It isn’t a formal critique. It is micro-correction and micro-praise happening in real-time. Think of it like GPS navigation. You don’t wait until you have missed three exits to tell the driver they are off course.

I like that analogy. So the manager is more of a co-pilot than a judge. But how do you structure that without micromanaging?

You structure it through cadence, not intensity. A fifteen-minute weekly check-in focused on two things: progress toward goals and blockers. No surprise attacks. If there is a serious issue, it gets addressed immediately, not saved for the end-of-year document. This builds trust because the employee knows exactly where they stand.

Because you just think, well, I've got to, I know everything I need to know, and they just need to do what I think is best. No, coaches will help new executives grow. Any executive. So I wish, if I could wave my magic wand, every executive out there would have a good coach, a really good coach, and everybody would be better off.

You've said the word coaching a couple times, which I love when you talk about leadership. I heard a quote the other day, dogs get trained, humans get coached. So, when you look at leadership and coaching, because a lot of companies would say we have an onboard training. You've got this residency. I would assume you see it just based on your language more as coaching and can they grow into what the company needs? How do you define the difference between those two?