LI410 Unit 9 Feedback and Coaching Plan Example

The Operator Who Taught Me the Baler: A Unit 9 Feedback and Coaching Plan

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

LI410: Leadership in Practice

Unit 9 Feedback and Coaching Plan

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Kettle Run Recovery, the baler operator, the buyer and every figure are composite and illustrative; the models and sources cited are real.

Why This Conversation Keeps Slipping

The person this plan is about is the senior baler operator on my shift, whom I will call Royce. He has run balers at Kettle Run for [seventeen] years. Four years ago, when I moved off the sort line, he taught me to run the baler: how to read the bunker, when to cycle, how to tie off a bale so the wires hold on the truck. Eight months ago we both applied for the second-shift supervisor position, and I got it.

Since then I have noticed a problem with his bales and said nothing about it. I can name three reasons. First, he trained me, and correcting the person who taught you a machine feels like claiming to know it better. Second, he applied for my job, and I worry that any correction will read as a new supervisor proving a point. Third, he is the most respected person on the floor, and the drivers and the mill's receiving clerk all ask for him by name. Each reason has given me an excuse to wait another week. Writing them down is the first step of this plan, because a plan that leaves them unspoken is the kind I would abandon on the walk to the baler.

The Evidence

Our paperboard mill pays by the ton but our freight is charged by the load, so light bales mean more trucks for the same tonnage. The mill's contract asks for mixed-paper bales of at least [1,000] pounds. Over the last [eight] weeks, the scale log shows that [X] percent of Royce's bales fell under that weight, against [Y] percent for the first-shift operator on the same baler with similar material. The difference added about [N] extra outbound loads over the period, at roughly [freight amount] each.

I have also watched how it happens. On heavy nights, when the bunker fills quickly, Royce cycles the baler before the chamber is full to keep paper from backing onto the floor. That habit protects the floor, and it is a reasonable instinct. It also produces short bales, and nobody has ever told him what the short bales cost. I want to be clear in this plan that I do not know his reasons for certain. The pattern fits a floor-clearing habit, but it could also reflect something I cannot see, such as a problem with the baler's sensors, a physical difficulty or a workload issue upstream on the line.

Feedback and Coaching, Kept Apart

Feedback and coaching do different jobs, and this conversation needs both. Feedback tells a person what was observed and what it caused. Coaching helps the person work out what to do about it. The Center for Creative Leadership's Situation-Behavior-Impact model, described by Weitzel (2000), structures feedback in three parts: the specific situation, the observable behavior and its effect. Its value here is that it keeps the opening to facts I can show Royce rather than conclusions about his skill or attitude, which matters a great deal with a person who taught me the job.

Kluger and DeNisi (1996) pooled decades of feedback studies and reported a modest gain overall, alongside a sobering detail: in roughly a third of the comparisons, feedback left performance worse, and the losses clustered where the message pulled attention away from the work and toward the self. Feedback that implies Royce has become careless would be the version most likely to backfire. Feedback about one machine, one night and one number keeps the attention on the task.

Coaching begins once the facts are on the table. Whitmore (2017) sets out the GROW sequence: Goal, Reality, Options and Will. Its premise is that people commit more fully to solutions they produce themselves. Royce knows the baler better than I do. A plan where I tell him how to cycle it would waste that knowledge and confirm every worry I listed above. A plan where he proposes the fix uses it.

The Opening, as I Will Say It

I will hold the conversation in the break room at the start of a shift, not on the floor, with the scale log printed. The opening will be close to this:

"Royce, I want to talk about bale weights, and I should have raised it months ago, so that part is on me. Last Tuesday, on the night we had the two wet routes, I watched you cycle the baler early four or five times to keep the bunker from backing up. Looking at the scale log, [X] percent of the bales on our shift over the last two months came in under the mill's thousand pounds, against [Y] percent on first shift. That's been adding a few extra trucks a month, and the freight comes out of the same budget as the tonnage bonus. I don't know everything that goes into it, and you know that baler better than anyone here. What's your read?"

The opening owns the delay first, because Royce will notice it and I would rather name it than have him wonder why now. It describes one night and one behavior, then the effect in money that matters to the crew. It ends with a real question, and I will stop talking after asking it.

The opening owns my delay before it mentions his bales, because the eight months of silence are part of the problem I am raising.

Coaching Questions

Goal. "If the bales came in at weight and the floor still stayed clear, what would that look like on a heavy night?"

Reality. "What happens on the floor when you let the chamber fill? When does the bunker back up, and how often?" Here I expect to learn things I do not know, perhaps about the presort line feeding the bunker too fast or a sensor reading the chamber as full early.

Options. "What could change, on the baler or upstream, so you don't have to choose between a clean floor and a full bale?" If he names nothing, I can offer one possibility, such as asking presort to slow the infeed for ten minutes when the bunker crosses a marked line, but only after he has had room to answer.

Will. "Which of those do you want to try first, and how will we know in two weeks if it's working?"

Likely Responses and My Replies

He may say the bales have always been that way and nobody complained. In that case I will agree that nobody told him, which is true, and that this is exactly why I am raising it now, with the freight figures rather than a complaint.

He may become defensive about my promotion, perhaps saying that I learned the baler from him. I will agree that I did, say that this is why I want his ideas rather than my own, and keep the conversation on the numbers.

He may disclose something I did not know: a wrist injury that makes the tie-off harder on full bales, a sensor problem or pressure from presort. Any of those changes the plan. A health issue goes to the plant manager and human resources with his consent; an equipment fault goes to maintenance that night; an upstream problem becomes mine to fix with the presort lead.

He may agree quickly without engaging. A fast yes can mean he wants the conversation over, so I will ask him what he would try first and write down his answer, which turns agreement into a commitment he has named.

Measures of Progress

Two measures will show whether the conversation worked. The first is the scale log: the share of our shift's bales under the mill's weight, reviewed weekly for [eight] weeks against the first-shift figure. The second is less exact but just as important: whether Royce starts bringing baler problems to me before I find them. If in two months he tells me about a sensor issue or a bunker problem I had not noticed, the relationship will have moved even if the weights move slowly.

I will also check my own side. If the weights do not improve and I discover I have not followed up, the failure is mine, not his.

Dates

The conversation will take place at the start of next Tuesday's shift. The first follow-up will be two weeks later, at the same time, with the scale log in hand and his chosen fix as the first item. The second will be at eight weeks, when we review the weights together and decide whether the change stays.

Writing this plan has already done one thing: it has made the delay harder to justify. The conversation I avoided for eight months now has a date, a script and a list of what could go wrong, and that leaves me with fewer reasons to postpone it again.

References

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Weitzel, S. R. (2000). Feedback that works: How to build and deliver your message. Center for Creative Leadership.

Whitmore, J. (2017). Coaching for performance: The principles and practice of coaching and leadership (5th ed.). Nicholas Brealey Publishing.