Promises of Performance™

From the First Mile to the Last

Article 7 of 8

Estimated Reading Time: 12 minutes

Target Audience: Motor carrier owners and executives, transportation safety and compliance leaders, operations managers, fleet managers, driver managers, dispatchers, human resources professionals, driver trainers, and professional drivers

Written by: Brad Redden, Founder and Chief Compliance Advisor, CPO Consulting™ | Ask the Chief™

Published by: CPO Consulting™, LLC

Reviewed by: Brad Redden, Founder and Chief Compliance Advisor

Last Reviewed: October 12, 2026

---

The Problem Usually Starts Before the Incident

A driver receives a speeding violation on a roadside inspection or citation.

A customer calls about unsafe driving while operating on their facility.

A roadside inspection identifies equipment defects that should have been identified during a pre-trip inspection.

A driver misses another critical appointment time.

Or something more serious happens.

When management begins reviewing the circumstances, a familiar question sometimes emerges: Did we have any indication that something was wrong before this happened?

Sometimes the answer is no. Not every incident comes with an identifiable warning, and we should be careful about suggesting otherwise. But sometimes the answer is yes.

There were earlier complaints:

• Dash-camera events.
• Hours of Service concerns.
• Missed appointments.
• Recurring equipment inspection issues.

Perhaps a supervisor noticed something but didn’t consider it serious enough to address; the information reached Operations but never reached Safety. Or perhaps management knew about the problem and simply hoped it would go away.

In my experience, poor driving behavior, missed appointments, and customer complaints were among the most common early indications that a driver’s performance might be deteriorating.

None automatically established that a driver was unsafe or unwilling to meet expectations. But each provided a reason to ask questions. That distinction matters.

An early warning sign is an opportunity to investigate, not necessarily a conclusion that misconduct occurred.

The problem begins when an organization receives credible information and fails to do anything meaningful with it.

That brings us to the subject of Article 7. Monitoring, Coaching, and early intervention.

And perhaps most importantly, management’s willingness to act before a developing problem becomes something much more serious.

---

Monitoring Is Not the Same as Managing

Motor carriers have access to more driver-performance information than ever before. Electronic logging devices provide information relevant to Hours-of-Service compliance. Telematics systems can identify vehicle operating patterns. Event-based cameras can capture driving behaviors that warrant review. Roadside inspection reports provide information about regulatory compliance and equipment condition. Customer complaints, accident reports, maintenance records, and supervisor observations contribute additional information.

Those tools can be valuable. But collecting information and managing performance are two different things.

During my career, three sources were particularly useful.

• ELD data helped identify Hours-of-Service compliance concerns.
• Dash-camera events provided insight into driving behavior.
• Roadside inspections helped identify potential weaknesses in vehicle inspection practices and equipment condition.

Each provided a different perspective. And each had limitations.

An ELD report may identify a possible Hours-of-Service concern, but the circumstances still need to be examined.

A dash-camera event may show a concerning maneuver, but the reviewer needs to understand the surrounding traffic conditions and other relevant circumstances.

A roadside inspection that identifies equipment defects may warrant further examination of the driver’s inspection practices, maintenance procedures, or both. It does not automatically establish that the driver failed to perform the required inspection. Likewise, a clean roadside inspection does not prove that every required inspection was properly performed.

Data tells us where to look. Responsible management determines what the information means.

One of the mistakes I observed was management ignoring warning signs because an individual event appeared minor. Another was failing to recognize that several seemingly minor events were becoming a pattern.

Technology can identify the specific events; however, it takes people to recognize their significance.

---

Recognizing Patterns Before They Become Habits

In Article 6, we discussed how an uncorrected mistake can become a habit.

That principle deserves another look.

A driver makes an error. Management notices. Nothing happens. The driver repeats the behavior. Again, nothing happens. Eventually, the behavior becomes routine.

From the driver’s perspective, the absence of correction may suggest that the behavior is acceptable, or at least that management doesn’t consider it important.

Then, weeks or months later, management suddenly decides to address it. Now the driver is being told to stop doing something that has been occurring without meaningful intervention. That does not excuse the behavior. But it helps explain why delayed correction can become much more difficult.

