WMBA 6633 Week 9 Coaching Progress Review Example

Reviewing a Supervisor Coaching Arrangement at Week Sixteen: The Handoff Goal Against Fifteen Weeks of Shift Ratings, the Second Goal on Directing Former Peers and a Verdict to Continue in a Narrower Form Until September 30

Student Name

Walden University

WMBA 6633: Personal Leadership: Mentoring and Coaching

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Reviewing a Supervisor Coaching Arrangement at Week Sixteen: The Handoff Goal Against Fifteen Weeks of Shift Ratings, the Second Goal on Directing Former Peers and a Verdict to Continue in a Narrower Form Until September 30

What Is Being Reviewed

This review assesses the coaching arrangement between me, as head of operations at the composite Tri-County warehouse, and D. R., the second-shift supervisor promoted in March 2027. The arrangement began on April 5 under a written agreement with one goal and was renewed on May 14 with a second. The question here is whether the arrangement, meaning its goals, cadence and methods, is producing the changes it was set up to produce, and what should happen to it next. It is not an appraisal of D. R.; that is his shift manager's ninety-day review, which this document does not replace.

The evidence comes from three sources: the shared handoff log, in which the first-shift supervisor rates every handoff complete or incomplete; the priority-order report from the warehouse system, which records whether priority orders made the 1 a.m. truck; and my session notes, which D. R. has read.

Goal One: A Complete End-of-Shift Handoff

The first agreement set the goal that by May 14, D. R. would hand over a shift that the morning supervisor judged complete nine times in ten or better.

Table 1

Handoffs Rated Complete by the First-Shift Supervisor, April 5 to July 23, 2027

Ratings come from the shared handoff log. The organization is composite and the employee is identified by initials.

The goal was met by the agreed date and has held for ten weeks without sessions focused on it. The two incomplete handoffs in late June both fell in the week of his father's hospital discharge, and both omitted the same section, absent temporary workers. I read the dip as circumstantial rather than a loss of the skill. Goal one is complete, and continuing to coach on it would spend sessions on something he already does.

Goal Two: Giving Direction to Former Peers

The renewed agreement of May 14 added a harder goal: that D. R. would give work direction to former peers privately, specifically and before the shift, measured by two indicators. The first was that priority orders would make the 1 a.m. truck on at least nineteen of twenty nights. The second, agreed between us, was that he would correct individual behavior one on one rather than at the huddle.

Table 2

Evidence on Goal Two, May 17 to July 23, 2027

Evidence comes from the warehouse system report, my observation of eleven huddles and session notes.

Progress here is real but incomplete. The huddle in June was a setback, and the feedback session that followed changed his practice: he has since corrected people at their stations, and the temporary worker involved stayed on second shift. Priority orders improved after the bonus weighting changed, which suggests that part of the problem was the pay design rather than his direction. The five-day delay in raising the senior picker's remarks shows that the hardest part of the goal, acting against a friend, is not yet settled.

What the Arrangement Itself Did Well and Badly

Two features of the arrangement worked. Measuring with a rating made by someone else, the morning supervisor, kept our sessions anchored to evidence; neither of us had to rely on impressions. Locke and Latham (2002) found that specific, challenging goals paired with feedback produce higher performance than vague intentions, and goal one was built that way. The twice-weekly cadence also mattered at the start, when a new habit had to be practiced nightly.

Two features worked less well. Goal two's first indicator, truck departures, depended partly on things D. R. does not control, such as the bonus design and inbound delays, so it measured the operation as much as his direction. And twice-weekly sessions became too frequent once goal one was met; three sessions in June were spent mostly on updates. DeRue and Wellman (2009) found that leadership skill development rose with developmental challenge but leveled off at high levels of it, and that access to feedback softened the leveling. The implication runs both ways here: frequent feedback matters most where the challenge is high, which describes goal two, and least where a task has become routine, which now describes goal one. The cadence should follow the harder goal, not the calendar we set in April.

D. R.'s Reading of the Same Evidence

I asked D. R. to read the two tables before our July 27 session and tell me what he saw. He agreed that the handoff goal was done and said he no longer thinks about it. On goal two he was harder on himself than the evidence suggests: he counted the five-day delay as a failure and wanted to keep twice-weekly sessions. We settled on weekly sessions with the option to add one when a peer issue comes up, which keeps support available at the moments it is most needed without filling the calendar.

Verdict

The arrangement continues, in a narrower form, until September 30, 2027. Goal one is closed. Goal two is rewritten around the part D. R. controls: raising peer conduct concerns with HR or his manager within one shift of hearing them, and correcting individual behavior privately. The truck indicator moves to the shift manager's operational review. Sessions drop to once a week for thirty minutes. On September 30 we will decide whether to end the arrangement or move to monthly check-ins. Jones et al. (2015) found that workplace coaching improved learning and performance outcomes, but an arrangement that has met its first purpose should shrink to fit the second rather than run on by habit.

References

DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859-875. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015317

Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2015). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12119

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705