Outcome Trait Lift
Which behaviors your winning reps do more of, derived from your own results rather than a rubric.
Included with leadercron . A seat without it sees an upsell here instead of the page.
Overview
Outcome Trait Lift answers a question none of the other coaching views can: in your team, which habits actually separate the reps who win?
Every other coaching surface scores your reps against a fixed standard. Coaching Scorecard grades them on a MEDDIC rubric, Readiness against what is expected at their tenure, the BDR coach against published activity bars, Call Coaching against published call research. All useful, and all of them encode somebody's view of good that was written before they met your team. This one works the other way round: it takes your results as the truth and asks what the winners do differently.
How the answer is computed
Each rep gets an outcome score: quota attainment multiplied by win rate. Attainment of 1.0 means they hit their number, so a rep at 120% with a 40% win rate scores 0.48. The reps are ranked on that score and the top quartile is marked.
Then, for every behavior you measure, the page compares the top quartile's average against everyone else's. The difference is the lift. A behavior with a large positive lift is one your winners do markedly more of. Behaviors are ranked by lift, biggest separator first.
The page ranks behaviors, not people. The rep ranking is shown underneath so you can see what produced the quartile, and that is all it is used for.
Where the numbers come from
Paste a team in, one rep per line, or press "Use my team" to read the per-rep aggregates your other leadership views already hold. The behaviors currently understood are next-step hygiene, multi-threading, MEDDPICC completeness, scheduled-skill adoption, call-coaching composite, and logged activity.
This surface is metadata only, like the rest of the leadership views: rates and counts per rep, never rep content. It does not read a transcript, a draft, or a note.
What a blank field means
Nothing. Deliberately.
A rep with no recorded quota is not a rep who attained zero, and a behavior nobody measured is not a behavior nobody does. Leave a field blank and it stays unmeasured: that rep drops out of that comparison instead of dragging the average down. Reps missing an attainment or a win rate are counted and reported, but not ranked, and the page says how many.
This matters more than it sounds. Treating a gap in your data as a zero is how a coaching view ends up confidently telling you that your best rep never sets a next step.
When the page refuses to answer
Two floors, and neither is adjustable.
Below six reps with a recorded outcome, the whole report is withheld. A top quartile of one person is a person, not a quartile, and any lift computed from it is noise wearing a number. The page says how many reps it has and how many it needs.
A single behavior is left unscored when fewer than two reps were measured on either side of the comparison. Two reps against one is not a finding. Those behaviors still appear, greyed, with the reason, so you can see what would become measurable if you captured more.
Correlation, and what to do with it
A behavior that separates your winners is a lever to inspect, not proof that the behavior causes the wins. Strong reps do many things at once, and some of what shows up as lift is a consequence of winning rather than a cause. Every scored row carries the number of reps measured on each side so you can judge how much weight it holds.
Used well, it does two jobs. It tells you which habit to coach next with evidence from your own team rather than a generic benchmark. And it grades the rubrics: a behavior the platform scores heavily that shows no lift in your org is a sign that standard does not fit your business.