Echelon Performance · Evidence-Based Coaching
Sample Client
— · — · — reports · — managers · Demo · Fictional data
Coaching Pulse
Sample Client managers coach more effectively than their therapeutic area peers. The strengths are real; what is missing is a defined goal for the team member to build toward.
Where Sample Client sits on coaching effectiveness

Coaching effectiveness is how often the four Best Practices show up in a field coaching report, averaged across all four. It says how consistently good coaching is happening, not how deep it goes. Each dot below is one manager.

PATHWAY TO EFFECTIVE COACHING 56% SAMPLE CLIENT 53% Total Industry 44% Therapeutic Area 0% 100% each dot is one manager
Sample Client’s 56% sits to the right of both the therapeutic area benchmark (44%) and total industry (53%). The spread behind that average is wide, running from 26% to 69%, which is why the shape matters as much as the number. The Organization tab takes this apart: what sits behind the 56%, how far the coaching goes once it is there, and why the aim is to move the whole curve rather than the average.
—vs — TA
Coaching is aimed at the right skills. Sample Client managers were more likely than their peers to coach to skills aligned with commercial strategy, seen in — of reports against — across the therapeutic area. That reflects a better-than-average working knowledge of which skills drive continued growth.
—vs — TA
The quality of that coaching is high on two vital criteria. Specific coaching appears in — of reports against — across the therapeutic area, and coaching to Impact is well ahead of peers at — against —.
—goals set
Skill development goals are ahead of peers, but not yet a habit. Sample Client managers are more likely than the therapeutic area to set or coach to a skill development goal, though only — reach Consistent. More consideration and training in this area is needed.
—of — reports
The team is comfortable with the coaching platform. Only — of — coaching reports contained no manager-provided feedback, and five of those came from a single manager. The tool is not the barrier.
Strengths to Build From
What the reports already do well. These are the raw materials the priorities opposite need; the work is joining them up, not starting something new.
Coach to Skills That Support Strategy — present in — of reports against — across the therapeutic area. A better-than-average working knowledge of which skills drive growth.
Specific — present in — of reports against — across the therapeutic area. Detailed observation of how the team member executed.
Impact — present in — of reports against — across the therapeutic area. Helping the team member understand what their execution changes.
Comfort with the Platform — — of — reports carried manager-provided feedback. The tool is not a barrier to coaching here.
Moving Toward Impact — Developmental Priorities
Where the coaching stops short. Read as a direction for the group, not a verdict on any individual.
Narrow the focus, and set it in advance — Managers let the events of the field visit drive the feedback, which makes coaching reactive. The next level of impact comes from agreeing one or two skills with the team member before the visit.
Take a longer view of skill development — Continuity, holding a small number of skills across multiple visits, appears in — of reports. That is far below both the industry and therapeutic area benchmarks.
Engage the team member in their own coaching — — of reports show team member engagement at any point in the Coaching Cycle, against — industry and — therapeutic area. A more disciplined approach to skill goals is the way in: it builds Balance and Continuity, and creates the moments where the team member takes part.
Analyst Feedback — Anecdotal
Written by the analysts who read the reports, not calculated. This is what the scores alone do not show. Organization level only, never by individual coach or team member.
From the reviews
  • When coaching was attempted, it more often took the form of scripts to read, product highlights, or targeting logic (which customers to prioritize, based on prescribing data) than building a specific selling skill.
  • Feedback was often framed as what the manager would have done rather than what the team member should build next. That reads as correction rather than coaching, and it puts the skill in the manager's hands instead of the team member's.
  • Reports read largely as call summaries and to-do lists. The activity is documented, the development is not.
How the reports were scored
    How Every Report Was Scored
    Step 1
    Is it there at all?

    A simple yes or no on each Best Practice. Did this field coaching report reflect Coaching to Skills, for example?

    Reported as a percentage — the share of reports where the practice appeared.

    No → the review ends there, scored 0 · No Evidence
    Step 2
    If yes, how strong is it?

    Reports with evidence are read again for the strength of that coaching, on a four-point scale.

    Reported as a level number from 0 to 4 — how far the coaching went, not how often it happened.

    1Reactive 2Incremental 3Consistent 4Effective

    Everything on this page follows from those two steps. The percentages say how often a practice appeared; the colored bars say how far it was taken.

