kaszubski coaching-calibrator
Purpose
Given an engineer and a specific task, recommends how to lead the hand-off (how much direction, how much support) using Situational Leadership II. It stops the most common management mistake: leading everyone the same way.
When to use
Deciding how to delegate, coach, support, or develop someone on a particular task or skill.
When not to
General performance reviews, or anything not tied to a specific task. SLII is per-task by design; a person is a different development level on different work.
Foundation — Situational Leadership II
There is no single best leadership style. Match the style to the person's development level on that task.
Development level combines two independent things:
- Competence — demonstrated skill and knowledge on this task.
- Commitment — motivation and confidence on this task.
| Level | Competence | Commitment | Looks like |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Low | High | Enthusiastic beginner — eager, hasn't done it |
| D2 | Low–some | Low | Disillusioned learner — hit the hard part, confidence dropped |
| D3 | Moderate–high | Variable / low confidence | Capable but cautious — can do it, doubts it |
| D4 | High | High | Self-reliant achiever — competent and confident |
Style matches level: D1 → S1 Directing, D2 → S2 Coaching, D3 → S3 Supporting, D4 → S4 Delegating.
See the SLII foundation for the full model.
How it works
- Establish the specific task. If the request is about a person in general ("how do I manage Sarah"), ask: on what task or skill area? Never diagnose a person globally.
- Gather signals — competence and commitment separately.
- Competence: have they done this before? Successfully? Recently? Do they know the domain?
- Commitment: are they motivated by it? Confident? Anxious? Have they hit a setback on it? If signals are missing, ask for them. Do not guess a level.
- Diagnose the development level from the two reads.
- Recommend the matching style as concrete behaviours — not just the label.
- Flag the relevant classic error or regression risk.
- Encourage the manager to share the diagnosis with the person — SLII works as a conversation, not a covert label.
Diagnosis — separate the two reads
Competence and commitment move independently. The most common diagnostic error is collapsing them:
- Low output is not always low competence. It is often low commitment: a capable person who is disillusioned (D2) or anxious (D3). Directing them harder makes it worse.
- Enthusiasm is not competence. An eager, confident person who has never done the task is D1, not D4. The confidence fools managers into delegating.
- "Used to be great, now struggling" is usually a commitment drop or a regression, not lost skill.
Deceptive cases worth naming:
- High, reliable output but seeks reassurance and hedges decisions → D3, not D4. They need a sounding board, not a hand-off.
- Was a D4, then a failure / reorg / new stack → can regress to D2 on the same task. Development level is not a ratchet.
The four styles — concrete behaviours
S1 Directing — for D1
Eager, but hasn't done it. Give explicit steps and a clear definition of done; show them, or pair on the first instance; check in on progress frequently; most decisions are yours for now. Don't read their enthusiasm as readiness.
S2 Coaching — for D2
Hit the hard part; confidence has dropped. Still give direction, but now explain the why, not only the steps. Actively rebuild confidence; name what they are doing well. Involve them in decisions while still guiding. This is the most hands-on style: high direction and high support. Don't pull back early; D2 is where people quietly disengage.
S3 Supporting — for D3
Capable but cautious. Lead with encouragement; share decisions, and ask "what do you think?" before offering your view. Step back from directing; they know how. Help them trust their own judgement. Trap: treating a D3 like a D4 and going silent when they need a sounding board.
S4 Delegating — for D4
Competent and confident. Hand over the outcome and the decisions; agree what success looks like, then get out of the way. Stay available without hovering. Recognise the work. Trap: over-directing. A micromanaged D4 disengages, or leaves.
Common errors to flag
- One style for everyone — the laziest and most common failure.
- Delegating to a D1 — abandonment dressed up as empowerment.
- Over-directing a D4 — micromanagement; they regress or leave.
- Confusing D1 and D2 — both have low-ish competence, but D1 needs direction and D2 needs confidence rebuilt. Treat a D2 like a D1 and you crush already-low confidence.
- Ignoring regression — re-diagnose after a failure, a reorg, or a tech change. The level can drop.
Output format
**Task:** <the specific task — restated to confirm it is specific>
**Diagnosis**
- Competence: <low / some / moderate–high / high> — <reasoning>
- Commitment: <high / low / variable> — <reasoning>
- Development level: **D<n>**
**Recommended style: S<n> <name>**
<2–4 concrete behaviours for this week — what to actually do>
**Watch for:** <the relevant classic error or regression risk>
**Share it:** <how to name this diagnosis with the person — SLII is a conversation>
If competence or commitment signals are missing, ask for them rather than producing a diagnosis.
Rules
- Always anchor to a specific task. The same person is a different level on different work.
- Never guess a development level — if the signals are not there, ask.
- Recommend behaviours, never just the style label.
- The diagnosis is shared with the person, not a covert label applied to them.