Coach or Mentor?

Should my Organisation Choose Coaching or Mentoring?

Coaching and mentoring overlap considerably. Connor & Pokora (p 11) suggest:

Both coaching and mentoring are learning relationships which help people to take charge of their own development, to release their potential and to achieve results which they value. 

Zeus and Skiffington (pp 17 - 19) suggest many similarities, including:

• Both require well-developed interpersonal skills.
• Both require the ability to generate trust, support commitment, and generate new actions through listening and speaking skills.
• Both provide support without removing responsibility.

The professionalisation of both coaching and mentoring is gaining momentum; clients increasingly demand formal training and/or accreditation of coaches and mentors. 

Many authorities such as Downey (p19) suggest that coaching is predominantly non-directive, whereas mentoring is often more directive. In real life, coaching and mentoring lie along a spectrum between purely non-directive and purely directive approaches; most coaches will sometimes be directive just as most mentors will sometimes be non-directive. 

On firmer ground, there are practical distinctions between coaching and mentoring, for example:

• A mentor is more likely than a coach to have direct experience of the client’s role.
• A mentor is more likely to come from within the organisation
• A coaching relationship usually has a set duration; mentoring is usually indefinite.
• Coaching is typically more formal.
• Coaching is more likely to have specific goals.

The case studies below illustrate differences between coaching and mentoring (details have been changed to protect confidentiality). They both come from organisations facing tough times.  

Jane and her coach   
 
Jane is a senior IT manager in a bank. Business is difficult - redundancies are rumoured. Jane has never known anything like this and feels at sea. HR recommends that she work with an external executive coach, Bob, to help her to adapt her leadership. Before training and being accredited as a coach, Bob was a senior executive in manufacturing. He has extensive experience of leading teams through recessions, but no direct experience of IT or banking. Bob’s style is largely non-directive, including open questions, a non-judgemental approach and challenging Jane’s assumptions and actions. He uses his experience to formulate open questions and challenges, rather than offering advice.
 
After meeting to ensure that the relationship will work, Jane, Bob and the “sponsor”, Jane’s line manager, agree to six 2 hour coaching sessions over four months. They agree specific goals, including:

• Supporting Jane to develop different management styles and flex away from her usual directive approach.

• Developing influencing skills.

• Completing a major IT integration project.

These goals are particularly suitable for coaching. The first two are not industry or organisation-specific, relating to general leadership and management skills. The third is time limited, like the coaching.
 
A 360˚ or personality assessment is often used to start coaching. Jane had recently completed an in-house profile which she and Bob used.  

As the sessions progressed, Jane varied her leadership style. She realised that when cost-cutting is rumoured, her directive style could be perceived as uncaring, or even as not revealing the truth. She decided to encourage people to discuss their fears with her. While she often could not completely put their minds at rest, this approach led to a more open and trusting atmosphere. With her confidence rising, Jane decided that the major project might benefit from a similar approach. She explored this with Bob, deciding to delegate more responsibility and reducing the frequency of progress reports. The project was completed on time.

The coaching helped Jane to realise that her influencing skills were compromised by her lack of confidence in her approach which was quieter than many colleagues. Bob challenged her to consider the advantages of her natural manner and worked with her to develop it to her advantage.

The final two sessions were partly devoted to embedding Jane’s learning, helping her to devise ways of maintaining her new behaviours, as well as continuing to develop.

The attainment of the outcomes was reviewed by Jane, her manager and Bob. 

Sukesh and his mentor

After a reorganisation at a utility company, including redundancies, Sukesh has been appointed to run a team focusing on regulatory issues. The cost-cutting has unsettled the team. Sukesh’s boss suggests that he should use the company’s mentoring scheme to help him to deal with the situation. Following discussions with HR, Fiona is identified as a likely mentor. She has been with the company for many years and spent a large part of her career in Sukesh’s department. She is now a senior executive in customer relations and has led teams during restructurings. Fiona has had some formal training in mentoring. Fiona and Sukesh agree to meet monthly, although they may speak at any time. The mentoring has no specific goals and no set number of meetings or duration. Sessions are often informal and may just be a short chat over a coffee. Sukesh finds that Fiona’s experience of restructuring, his department and the company is hugely helpful. He uses her to sound out ideas and Fiona advises him of pitfalls, of where to build important relationships and how to work with the regulator. Her industry and organisation-specific knowledge are a great benefit to Sukesh and the relationship continues for years. Sukesh finds that his confidence is enhanced by having the benefit of his mentor’s experience and offers to become a mentor himself.   

In summary, whilst the distinctions are not clear cut, the main contrasts between coaching and mentoring are:

Coaching style tends to be non-directive; mentoring tends to be more directive.

Coaching is usually of fixed duration; mentoring is indefinite.

Coaching has a more formal structure than mentoring.

Coaching tecnds to have more specific goals than mentoring which often has no specific goals.

A mentor is more likely to have direct relevant business experience than a coach.

Coaches are often external coach, whereas mentors are usually internal.

Both coaching and mentoring are valuable tools to support leaders, particularly in turbulent times. Whilst some may think the distinction between the two is semantic, it is important for organisations to understand which intervention is appropriate to achieve the desired outcomes.   

References

Connor, M. and Pokora, J. (2007), Coaching and Mentoring at Work: Developing Effective Practice, Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education

Downey, M. (2003), Effective Coaching: Lessons from the Coaches’ Coach, 2nd Edition, London: Texere.
 
Zeus, P. and Skiffington, S. (2000), The Complete Guide to Coaching at Work, North Ryde, NSW: McGraw-Hill

This article first appeared in Assessment & Development Matters, Volume 1, no.2  Summer 2009 © The British Psychological Society 2009.