I experienced a situation involving a high-performing driver who repeatedly generated excessive-speeding events.

This was a driver the organization valued. The driver was productive. And management was reluctant to address the problem. The speeding events continued. The information was available. But the necessary intervention did not occur when it should have. Eventually, the situation reached a point where management could no longer ignore it. By then, the opportunity for early correction had passed, and the situation ultimately resulted in losing the driver.

Could timely intervention have preserved that employment relationship? Possibly. We cannot know for certain. But we do know that management allowed the problem to continue when earlier action was available.

And that is the lesson.

A driver’s productivity does not make unsafe behavior acceptable.

A carrier cannot establish one set of expectations for average-performing drivers and another for its highest producers. When management overlooks repeated concerns because a driver is valuable to Operations, it creates two problems. The original behavior continues. And the organization begins undermining the credibility of its own standards.

---

Coaching Begins With a Conversation, Not an Accusation

Not every performance concern requires discipline. Sometimes a driver simply needs someone to explain what is happening, why it matters, and how to correct it.

I found that the most effective coaching generally produced an outcome that benefited both the driver and the company. A win-win situation.

One example involved weekly dash-camera safety scores and the opportunity for drivers to earn a weekly safety bonus. Drivers whose scores did not meet the established criteria were missing an opportunity to earn additional compensation. Some were frustrated about not receiving the bonus.

Rather than simply telling them to improve their scores, I would discuss the behaviors contributing to the results.

• What events were affecting the score?
• What driving habits need to change?
• What could the driver do differently?

And importantly: How much money was the driver missing because those habits were preventing the driver from qualifying for the bonus?

Now the conversation had a different purpose. We were not simply discussing a score. We were discussing an opportunity.

The carrier wanted safer driving behavior. The driver wanted to earn the available bonus. Both objectives could be achieved through the same improvement. That is the kind of coaching I found particularly effective.

The driver understood what needed to change and had a personal reason to make the change.

Of course, any incentive program needs clear criteria, reliable measurements, fair administration, and appropriate safeguards. Safety bonuses should reinforce safe behavior, not encourage drivers to hide problems or manipulate reporting. But when properly designed, positive reinforcement can be a useful management tool.

The old carrot-and-stick approach sometimes works. There are circumstances where consequences are necessary. But I rarely found that merely threatening someone with the stick produced the best long-term result.

Coaching is most effective when the driver understands both the expectation and the value of meeting it.

---

Does the Driver Need Help, Retraining, or Accountability?

One of the more important judgments a supervisor must make is determining why a driver is struggling.

Is the driver confused? Was something misunderstood during orientation? Does the driver lack the necessary skill? Is the problem caused by an operational condition outside the driver’s control? Or does the driver understand the expectation and simply choose not to follow it?

Those are very different circumstances.

And they should not automatically produce the same response. In my experience, an initial conversation often revealed a great deal.

Sometimes the driver had, in fact, misunderstood an expectation. Once the requirement was explained, the behavior changed almost immediately. Problem identified. Problem corrected.

Other situations required more attention.

Perhaps the driver understood the expectation but lacked the knowledge or practical ability to perform consistently. After a discussion or two, it might become apparent that additional training was necessary.

That is not necessarily a failure of the driver.

It may indicate a gap in the original training or a need for additional instruction. But there were also situations where repeated discussions produced little or no meaningful improvement. Eventually, the question became whether the driver was capable of meeting the expectation or willing to do so.

Those are not interchangeable conclusions.

A driver who lacks the necessary skill may benefit from training. A driver who misunderstands a procedure may need clarification. A driver who knowingly and repeatedly disregards a safety requirement presents a different management problem.

The purpose of early coaching is not to label someone prematurely. It is to determine what is preventing acceptable performance and whether the problem can be corrected.

The response should fit the problem, not simply the manager’s frustration with it.

---

When Operations and Safety Are Pulling in Different Directions

Anyone who has spent enough time in motor carrier management knows that Operations and Safety do not always see a situation the same way. Operations has freight to move. Customers expect service. Equipment needs to remain productive. Drivers need miles. Revenue matters.

