Expertise · Coaching & mentoring
Help without taking the problem over
A capable person stalls after a promotion, a new leader asks you for answers, a manager keeps rescuing the team. Coaching and mentoring look alike from outside and do different things. The first job is to decide which the situation needs, for how long, and how you will know it helped.
Illustration · a coaching engagement with an end
From an initial question to a review
Our best technician now manages her former colleagues
A fictional engineering company promotes its strongest technician to team leader. Within two months she is working evenings to redo the team’s work and asking her manager what to do in every awkward situation. The sponsor asks for coaching.
Three kinds of help are on offer: an experienced leader who tells her what worked for them, a coach who asks questions until she finds her own answer, and a colleague who simply gives advice. Each is the right thing sometimes. The real dilemma is that nobody has said which problem this is.
Coaching, mentoring, advising and therapy are different jobs
| Form | Who brings the content | Works best when | Does not fit when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coaching | The person. The coach brings questions and structure. | The person has the knowledge but not yet the options, or avoids a specific situation. | She needs facts she does not have, or the problem sits in the role. |
| Mentoring | The mentor, from their own experience, labelled as such. | A role transition where the person can compare what they hear with real experience. | The mentor’s context differs from hers, or advice would be copied rather than adapted. |
| Advising | The adviser, on a defined question. | There is a right answer to be found and speed matters. | The issue is how she acts, not what she knows. |
| Therapy or counselling | A qualified clinician. | Persistent distress or impairment. | Outside our scope. We refer on. |
What is holding the new manager back
Only some of them are coaching problems. A coach who takes on the wrong one wastes everyone’s time and quietly blames the person.
1 · Role clarity
Mechanism: nobody has said what she now decides alone and what she checks.Cue: ask her and her manager separately to list what she decides alone. The two lists differ.Move: a written statement of decision rights, reviewed after two weeks.2 · A specific skill gap
Mechanism: she has never given hard feedback or run a difficult conversation, and has no options to choose from.Cue: she avoids particular situations, not all of them, and when asked what she would say, she cannot name two ways.Move: rehearse that one conversation, have it, debrief it. This is the one that coaching fits best.3 · Peer loyalty and identity
Mechanism: she is still seen as one of the team, and acting as the leader feels like betrayal, to her and to them.Cue: she over-explains, asks permission, shares information she should hold, and former colleagues test boundaries.Move: name the change openly with the team, agree new ground rules, and coach the boundary conversations.4 · Mandate and context
Mechanism: her decisions are reversed upstream, or the role as designed cannot be done.Cue: the previous leader had the same problem, and she is overruled in front of the team.Move: this is not a coaching problem. Fix the mandate with the sponsor, or stop.How a coaching conversation about a real decision runs
We keep the structure simple, because the skill is in the listening and not in the sequence. It rests on well-supported work on autonomy-supportive conduct: people carry out decisions better when they have been asked, have been given reasons and keep real choice where choice exists.
Five moves
- ContactStart with the person, not with the problem.
- Shared purpose and procedureAgree what the conversation is for and how it will run.
- Her view firstAsk for her reading and her proposal before offering ours.
- AlternativesWiden the options, including ones she dismissed.
- Her choice, where it is hersIf the decision is hers it stays hers. If it is not, say so plainly and explain why.
The work
A coaching engagement has an end date
- ContractA goal in observable terms, a time window fixed in advance, who sponsors, what the sponsor will see (only what is agreed), the limits of confidentiality, and when we stop or hand over. You get: a one-page contract signed by all three parties.
- BaselineWhat she does now in the situations that matter, from her account and short conversations with two or three colleagues she names, held with her knowledge. You get: a baseline written as behaviour, not as character.
- Sessions and experimentsBetween sessions she tries one specific thing in a real situation, and the next session starts from what happened. When we offer experience, we label it: this is what I saw, not what you must do. You get: her own log of experiments.
- Peer reflection, where it fitsAfter real practice, a small round with other new leaders to compare what they tried. Not before they have anything to compare. You get: a wider set of options than one conversation can supply.
- Review on the agreed dateCompare with the baseline and decide: stop, extend with a new goal, or hand over to different help. You get: a short closing note.
Stop and transfer rules
Written into the contract
- Review dateFixed at the start. It does not move because the conversations are enjoyable.
- Evidence of progressAt least one observable behaviour that changed in a real situation and was noticed by someone other than her.
- StopThe goal is met, or the review shows no observable change and no new hypothesis worth testing.
- TransferSigns of persistent distress go to an occupational physician or psychologist. A mandate problem goes back to the sponsor.
- RecordsWhat is written down, who sees it and for how long is agreed in advance. Confidentiality is limited by safety and by legal duties, and she is told so at the start.
How certain are we?
What we know about coaching
- EstablishedMeta-analyses of workplace coaching report positive average effects on goal attainment and well-being.
With wide variation between studies, mostly self-reported outcomes and few strongly controlled designs. We treat the effect as probable on average and unproven in your case.
- EstablishedAutonomy-supportive conduct (offering choice, acknowledging the other person’s view, giving reasons) goes with better motivation and well-being.
Well supported in self-determination research. The link to behaviour at work is less often tested directly.
- Our hypothesisMentoring input helps most after the person has real experience to weigh it against; earlier it tends to be copied rather than adapted.
We would drop it if a pattern of early mentoring working well showed up in our own engagements.
When coaching is not a good fit
- Therapy, treatment or a substitute for them. If we see signs that call for it, we say so and refer on.
- A profile or a personality type. We describe behaviour in situations and test whether it changes.
- A secret assessment of the person for the sponsor. Purpose and reporting are agreed with the person present.
- A promise of promotion, performance or well-being.