Good coaching is also about creating and communicating clear performance standards and performance expectations. I have often worked with teams, and if you ask five team members what the performance standards are, you receive five different answers. Many times, leaders fail to be explicit about what they expect from the team. In some instances, they assume (falsely) that the team knows what’s expected of them. In other situations, they are deliberately vague, fearful that if they make their expectations known, people will feel intimidated or fail to put in the time and energy to exceed these expectations. Whatever the reason, leaders fall short as coaches when their people don’t know what’s expected of them or harbor false expectations.
Tony makes sure his people know what’s required of them, and his lieutenants in turn insist their people also are clear about what’s needed from them. There’s a trickle-down effect to clear expectations: When the person at the top insists on clarity, the next rank of managers also tends to set clear expectations. Paulie, for instance, lets Christopher know exactly what he must contribute. Christopher, on receiving made-man status, reports to Paulie, who tells him that he must clear six grand. Paulie is clear about the results he expects. Shortly thereafter, Christopher presents Paulie with four grand; Paulie responds that this number is unacceptable. In true Christopher style, he tells Paulie that he needs a couple of days to come up with the rest but "he’s learned a valuable lesson." Paulie doesn’t want to hear any of his excuses. He says, "I’m not running a school here, kid." Though Paulie gives him the requested additional time, he makes Christopher pay the price for his poor performance; he charges him a late fee of an additional two grand. Thus, Paulie provides us with an addendum to the coaching lesson: Enforce negative consequences when expectations aren’t met.