When performance falls, it is tempting to reach for a familiar solution. I might arrange coaching, send someone to training or ask a manager to give more feedback.
Each can help. But the right support depends on the cause of the problem.
I start with a more basic question: what is preventing the expected result?
A team may understand its targets but lack the skills to meet them. A manager may know what a difficult conversation requires but lack confidence in having it. People may be capable and motivated, yet face unclear responsibilities, slow approvals, insufficient resources or conflicting priorities.
These problems can look similar in a report. They do not call for the same intervention.
What coaching can contribute
Coaching can help a person examine how they are approaching a challenge. Through reflection and focused questions, a person may notice assumptions, habits or choices that were difficult to see before.
This can strengthen judgment, confidence and ownership. A manager might become more aware of how their communication affects the team, or how they respond when results fall short.
But coaching does not automatically provide every answer. A person may understand the issue more clearly and still need practical guidance to handle it.
When mentoring adds value
Mentoring can help bridge that gap. A mentor can share relevant experience, explain how a similar situation was handled and help someone consider practical options.
For example, a new manager may recognize through coaching that they avoid addressing poor performance. They may also benefit from a mentor who can help them prepare for the conversation, explain what to watch for and practise possible approaches.
The two approaches can work together: coaching supports reflection and choice; mentoring offers context and practical experience. The balance depends on the person, the situation and the outcome required.
Some barriers sit outside the person
Even coaching and mentoring will have limited effect if the underlying problem sits in the work itself.
A recurring delivery delay may be linked to approval steps or material availability. Quality issues may point to inconsistent standards or insufficient equipment. Missed targets may reflect a workload that no individual can reasonably manage.
In these situations, I look beyond individual behavior. Leaders may need to clarify accountability, improve a process, provide resources or resolve competing priorities.
The aim is not to label every performance issue a system problem. It is to avoid asking an individual to solve a barrier they do not control.
Diagnose before choosing the intervention
When I look at a recurring performance issue, I consider a few questions:
- Does the person understand the expected result?
- Do they have the skills and experience to deliver it?
- What happens when they try?
- Are the process, tools, authority and priorities clear?
- What support would help, and what needs to change around them?
The answers help determine whether the next step should be coaching, mentoring, training, clearer management, a process change—or a combination.
Connect support to the business result
The purpose is not to provide more development activity. It is to improve the work and the result.
That might mean more reliable delivery, fewer defects, stronger productivity, clearer accountability or lower operational risk. Progress should be visible in the issue the organization set out to address.
Coaching can be valuable. Mentoring can make experience more accessible. Practical action can remove barriers in the work. When I match the support to the real cause, development has a better chance of improving performance.
I share this as a practical starting point, not as a substitute for context-specific judgment. If your organization is working through a similar question, start a conversation with me →