Generals and Kings Deserve Counsel From The Wise.

Where has the profession of coaching come from? What is the strategic difference between coaching and mentoring?

Some thoughts….

There are many strategic reasons for using coaching and mentoring in an organisation at the executive or senior level. The historical precedent for strategic investment in learning and development can be traced back thousands of years through Greek literature. Across Western cultures, there was a view that senior leaders, Generals and Kings needed, or deserved, counsel from the wise, the mythical or the Gods. The character Mentor appeared in Greek literature tasked with protecting Telemachus, son of Odysseus, while Odysseus was away fighting the Trojan war. While Mentor’s character in the texts was ultimately flawed, and the Gods had to step in to achieve his task, his name became synonymous with the concept of helping, literally a gift from the Gods, guiding Telemachus through the transition of physical and educational maturity.[1]

The historical precedent for coaching is equally significant. Described as one of the most important thinkers of his time, defining philosophy,[2] Whybrow and Palmer describe the intrinsic method of Socratic thinking as being the earliest form of coaching.[3] References to Socrates directly ‘coaching’ senior leaders may not exist, but the existence of such thinkers, their stimulation of thinking from within, and the spread of philosophy through word of mouth plays nicely into modern definitions of coaching. This is to say, that it is possible to infer strategic differences of mentoring and coaching from these early encounters with both. It is clear that history supports the investment of counsel to leaders of all kinds. The strategic purpose may be lost in time, but the working assumption is that humans chosen or born to lead required both internal development and or the transfer of knowledge from an external source.

If we examine even the broadest observations of the modern world from the last four decades, a new purpose for coaching and mentoring appears. Certainty is understood to be a core human need, the certainty that we can avoid failure or pain, and the certainty that we can find success and pleasure.[4] Order in the world, no matter real or perceived, has changed. The geopolitical shifts that occurred at the end of the Cold War have given rise to changes in global power sharing, a relative reduction in global certainty and a relative increase in ambiguity.[5] Additionally, we have seen climate crises, ethnic cleansing, religious wars and the rise of technology with ‘Big Data’. One global financial crisis and a global pandemic later, the demand for change in business practice has never been greater than it is today.[6] The demands on executive and senior leaders across the world to understand the changes and to capitalise on early opportunities are growing. For even the most accomplished leader, the journey to Maslow’s self-actualisation, may be made easier if coaching and mentoring strategies are employed.[7] 

With a leadership need identified, the strategic purpose of modern coaching and mentoring starts with a cultural acceptance of the definitions by an individual or within an organisation. The European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) defines both coaching and mentoring as “a professionally guided process that inspires clients to maximise their personal and professional potential.”[8] It continues to offer some significant words and phrases that have arrived as a measure of both the expansion of coaching and mentoring as disciplines, and the continued scrutiny and regulation of the industry. The EMCC includes the word ‘transformational’ suggesting a greater depth of change can be achieved, and importantly it also includes the phrase ‘partnering relationship’ to illustrate the co-active relationship within some models.[9] There are however profound differences to be found between the purposes of coaching and mentoring against the landscape of modern business. Imagined across a continuum, those historical fundamentals are more clearly understood.

Mentoring, put simply, is a transfer of knowledge, skills, or techniques from someone with relatively more experience. Mentoring has been accused of undermining self-belief with early focus on sports coaching illustrating that once a coach has passed on the technical requirements, his or her limitations have been met. Mentoring in this purest sense discounts the experiences and perceptions of the mentee.[10] The mentoring relationship on the continuum can therefore be characterised as being “directive, advice giving.”[11] This may meet the strategic requirements in some situations, particularly areas of learning and development such as career growth.[12] However, unless facilitated, contracted for, or culturally acceptable, growth areas within the field of mentoring that transition along the continuum towards coaching will not be available. Equally for smaller organisations, finding experienced individuals in sufficient numbers to be mentors may prove challenging. At the senior and executive level, within a hierarchy, internal mentoring may also not be practical.

Coaching brings a different flow of energy between coach and coachee. While the coachee does acquire new knowledge and can develop new skills, not by being told, but by discovering from within.[13] Starr describes coaching as a conversation that one person has with another.[14] The simplicity with this concept remains attractive, from a resource perspective. A coach believes that the client has all the answers locked within themselves and there are two parts to the key.[15] The coachee requires a goal, to satisfy the needs of the conscious and unconscious mind, and the coach needs to listen and promote effective, safe conversation. A coach does not need to be an expert in the coachee’s field, an effective coach will also leave a coachee with the ability to self-coach. Power is jointly transferred from both coach and coachee to the relationship, this may have strategic advantages or disadvantages culturally. At the senior and executive level, within a hierarchy, chemistry will determine the ability for internal coaching. External coaching may increase the ability for a leader to identify blind spots, within rare moments of intellectual safety.[16]

[1] Barondess, A Brief History of Mentoring, pg 1.

[2] Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Socrates.

[3] Palmer & Whybrow, Handbook of Coaching Psychology, pg 5.

[4] Robbins, Discover the 6 Human Needs.

[5] Palmer & Whybrow, Handbook of Coaching Psychology, pg 5.

[6] Whitmore, Coaching for Performance, Introduction.

[7] Ibid, pg 20.

[8] EMCC Global Competencies Framework V2 in Wheatley & Hawkins, Deciding to Coach, pg 26.

[9] Kimsey-House, Kimsey-House, Sandahl & Whitworth, Co-Active Coaching, pg XV.

[10] Whitmore, Coaching for Performance, pg 14.

[11] Wheatley & Hawkins, Deciding to Coach, pg 29.

[12] Ibid. pg 30.

[13] Whitmore, Coaching for Performance, pg 11.

[14] Starr, The Coaching Manual, pg 6.

[15] Wheatley & Hawkins, Deciding to Coach, pg 27.

[16] Harvard Business Review, Research: What CEOs Really Want From Coaching.