Safety has responsibilities involving regulatory compliance, driving behavior, equipment condition, and risk management.

Those responsibilities matter too.

The problem develops when the organization begins treating those objectives as competing priorities rather than responsibilities that must be managed together.

I encountered situations where Operations resisted Safety recommendations because of freight demands, driver availability, or concerns about losing a productive driver.

That is not unusual. But it creates a dangerous inconsistency when management allows operational considerations to override established safety requirements.

A driver may hear one message from Safety and another from Operations. One department says a behavior must stop. Another appears willing to overlook it because the driver is getting the freight delivered.

Which message do you think the driver remembers? The one management actually enforces.

There is another important distinction here. The driver remains responsible for operating legally and safely, regardless of operational pressure.

A dispatcher, customer, or supervisor’s expectations do not excuse a driver from complying with applicable operating rules. But the carrier has responsibilities of its own.

Under 49 CFR 390.3(e), employers must understand and comply with applicable regulations, and drivers and employees involved in motor carrier operations must be instructed regarding and comply with applicable requirements.

Additionally, 49 CFR 390.11 requires motor carriers to require observance of regulatory duties and prohibitions imposed on drivers.

Section 392.2 addresses compliance with applicable operating laws, while other provisions establish specific responsibilities involving matters such as Hours-of-Service and vehicle safety.

These are regulatory responsibilities.

A carrier’s particular coaching schedule, camera-scoring system, or progressive corrective-action process is a separate management decision unless a specific legal requirement applies.

The distinction is important.

A driver cannot avoid responsibility by blaming Dispatch. And a carrier cannot avoid its responsibilities by placing every compliance obligation on the driver. Both parties have commitments to honor.

This is precisely why organizational alignment matters.

You cannot expect to arrive at your destination if everyone is pulling in different directions.

---

Technology Can Help, but It Cannot Replace Judgment

I believe technology provides tremendous opportunities to improve transportation safety and compliance. If properly used, it allows organizations to identify concerns earlier, evaluate information more consistently, and devote attention to areas where intervention may be necessary.

Event-based video can help supervisors examine specific driving behaviors. ELD reports can assist in identifying Hours-of-Service compliance concerns. Telematics can reveal developing patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed. Automated reporting systems can help ensure that events are reviewed and assigned for follow-up.

Artificial intelligence can further improve these processes. AI-assisted systems can help organize event information, identify recurring behaviors, compare trends over time, summarize coaching records, and flag corrective actions that remain unresolved.

For a carrier managing dozens or hundreds of drivers, those capabilities can make an important difference. But technology has limitations.

A score is not a complete picture of a driver. An alert does not necessarily establish a violation. A camera event may require additional context. And an automated recommendation should not replace responsible human review.

There is also the matter of trust.

Drivers should understand what information is being collected, how it is used, what expectations apply, and how they can raise questions about information they believe is inaccurate.

A monitoring program that drivers perceive as arbitrary or unfair may create resistance rather than improvement.

Technology should support a credible safety-management process. It should not become a substitute for one.

The objective is better decisions, not simply more data.

---

When Coaching Is Not Enough

There comes a point when coaching may no longer be the appropriate response. That point is not necessarily reached after a predetermined number of conversations. Some problems are minor and readily correctable. Others are more serious. And certain circumstances require immediate intervention.

In my experience, egregious behavior demonstrating gross incompetence or willful disregard for the safety of others requires immediate protective action.

A carrier should not continue allowing a driver to operate in a manner presenting an unacceptable safety risk simply because the company ordinarily follows a progressive coaching process.

The seriousness of the conduct matters. The available evidence matters. The potential consequences matter. And the organization’s legal and regulatory responsibilities matter. At the same time, management should avoid confusing an honest mistake with intentional misconduct.

Fairness and consistency are essential.

The purpose of corrective action is to address unacceptable performance and protect safety, not simply to punish someone.

