Scale your CPA & accounting firm with elite offshore talent trusted by 1,000+ firms.
Thank you for your interest. Our due diligence checklist will be shared with you within 48 hours.
Assessment data can make a coaching conversation easier, but it cannot have the conversation for a manager. A topic-wise report may point to a gap in revenue recognition timing, reconciliation support, audit sampling rationale, or pass-through allocation judgment. The manager still has to decide what kind of gap it is, how to discuss it without making the meeting feel like a grade, and what practice will actually change the next file.
Most managers know that moment. You open a report, see a clear issue, and now you have to say something useful. Say too little and the person leaves unsure what to do differently. Say it the wrong way and they leave defensive. The difference between a helpful coaching conversation and a discouraging one usually comes down to how well the manager connects the data to real work.
MYCPE ONE Assessments can give managers role- and level-based evidence on specific accounting, audit, tax, and software skills. This playbook focuses on what happens after the report is opened: how to turn assessment evidence into a focused coaching conversation, a controlled practice assignment, and a measurable follow-up.
A score is a signal, not a coaching plan. Handing someone a report and saying “work on this” rarely changes much, because the report does not show the person what the issue looked like in their own file or what better work should look like next time.
The gap is worth closing. HR Dive’s summary of Gallup research noted that meaningful feedback in the past week was the lowest-rated manager behavior in Gallup’s research, even though Gallup describes it as one of the strongest predictors of employee engagement. Most managers are not short on data. They are short on a repeatable method for using that data well.
Before scheduling the conversation, pause on two questions:
When topic-wise results line up with review notes, client-file issues, or manager observations, you have a pattern you can discuss concretely. When they do not line up, slow down. A role change, an unusually difficult engagement, limited exposure to that task, or timing can all affect one result. Work evidence should be weighed heavily before the conversation becomes a conclusion.
This is the step many managers skip, and it changes everything that follows. Four different gaps can produce the same weak score, but they need different coaching responses.
Sending someone back to a technical course when the issue is really judgment, documentation, or process is one reason coaching can stall. The effort may be sincere, but the treatment does not match the problem.
Do not open with the score. A number at the top of the conversation can feel like a report card, and people may become defensive before the useful part begins.
Open with the work instead:
| Conversation opener |
|---|
“I noticed a pattern in the last few reconciliations around documentation support. Your topic-wise result points to the same area, so I want to work through one example with you and agree on what good support should look like next time.” |
That framing starts with something the person can recognize from their own work. It positions the assessment as supporting evidence rather than the verdict. It also makes clear that the conversation is about one specific, fixable skill, not the employee’s overall standing at the firm.
A conversation alone rarely closes a gap. Controlled practice gives the person a low-risk repetition on the exact skill before the issue shows up again in client work. Examples include:
The goal is not to create extra busywork. It is to give the employee a controlled way to practice the exact behavior that needs to change.
“Get better at reconciliations” is not trackable, and it often fades after two weeks. Specific milestones hold up better:
Use this test: could the manager and employee look at the next engagement and agree, without debate, on whether the milestone was met? If not, the milestone is still too vague.
Follow-up should be scheduled, not constant. One brief check-in after the next relevant engagement, tied to the agreed milestone rather than a general “how’s it going,” keeps the loop closed. A focused check-in reads as support. Constant check-ins can feel like surveillance.
A reassessment is useful when the stakes justify the extra evidence. Consider it:
For lower-stakes situations, updated review notes and direct observation over the next engagement cycle usually provide enough evidence to guide the next coaching step.
Use the table below as a manager reference. The point is not to label people. The point is to match the coaching response to the actual issue.
| Evidence you see | Likely gap type | Coaching question | Practice and milestone |
|---|---|---|---|
Topic-wise gap on lease accounting that matches recent review notes | Knowledge | What part of the standard feels unclear when you apply it? | Targeted refresher plus one practice engagement with review. Track repeat notes on this topic over the next two cycles. |
Solid technical knowledge, but inconsistent calls on ambiguous items | Judgment | Walk me through how you decided this was immaterial. | Discuss two or three anonymized prior files. Track whether next engagement judgments are supported and escalated appropriately. |
Work is technically correct, but the support is thin | Documentation | What would make this easier for the next reviewer to follow? | Use a documentation checklist plus paired review for one cycle. Track documentation-related notes. |
Errors are tied to a new software step, not the underlying concept | Process | Where in the workflow does this usually go wrong for you? | Guided walkthrough of the exact workflow step. Track clean execution on the next relevant task. |
A staff accountant’s reconciliations are accurate but repeatedly flagged for thin support. The manager opens with two recent examples, confirms that the pattern matches the assessment’s documentation results, and pairs the employee with a senior for two close cycles using a shared checklist. The manager then tracks whether repeat documentation notes decrease on the next close cycle.
A second-year associate’s workpapers are thin on sampling rationale. Instead of assigning a general auditing course, the manager walks through two anonymized sampling decisions and focuses on documenting the reasoning, not just the result. The next file review becomes the evidence point for whether the rationale is clearer.
A preparer knows the relevant code sections but struggles with ambiguous pass-through allocation questions. The manager treats it as a judgment gap and uses case-based discussion on three prior scenarios instead of another broad technical course. The follow-up milestone is whether the preparer documents the reasoning and escalation point on the next relevant file.
Assessment data gives managers a specific, topic-level starting point instead of a vague impression. The improvement comes from what happens next: a conversation grounded in real work, a response matched to the actual gap type, controlled practice, and a follow-up tied to the next engagement.
MYCPE ONE Assessments can support that process by giving managers role- and level-based evidence across accounting, audit, tax, and software skills. The report helps identify where to look. Manager coaching turns that signal into better practice, clearer feedback, and more deliberate development.
It depends on the firm’s approach, but leading with real work examples usually creates a more open discussion than leading with the number. Share the score once the employee already recognizes the pattern from recent work.
At least one full relevant engagement, and often two. Checking immediately after a single conversation measures short-term understanding, not a lasting change in work quality.
Explore the disagreement rather than dismissing it. If recent review notes support the employee’s view more than the assessment does, weigh the work evidence heavily and treat the assessment as one input.
No. Coaching and training address different gap types. A genuine knowledge gap still needs structured training, while judgment, documentation, and process gaps often need coaching grounded in real work.
Treat the result as a question, not a finding. Assign a low-stakes task in that topic area, review it closely, and coach from what you see.
Amrit Singh is a business leader with 10+ years of experience in continuing education. Helping accounting, tax, and finance professionals stay compliant with ease, he began his journey as a consultant. Learning across industries before stepping into a leadership role, he is shaped by both successes and failures. Amrit is passionate about problem-solving, building products, exploring technology, and mentoring future leaders. He is dedicated to transform continuing education, making it simpler, smarter, and more meaningful. Through his blogs and talks, he shares insights on accounting careers, CPA compliance, and the future of continuing education.
Crack the Code: Unleashing Hidden Talents for Workplace Magic
.webp-1717773117 "Understanding Your Talent Development Function")
Understanding Your Talent Development Function
Fundamentals of Managing and Developing Talent
Quarterly Skill Audits: How CPA Firms Can Keep Team Capability Data Current
Amrit Singh
