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.
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.