Sometimes that means additional instruction. Sometimes it means closer supervision. Sometimes it means formal corrective action. And sometimes it means removing a driver from safety-sensitive duties or ending the employment relationship, consistent with applicable requirements and the circumstances.

A coaching program must never become an excuse for delaying necessary protective action.

---

If It Isn’t Documented, Did It Really Happen?

There is an expression I have used throughout my career: If it is not documented, it never happened.

Now, I understand that something can happen without being documented. The expression is not intended to represent a legal rule; it is a management lesson. And it becomes particularly important when an organization is later asked to demonstrate what it knew and what it did.

Imagine a serious incident occurs. The insurance company begins asking questions. Attorneys become involved. Investigators review records. Expert witnesses may examine the organization’s safety-management practices. Someone asks whether the carrier had previously identified concerns involving the driver.

Yes, management says.

What did you do about them?

We coached the driver.

When? Who conducted the coaching? What was discussed? What corrective action was required? Did the driver understand? Was there follow-up? Did the behavior improve?

Those questions are much easier to answer when the organization has accurate, contemporaneous records of what actually occurred.

I have encountered circumstances where corrective-action paperwork existed, but closer examination revealed little or no evidence that meaningful follow-through had occurred.

The form was completed. The box was checked. But there was no clear indication that the intended action had been carried out or that the driver’s performance had improved.

We discussed a similar problem in Article 6. A process marked complete is not necessarily a process completed.

That principle applies just as strongly to coaching and corrective action. A completed coaching form does not prove that the driver understood the discussion. A training record does not automatically demonstrate competency. A closed corrective-action item does not establish that the underlying problem was resolved.

Documentation is important. But documentation must accurately reflect meaningful activity. Records should be factual, timely, appropriately retained, and consistent with applicable requirements and company policy.

And when management documents a commitment to follow up, someone must actually follow up. Otherwise, the paperwork may reveal a weakness in the process rather than demonstrate that the process worked.

---

Follow-Up Determines Whether Coaching Worked

How do you know whether coaching was successful? The driver signed the form. Attended the meeting. Acknowledged the policy. Promised to do better.

Those things may be useful. But they do not answer the most important question. Did the driver’s performance improve?

And not just temporarily. Did the improvement last? That was the standard I looked for. A meaningful change in the driver’s overall performance.

If a driver was repeatedly generating concerning camera events, did those behaviors decrease after coaching?

If Hours-of-Service issues were occurring, did subsequent records demonstrate improved compliance?

If customer complaints were becoming a pattern, did the pattern change?

If roadside inspections suggested problems with vehicle inspection practices, was the underlying issue identified and corrected?

The follow-up should relate directly to the concern that prompted intervention. And it should continue long enough to provide reasonable confidence that the improvement is being sustained.

A driver may perform differently for a few days immediately after a coaching conversation. That is encouraging. But a brief improvement is not necessarily a lasting correction.

This is where monitoring and coaching come together. Monitoring identifies a concern. Coaching addresses the concern. Follow-up evaluates whether the response worked. If the response did not work, management needs to understand why.

• Was the coaching inadequate?
• Was additional training necessary?
• Was the original expectation unclear?
• Was an operational condition contributing to the problem?
• Or was the driver unwilling or unable to meet the required standard?

Those questions should lead to the next appropriate decision. Not simply another completed form.

---

Leadership Determines Whether Early Intervention Works

A safety department can establish an excellent monitoring process. It can identify concerning behaviors. Develop coaching procedures. Recommend training. Document corrective action. And follow up on performance. But the process can still fail if the rest of the organization does not support it.

That is a leadership problem.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Safety Management Cycle provides a useful framework for understanding this relationship. The framework identifies six interconnected management processes: Policies and Procedures, Roles and Responsibilities, Qualification and Hiring, Training and Communication, Monitoring and Tracking, and Meaningful Action.

FMCSA explains that monitoring and tracking should lead to meaningful action, including appropriate training, positive reinforcement, and corrective measures. The framework is a safety-management resource, not a federal mandate to adopt a particular internal coaching program.

Notice the relationship. Monitoring and Tracking coupled with Meaningful Action.