    What We Measured, and Where It Stands
    Four Best Practices define effective coaching. The fourth, coaching quality, is measured through the six BASICS. Every figure here is a percentage: the share of reports where the practice appeared at all, against the two benchmarks. How far it was taken is on the next card down.
    BASICS — the quality standard inside Best Practice 4
    Six criteria that separate coaching that changes behavior from coaching that records it.
    Movement since —
    Every criterion measured the same way in both quarters. The hollow dot is —, the solid dot is —, and the line between them is the change. Coaching Quality is broken out into its six BASICS so you can see which parts moved.
    Two Measures of the Same Coaching
    The same 18 managers, plotted twice, using the two steps above. The left curve is step one: how often coaching appeared. The right curve is step two: how far it was taken. Each dot is one manager.
    How often — presence
    56%SAMPLE CLIENT53%Total Industry44%Therapeutic Area 0% 100%

    Read it as: each manager plotted by the share of their reports where the best practices appeared. Sample Client averages 56%, which is right of both benchmarks, and the spread is healthy. Coaching happens here, more often than at peers.

    How far — depth on the level scale
    0.94AVERAGE LEVEL 0 No Evidence1 Reactive2 Incremental3 Consistent4 Effective

    Read it as: the same managers plotted by their average level, on the shaded 0 to 4 scale behind. Every one falls inside Reactive or below. No manager averages Incremental, and none is close to Consistent.

    Both pictures are true. Sample Client coaches more often than its peers and sits right of the benchmark on presence. On depth, the whole group is packed into the first level. That is the gap the next read is built to move, and it is why a high percentage and a Reactive rating sit side by side without contradiction.
    How Far Each Practice Was Taken
    Step two, criterion by criterion. Every figure here is a level, not a percentage. Each bar is every report sorted onto the 0 to 4 scale, so the width of a colour is how many reports sit at that level, and the number on the right is the average. Leverage High-Quality Coaching pools the six BASICS; open that row to see them individually.
    How every report was scored
    Step 1
    Is it there at all?

    A simple yes or no on each Best Practice. Did this field coaching report reflect Coaching to Skills, for example?

    Reported as a percentage — the share of reports where the practice appeared.

    No → the review ends there, scored 0 · No Evidence
    Step 2
    If yes, how strong is it?

    Reports with evidence are read again for the strength of that coaching, on a four-point scale.

    Reported as a level number from 0 to 4 — how far the coaching went, not how often it happened.

    1Reactive2Incremental 3Consistent4Effective
    Region Comparison — Coaching Effectiveness
    All three regions against the Sample Client baseline. Click a region to drill in below.
    Summary —
    The four Best Practices and the six BASICS for this region, measured against the Sample Client baseline. Every figure here is a percentage: the share of reports where the practice appeared at all.
    BASICS — the quality standard inside Best Practice 4
    Strengths to Build From —
    The three this region does most consistently, in priority order.
    Moving Toward Impact —
    The three organisation priorities, ordered by where this scope stands today, each with the next level to move toward.
    Two Measures of the Same Coaching —
    Every manager in this region, plotted twice, using the two steps above. The left curve is step one: how often coaching appeared. The right curve is step two: how far it was taken. Each dot is one manager, and the dashed line is the Sample Client baseline.
    How Far Each Practice Was Taken —
    Step two, criterion by criterion, for this region. Every figure here is a level, not a percentage. Each bar is every report sorted onto the 0 to 4 scale, and the number on the right is the average. Leverage High-Quality Coaching pools the six BASICS; open that row to see them individually.
    Coaching the Coaches —
    One card per manager, ranked by effectiveness. Each shows the practice they already take furthest, where they stand on the three organisation priorities, and the next level to move toward. Open one at a time.
    Why these three. Every manager is measured against the same organisation priorities rather than whatever scores lowest for them individually, so eighteen conversations pull in one direction. Supportive sits at 4% across the whole group; that is a program-level pattern, not an individual coaching gap, and it is handled in the workshop rather than in these conversations.
    Movement since — —
    This region measured the same way in both quarters. Hollow dot is —, solid dot is —, and the line between them is the change. Coaching Quality is broken out into its six BASICS.
    How every report was scored
    Step 1
    Is it there at all?

    A simple yes or no on each Best Practice. Did this field coaching report reflect Coaching to Skills, for example?

    Reported as a percentage — the share of reports where the practice appeared.

    No → the review ends there, scored 0 · No Evidence
    Step 2
    If yes, how strong is it?

    Reports with evidence are read again for the strength of that coaching, on a four-point scale.

    Reported as a level number from 0 to 4 — how far the coaching went, not how often it happened.

