What is the difference between a leader, a manager, a coach and a mentor? Ten people will provide ten different definitions. Worse, the words leader, manager, coach and mentor are often used interchangeably. How are managers supposed to know what the differences are, and when and with whom to use each approach?
More organizations are asking their managers to coach their people. Others are telling their managers to mentor their people. Some provide training and clarity on what is meant by these terms, but many more don’t. The terms left undefined are also unmeasured.
Some organizations connect coaching and/or mentoring to the “develops others” competency, the use of which might at least be captured in performance reviews. Coaching is often used to describe what others might think of as basic performance management. Mentoring is used to express any number of activities, most of which are undefined.
The increased interest in mentoring and coaching is a positive sign that organizations are seeing the importance of how people feel about their manager. There is a fresh attempt to create a workplace environment in which employees feel their leaders care about them as human beings — but the results so far are a lot of noise and confusion.
This confusion can push well-intentioned managers off balance and keep them from even trying on new behaviors, let alone engaging in the reflection and trial and error required to build competence. Everyone looks to the learning and organizational development professionals to drive change and lead the way in developing, improving, and reinforcing leadership and management development: beginning with strategy, through to learning, processes and measurement.
We know that coaching and mentoring are the keys to a leader’s success and ability to have positive impacts on individuals, teams, and the organization. The more that certainty can be provided, the better the chance that leaders will pay attention to and apply what they learn about coaching and mentoring.
So: Critical distinctions are needed.
Each organization is different, so the expectation is not that each one will adopt these exact definitions and ideas, rather, that they be used as a starting place for those who see the need to create clear distinctions that fit their culture and the outcomes they seek.
Leader: In our research on Leadership Capacity, we found a distinction between strategic and operational leadership.
- Strategic leaders define the imperatives for everyone in the organization. It is the “what” that provides the key relationships and metrics needed to ensure that all units follow the same strategy. Strategies must then identify the criteria that are the key determinants of behavior. Outputs from strategic leaders include vision, culture and the declaration of strategic imperatives.
- Operational leaders provide the “how” in the organization. They enable departments and employees to understand how they specifically contribute to organizational success. They provide the procedures and policies that clarify how each unit will achieve the overall strategy.
It is also fair to point out that anyone can be a self-leader, which is defined as having the mindset and skillset to get what one needs to succeed.
Manager: Managers can fall into the category of operational leader. Managers must ensure the job, tasks and goals are crystal clear. They must be able to paint the picture of what a good job looks like. They provide direction and support, with detailed timely feedback and redirection as needed. They are responsible for making sure that proper resources are made available. The best managers track each employee’s strengths and help them take advantage of development opportunities. Historically, the manager is an agent of the organization; these days, though, they must balance the needs of the organization with the needs of their people. The management conversation is most appropriate when both the manager and direct report have shared responsibility for results. Management conversations solve problems and produce results that benefit the organization.
Coach: A coach uses a deliberate process using focused conversations to create an environment that results in accelerated performance, development and, ideally, transformation. Managers can use a coaching approach, but they need to distinguish between roles and earn the right to coach by gaining trust. Coaching conversations often include topics that aren’t necessarily directly related to job and/or performance. Coaching is best when the direct report has the majority interest in outcomes, or the manager does not have enough expertise to add the most value to the employee.
Mentor: Mentors are experienced and influential people who can provide guidance based on knowledge of the organization and/or industry. They can teach, can give advice and should be in a position to make introductions, champion their mentee and advocate for the mentee to be given opportunities. Managers can certainly mentor their people, but when it comes to long-term career development, it makes more sense for mentors to be several levels ahead of their mentees. As one Blanchard webinar participant pithily noted recently, a mentor will answer your questions while a coach will often question your answers.
Do these roles and conversations tend to blend and overlap? Indeed, they do, but that is why it is so crucial for managers to know exactly what is needed and the role they are adopting at any given moment. These conversations all require that the person helping be an advocate for the employee and use fundamental listening and inquiring skills effectively.
Research on the State of Coaching and Mentoring, conducted by the HR Research Institute, found the four hindrances to coaching and mentoring most commonly cited:
● 73 percent of respondents said there was not enough time to devote to coaching due to other priorities.
● 59 percent said that managers avoid difficult conversations.
● 49 percent said that coaching and mentoring are done too infrequently.
● 43 percent pointed out the problem of low skill levels of those doing coaching/mentoring.
A major finding was that among organizations with coaches, more than half do not provide formal training in coaching skills. In addition, it is rare that internal mentors and coaches are incentivized for their efforts, including via recognition programs.
A new study released by Grovo revealed that a startling 98 percent of managers surveyed felt managers at their company need more training to deal with important issues. In addition, 87 percent of middle managers wish they had received more management training when they first became a manager.
Research and empirical experience support the idea that employees will be likely to stay and thrive in organizations when they receive sound mentoring and their managers are equipped with coaching skills. It is attractive because it makes sense. But the answer is not to expect managers to simply be able to do it. Managers need clarity about exactly what to do, who to do it with, when to do it, and how to do it. They must have training that provides definitions, step-by-step directions and expected outcomes of coaching and mentoring activities; these activities must become part of a manager’s job description, so that accountability is built in and rewarded.