One is incomplete without the other. An organization can invest substantial money in technology, personnel, and reporting systems. But if management routinely ignores the information those systems produce, the investment cannot achieve its intended purpose. And when Safety and Operations disagree about an appropriate response, leadership must establish a consistent direction.

That does not mean Safety automatically wins every disagreement. It means the organization evaluates the facts, understands its obligations, and makes decisions consistent with its established safety standards.

There should not be one standard for a highly productive driver and another for everyone else. There should not be one standard during orientation and a different one when freight needs to move. And supervisors should not be placed in a position where they are expected to enforce requirements that senior management routinely undermines.

Leadership determines whether the organization’s safety expectations are operational standards or merely written intentions.

---

The Promise → The Process → The Practice

Throughout this series, we have examined the relationship between what a motor carrier promises, the processes it establishes, and what actually happens during daily operations.

Coaching, monitoring, and early intervention fit directly into that framework.

The Promise: The carrier commits to providing clear expectations, appropriate instruction, reasonable support, and a working environment where safety and regulatory compliance matter.

The driver commits to professional performance, lawful operation, honest communication, and compliance with applicable requirements and established company expectations.

Neither party is promising perfection. Both are committing to accountability.

The Process: The organization establishes methods for identifying performance concerns, evaluating information, communicating with drivers, providing coaching, documenting corrective action, and determining whether additional intervention is necessary.

Responsibilities are assigned. Expectations are communicated. Management establishes how information will be reviewed and how decisions will be made.

The Practice: The carrier actually reviews the information. Supervisors conduct the conversations. Drivers participate. Training occurs when necessary. Corrective action is taken when appropriate. Documentation accurately reflects what happened. And follow-up determines whether performance improved.

That final element is essential. Because the Practice is not demonstrated by having a process.

It is demonstrated by consistently carrying out the process and achieving meaningful results.

---

The Chief’s Closing Thought

Over the years, I learned that identifying a problem was often the easy part. The harder part was making certain something meaningful happened afterward.

We had information, we had policies, we had technology, we had people responsible for monitoring driver performance, but none of those things could guarantee improvement. That required action.

I remember coaching drivers who were missing opportunities to earn their weekly safety bonuses because of poor driving habits. When they understood what needed to change, and what improvement could mean for both their safety performance and their paycheck, we had an opportunity to accomplish something positive. That was coaching working the way it should.

I also remember the high-performing driver whose repeated speeding events were not addressed when they should have been. The information was there. The opportunity was there. But management delayed acting. And ultimately, we lost the driver.

Two different experiences. Two very different management responses. Both taught me something important.

You cannot coach a problem you refuse to acknowledge. And you cannot expect a problem to improve simply because someone entered it into a system.

My advice to a motor carrier owner or executive is straightforward.

• Have a plan.
• Establish a process.
• Follow it.
• Adjust it when necessary.
• Document what actually happened.
• And follow up to determine whether the intended improvement occurred.

Make certain the people responsible for carrying out that process are working toward the same objective. Because you cannot expect to arrive at your destination if everyone is pulling in different directions.

And remember that the driver has responsibilities too. The carrier can provide the tools, instruction, support, and opportunities for improvement. The driver must be willing and able to meet the expectations.

Both parties have promises to keep. Monitoring identifies the concern. Coaching addresses it. Follow-up determines whether anything actually changed. And leadership must support all three. Don’t wait for the first serious problem to discover that your process isn’t working.

---

Looking Ahead

Article 8: Building an Onboarding System That Produces Professional Drivers

We began this series with the promises made during the earliest conversations between a prospective driver and a motor carrier. We followed those promises through hiring, qualification, orientation, the handoff to Operations, the first weeks of employment, and the ongoing responsibility to monitor performance and intervene when necessary.

Our final article will bring those elements together. We will examine how motor carriers can build a coordinated onboarding system that connects recruiting, hiring, qualification, orientation, operations, safety, driver management, and leadership into a consistent experience.

The objective is not simply to hire qualified drivers. It is to create an organization capable of supporting professional performance throughout the employment relationship.

From the First Mile to the Last.