Coaching is not the tool for misconduct!

It's a situation many leaders face at some point in their career: a team member knowingly violates a clear company policy. The first impulse is often to think, "I need to coach them on this."

This instinct is common and well-intentioned. It comes from a desire to use a developmental tool to handle a difficult people problem. However, it’s often the wrong one.

There is a critical boundary we must draw as leaders, and there are moments when coaching is simply not the right tool. In fact, using it in the wrong situation can be counterproductive and even damaging.

When an ethical line has been crossed, the first response isn’t coaching; it’s applying a clear consequence model and performance management.

To be clear on the terms:

Performance Management is a structured process of addressing and improving employee performance to meet organizational goals (again).

A Consequence Model is a pre-defined framework of actions taken in response to specific behaviors, especially policy or ethical violations.

Coaching is a developmental partnership that helps willing individuals access and build resources to achieve set goals.

Why isn't coaching the answer when a policy violation occurs?

Coaching is a partnership. It’s built on trust and a mutual desire for growth, designed to help willing individuals maximize their potential. It cannot substitute for accountability.

Think of employees who are put in the ‘bottom quartile’ and then assigned a coach to ‘fix’ them. In scenarios like this, or in cases of misconduct, a critical lack of trust often exists that prevents real coaching from happening.

It also sends the wrong message in my view. Attempting to "coach" someone through a deliberate breach of ethics misunderstands the purpose of coaching. It implies that ethical lines are negotiable and blurs the distinction between a developmental opportunity and a necessary consequence.

The distinction is this: Coaching is for amplifying potential, not for managing poor performance or even ethical violations.

We have different tools for different jobs:

For amplifying performance, we use coaching.

For poor performance, we use performance improvement plans.

For ethical violations, we have consequence models.

Confusing these tools doesn't just undermine the specific situation; it erodes the very trust that makes real coaching possible in the first place.

Coaching can play a role, but I would say it's mostly after the fact - once the person accepts responsibility and genuinely wants to learn, adjust, and recover from their actions. It’s for the employee who says, "I made a serious mistake, and I want to understand how to rebuild trust," not for the one who needs to be held accountable for an ethical breach.

How do you distinguish between a 'coaching moment' and a 'consequence moment' in your own team?

Wish you well!