In the first three articles of this Step 3 series, we examined the purpose, methods, and quality standards for setting targets and goals:
- The Overview explained why direction and measurement give problem solving its compass.
- The Tools and Methods article introduced frameworks such as George Doran’s original SMART concept, Toyota’s Target Condition Sheet, and capability-based metrics.
- The What Good Looks Like article showed how to recognize strong goal statements and avoid the most common traps.
This final piece shifts from creating targets and goals to coaching others through them. It explores how a coach helps people think clearly, choose the right level of scope, and balance autonomy, learning, and risk. Good coaching isn’t about following a style—it’s about reading the situation and responding appropriately.
1) The Coach’s Role at This Step
The coach’s job is often not to provide the target or rewrite the goal—it’s to draw out the thinking behind it.
By asking and listening carefully, a coach uncovers whether the learner truly understands:
- What kind of problem they’re facing (Type 2 vs. Type 3).
- How the goal was chosen and whether it fits the situation.
- If the goal is measurable, time-bound, and aligned.
- How it connects to larger objectives.
- Whether sub-goals are necessary and if they remain within a manageable scope.
Weak or vague goals often trace back to weak problem definition.
Strong, specific goals show that Steps 1 and 2 (Clarify the Background and Define the Problem) were done with rigor.
2) Coaching Questions That Deepen Thinking
Good coaches don’t merely fix the words on the page; they develop the thinking behind them.
One of the coach’s initial questions should clarify the problem type—whether it’s a Type 2 “gap from standard” or a Type 3 “target-state” situation for example—because the nature of the goal will differ. The intent in this article isn’t to lecture on classification but to ensure the team’s target and goal fit the situation.
Helpful questions include:
Clarifying intent
- What exactly are we trying to improve?
- How did you decide this target or goal was appropriate?
- Does this goal truly address the defined problem?
Checking measurability and realism
- How will we know when we’ve achieved it?
- What data defines the baseline?
- Is the timeframe clear and realistic for the resources available?
Testing the logic
- What alternatives did you consider before setting this target?
- Who was involved in deciding it, and how did that discussion go?
Exploring alignment
- How does this goal connect to broader business or strategic priorities?
- Who depends on this result?
- What happens upstream or downstream if you achieve it?
These questions help both the coach and the learner clarify reasoning without dictating answers.
3) Goals, Sub-Goals, and Scope
Broad statements like “Improve area productivity by 10 %” often need to be broken down into sub-goals—such as increasing pieces-per-hour at key stations, improving material availability, or reducing downtime on critical assets.
That’s not wrong; it’s how complex problems get managed.
But the pattern itself tells the coach something important.
A few coherent sub-goals typically show that the problem has been decomposed thoughtfully.
Too many sub-goals, however, may signal that the original problem statement was too broad or that prioritization is missing.
The coach can explore this by asking:
- Do these sub-goals all directly contribute to the main objective?
- Could this actually be several smaller problems instead of one large one?
- Is the learner capable of handling this scope right now?
Less-experienced problem solvers often benefit from narrower focus and one clear goal.
Experienced practitioners can handle broader issues where multiple sub-goals cascade from a primary target.
The coach’s task is to sense which kind of learner they’re working with and tailor the approach accordingly.
4) When and How to Intervene — Adjusting the Coaching Style
Coaching is situational and depends upon different factors at work.
A skilled coach reads the moment—just as a football coach handles a live game differently than a practice session.
During a game, when risk and consequence are high, the coach might step in immediately to call a time out and correct a formation or change a play. In practice, that same coach may let an error unfold, then debrief later with assistant coaches and players to strengthen understanding.
The same logic applies in problem solving.
When the current direction risks harm, safety, or major disruption, the coach should intervene directly and bring it to the attention of necessary parties. That isn’t micromanagement—it’s proper stewardship. Coaching never overrides responsibility for people, equipment, or customer outcomes but it does not ignore critical situations.
Once safety and stability are secure, the coach also needs to look at skill and motivation.
A novice may need directive coaching—clear structure, examples, and boundaries.
As competence grows, the coach can use a more balanced style, alternating between guidance and inquiry.
With capable and engaged learners, the coach can shift to open-ended questioning that fosters ownership and deeper insight.
Motivation matters too. A disengaged learner often needs structure and small wins; an engaged learner may need space and trust.
In short, the coach must constantly adjust the mix—sometimes directive, sometimes guiding, sometimes observing.
There’s no “one right way.”
Good coaching is adaptive, context-sensitive, and accountable—aimed at helping people learn safely and effectively, not just freely.
5) Closing Reflection
Effective coaching goals or any section in problem solving rejects the illusion of a single correct style.
It’s not about always asking questions or always giving answers—it’s about reading conditions and responding with judgment.
Sometimes that means stepping in decisively; other times, holding back to let reflection and ownership develop.
The best coaches integrate both discipline and flexibility.
They respect the learner’s development while protecting safety and performance.
They know that building problem-solving capability isn’t about comfort—it’s about balance: stretching thinking, managing risk, and improving both people and processes.
When a team learns to set its own targets and goals with this kind of clarity and adaptability, they don’t just complete problem solving reports—they become capable of continuous improvement without constant supervision.
That, ultimately, is the goal of good coaching.