    1Reactive2Incremental 3Consistent4Effective
    Manager Comparison — Coaching Effectiveness
    Every manager in the selected scope, against the Sample Client baseline. Click a manager to open their page.
    Summary —
    The four Best Practices and the six BASICS for this manager, measured against their region and the Sample Client baseline. Every figure here is a percentage: the share of reports where the practice appeared at all.
    BASICS — the quality standard inside Best Practice 4
    Strengths to Build From —
    The three this manager does most consistently, in priority order.
    Moving Toward Impact —
    The three organisation priorities, ordered by where this scope stands today, each with the next level to move toward.
    Two Measures of the Same Coaching —
    Every report this manager wrote, plotted twice, using the two steps above. The left curve is step one: how often the Best Practices appeared. The right curve is step two: how far they were taken. Each dot is one report, and the dashed markers are their region and the Sample Client baseline.
    How Far Each Practice Was Taken —
    Step two, criterion by criterion, for this manager. Every figure here is a level, not a percentage. Each bar is every one of their reports sorted onto the 0 to 4 scale, and the number on the right is the average. Leverage High-Quality Coaching pools the six BASICS; open that row to see them individually.
    Movement since — —
    This manager measured the same way in both quarters. Hollow dot is —, solid dot is —. One manager's quarter is a much smaller sample than the organization's, so read the headline and the pooled Coaching Quality rows first and treat a single criterion's move as directional.
    How every report was scored
    Step 1
    Is it there at all?

    A simple yes or no on each Best Practice. Did this field coaching report reflect Coaching to Skills, for example?

    Reported as a percentage — the share of reports where the practice appeared.

    No → the review ends there, scored 0 · No Evidence
    Step 2
    If yes, how strong is it?

    Reports with evidence are read again for the strength of that coaching, on a four-point scale.

    Reported as a level number from 0 to 4 — how far the coaching went, not how often it happened.

    1Reactive2Incremental 3Consistent4Effective
    What the Coaching Was Aimed At
    The three core selling competencies, and how often each one was genuinely coached rather than only named. Scored for the manager's coaching, not the team member's proficiency.
    Selling Competencies in Detail —
    Each competency split three ways, using the same logic as the Best Practice levels: not addressed at all, named but not coached, or genuinely coached.
    How this maps to the level scale. Not addressed is the same as 0 No Evidence. Named only is a mention without development, which is what Reactive looks like at level 1. Coached means the manager worked the competency with the team member, which is level 2 or above.
    Reading This Alongside the Best Practices
    These two views answer different questions and the numbers are not in conflict.
    Methodology & Scoring Scale

    How every report was scored. Two steps. First, a yes or no on each best practice: did this field coaching report reflect it at all? If no, the review ends there and the criterion is scored 0 · No Evidence. If yes, the report is read again for the strength of that coaching on a four-point scale: 1 Reactive, 2 Incremental, 3 Consistent, 4 Effective.

    The four best practices. Coach to Skills That Support Strategy · Set and Coach to Skill Development Goals · Engage in Every Phase of the Coaching Cycle · Leverage High-Quality Coaching. The fourth is measured through the six BASICS criteria: Balanced, Actionable, Specific, Impact, Continuity, Supportive.

    The two measures, and how to read them together. Presence is the share of reports where a practice appeared at all, level 1 or above. It is how the industry benchmark is expressed, and it is what the percentages on this dashboard report. Depth is where a practice sits on the level scale once it is there. A group can be above benchmark on presence and still early on depth; both are true and the distance between them is the opportunity.

    Coaching effectiveness. The headline figure is the average of the four best practice scores, each expressed as presence. It is not the share of reports that reflect all four together.

    Average level. On the Level Mix table, the figure at the right of each row is the mean level across all reports for that criterion, zeros included. It is the same statistic the depth curve plots, so the two read consistently. The word beneath it is the level that average falls in.

    Benchmarks. Therapeutic Area and Total Industry come from Echelon's coaching report corpus (values in this demo are illustrative). Both are shown side by side on the Organization tab, with the Sample Client baseline used for the Region and By Manager views.

    Cadence. This is the baseline read. It covers —, —, and uses the criteria, scoring scale and benchmarks the follow-up will reuse, so the two are directly comparable. The follow-up runs —.

    Sampling. — Reports are drawn in clusters of consecutive visits so Continuity is measurable. Team members being coached are not named or scored: the unit of analysis is the coaching written in the report, which is the manager's work.

    Blank reports. — of the reports analyzed were completed in the coaching platform with no manager-written content in any coaching field. They are scored zero throughout rather than excluded, because a report that was never written is a real absence of coaching. They are not flagged on individual pages: the counts are uneven across the group, and a single blank in twenty reports means something different from several, so the pattern is better read at organization level than as a mark against a manager.

    Source. Every rating is an Echelon analyst score recorded against the Evidence-Based Coaching rubric. Nothing is modeled, weighted or interpolated.

    Questions about this analysis?

    Ask us about the rubric, the scoring method, or the detail behind any figure on this page. We are happy to walk through how the analysis was built and what it means for your team.

    Ask a question
    Sample Client · Demonstration with fictional data  |  Echelon Performance — Evidence-Based Coaching Analysis  |  — · baseline complete