Coaching and Reflection
Introduction – Teaching the Discipline of Confirmation
The final part of Step 6 shifts from tools to people. Good checking habits don’t sustain themselves; they are developed through coaching—steady, respectful guidance that helps others learn to verify rather than assume.
A coach’s role is to help the team think scientifically: define success clearly, seek evidence objectively, and revisit assumptions when results fall short. Step 6 is the perfect training ground for this mindset because it exposes the gap between perception and proof.
In Toyota’s problem-solving culture, this is where the sensei asks, “How do you know?” and expects a factual, verifiable answer. The same spirit should guide every organization that wants to replace opinion with observation.
1 – Coaching the Thinking Process
The heart of Step 6 coaching is teaching people to connect logic from goal to result. When a team presents its findings, a good coach asks:
- Does the check match the goal we set in Step 3?
- Are the measures before and after comparable?
- What changed in the process, and can we prove that linkage?
- Were results confirmed over time, or just once?
- Were other performance indicators (quality, safety, cost, morale) checked to ensure balance?
By asking rather than telling, the coach reinforces scientific humility. The aim is not to criticize, but to guide the learner toward stronger evidence.
Effective coaches also revisit earlier steps when results disappoint. Instead of blaming execution, they ask whether the problem definition, root cause, or countermeasure logic was incomplete. This looping behavior models the PDCA mindset—learning through iteration, not justification.
2 – Coaching the Traps and Mistakes
Every coach must recognize the recurring traps in checking results and turn them into teaching moments. The most common include:
- Activity ≠ Achievement: “You implemented actions, but what evidence shows the goal improved?”
- Metric Drift: “Why did the definition of success change between before and after?”
- Visuals Without Verification: “Pictures help us see, but where is the measured proof?”
- Premature Closure: “You’re calling it done—has the improvement held for a full cycle?”
- Unbalanced Focus: “Did any other indicators worsen while this one improved?”
Coaching these errors early prevents habits that undermine credibility. The best coaches are not auditors; they are mentors who help people build sound habits of confirmation.
3 – Coaching Checking at the Gemba
Real checking happens where the work occurs, not in conference rooms. Coaches therefore insist on gemba-based verification—seeing the process, confirming data firsthand, and asking multiple stakeholders for perspective.
- In manufacturing, that means listening to operators, maintenance, quality, and schedulers—each views the result differently.
- In healthcare, it means checking a change through the eyes of the nurse, physician, administrator, and patient.
A meeting-room success can dissolve on the shop floor if the facts aren’t aligned across functions.
Good coaches model curiosity at the gemba:
- They stand next to the machine, watch the new routine, and ask, “How does this feel compared to before?”
- They trace the data source—where, how, and when it’s collected.
- They confirm that what’s reported on paper matches what’s happening in real time.
This behavior communicates respect for people and for facts. It also prevents the all-too-common situation where results look fine in Excel but fail in execution.
4 – Coaching Behavior and Communication
Checking results is also a social process. Data without dialogue rarely changes behavior. Coaches therefore pay attention to how results are communicated:
- Accuracy: Are numbers correct, traceable, and presented clearly?
- Balance: Are successes and misses discussed with equal openness?
- Timeliness: Are checks shared quickly enough to trigger follow-up?
- Perspective: Are multiple viewpoints represented?
A good coach encourages teams to write and speak in plain, factual language—avoiding defensive or exaggerated claims. Reports should show logic flow, evidence, and next steps, not decoration.
In Toyota, review meetings after major problem-solving projects were concise but factual. Leaders asked about the method of verification, not just the result. They wanted to know how the team knew, not simply what they believed. That subtle difference builds culture.
5 – The Role of the Coach as “Game Manager”
Sports provide a useful analogy. A head football coach of course checks the scoreboard, but that’s only the outcome. The real coaching lies in reading the game—watching player execution, adjusting tactics, and managing the tempo so the team can sustain performance.
Checking results in problem solving is similar. A wise coach sees beyond numbers to the system of behaviors that create them:
- Are people following the process consistently?
- Are support functions aligned?
- Is communication flowing so that learning spreads?
I once observed this masterfully in Russ Scaffede, the first American vice president of operations for Toyota Powertrain U.S. Russ had learned directly from Fujio Cho, the TMMK president, but his natural coaching instinct was remarkable. He could check every aspect of a problem—results, process, coordination, and communication—without losing sight of people.
Russ treated checking not as inspection, but as leadership. He confirmed results through dialogue: a quiet question on the floor, a quick data review with quality, a casual follow-up with maintenance. Everyone knew he would look, listen, and verify personally. That credibility made people more disciplined long after he left the room.
6 – Reflection and Development for Coaches
For those guiding others, Step 6 is an opportunity for self-reflection as well. Ask yourself:
- Did I help the team discover facts, or did I impose answers?
- Did I model evidence-based curiosity?
- Did I visit the gemba and see the data source myself?
- Did I check for balanced impact across the organization?
- Did I reinforce learning even when results fell short?
Coaches who practice these habits grow their own credibility. Over time, they cultivate a culture where people naturally seek confirmation instead of approval.
Conclusion – Coaching for Truth
Step 6 may appear to be the end of the cycle, but for a coach, it’s where the next cycle begins. Teaching people to check results isn’t about enforcing compliance; it’s about developing clear thinking and honest communication.
A strong coach helps teams see that data are not just numbers—they are feedback from reality. They ensure that checking is thorough, balanced, and shared across functions. And most of all, they connect evidence to behavior, turning isolated results into organizational learning.
Good coaching doesn’t celebrate completion; it cultivates confirmation.
That mindset is what turns Step 6 from a report into a rhythm—and transforms problem solving from an event into a living practice.