vague/generic?
| Score | Descriptor |
|---|
| 1 | Feedback is generic ("be more confident," "push harder") with no reference to a specific moment |
| 2 | Feedback names a general area but rarely a specific behavior or moment |
| 3 | Feedback usually names a specific behavior and moment, occasionally slips into generic |
| 4 | Feedback consistently names the skill, the specific moment, and what the alternative behavior would look like |
3. Rep-Led Ratio: Does the rep do most of the talking and reach their own conclusions, or does the manager lecture?
| Score | Descriptor |
|---|
| 1 | Manager talks through most of the session; rep is mostly receiving instructions |
| 2 | Manager leads the diagnosis and hands the rep a plan |
| 3 | Manager asks questions but often answers them before the rep does |
| 4 | Rep does the majority of the talking; names their own goal, diagnosis, and plan (GROW-style) |
4. Skill-Linkage: Is coaching tied to a named, transferable competency, or is it deal-specific tactics only?
| Score | Descriptor |
|---|
| 1 | Coaching is entirely "say this in your next call/deal" with no named skill behind it |
| 2 | Occasionally names a skill, but most coaching is deal-tactical |
| 3 | Usually names the underlying skill, occasionally slips into pure deal tactics |
| 4 | Every coaching conversation names the specific skill, ties it to why it matters for the rep's growth, and the deal is treated as the practice ground, not the point |
5. Follow-Through, Are commitments from prior sessions actually checked and closed?
| Score | Descriptor |
|---|
| 1 | No record of prior commitments; each session starts from zero |
| 2 | Commitments are noted but rarely revisited |
| 3 | Most sessions open by checking the prior commitment before moving to new material |
| 4 | Every session opens with a check on the prior commitment, and there's a visible log of what's been tried, what worked, what didn't |
6. Psychological Safety: Do reps raise problems, mistakes, and pushback without fear, and does the manager respond without defensiveness?
| Score | Descriptor |
|---|
| 1 | Reps report holding back bad news or mistakes from this manager |
| 2 | Reps share some things but visibly filter what they raise |
| 3 | Reps generally raise issues; manager sometimes reacts defensively |
| 4 | Reps raise mistakes and pushback freely; manager responds with curiosity, not defensiveness |
Scoring Sheet
| Criterion | Score (1-4) |
|---|
| 1. Consistency | |
| 2. Specificity | |
| 3. Rep-Led Ratio | |
| 4. Skill-Linkage | |
| 5. Follow-Through | |
| 6. Psychological Safety | |
| Total (out of 24) | |
Total-Score Bands
| Total | Band | Recommended leader action |
|---|
| 6-11 | Developing coach | Pair with a stronger coach for shadowing; consider formal coaching-skills training before adding headcount |
| 12-17 | Competent coach | Targeted improvement on the 1-2 lowest criteria; re-score in one quarter |
| 18-21 | Strong coach | Candidate to shadow-train newer managers on their weakest criterion |
| 22-24 | Exceptional coach | Candidate to formally mentor other managers or contribute to manager onboarding |
Calibration Note for Leaders Scoring Multiple Managers
Score at least two managers back-to-back using the same evidence set before finalizing any single score, this catches leniency or harshness drift. If two managers score identically on paper but your gut says they're not equal, go back to the evidence: the gap is usually in Specificity or Skill-Linkage, the two criteria managers most often overclaim on their own.
Manager Self-Scoring Version
Have the manager score themselves on the same 6 criteria before you share your score. The gap between self-score and leader-score is itself useful coaching data, a manager who rates their own Specificity a 4 when the evidence says 2 has a self-awareness gap worth addressing directly.