The Mentoring Mistake that Holds People Back at Work (and How to Fix It)

Why mentoring programs underperform

For many organizations, mentoring is a core component of talent development, succession planning and inclusion strategy. It is often introduced with strong intent and significant investment. Yet, despite this, mentoring programs frequently under deliver on their promise.

From a people leadership perspective, the issue is rarely participation. It is impact. Mentoring activity increases, but confidence, progression and retention outcomes remain uneven, particularly for underrepresented talent.

One of the most common and overlooked reasons for this gap is the way mentoring capability is defined and supported. Too often, mentors are selected based on seniority or technical expertise rather than on their ability to develop others. This creates a risk that mentoring becomes advice-led, inconsistent and, at times, counterproductive.

The hidden cost of advice-led mentoring

Advice giving is highly valued in senior leadership roles. Decision-making, problem-solving and directional authority are often rewarded behaviors. When these habits are transferred directly into mentoring, however, they can undermine development.

Advice-led mentoring positions the mentor as the expert and the mentee as the recipient. Over time, this dynamic can reduce autonomy, confidence and accountability. From an organizational perspective, this is a capability risk. Employees may become dependent on guidance rather than developing judgement and decision-making skills.

There is also an inclusion risk. Advice shaped by one career path may not account for systemic barriers, cultural differences or power dynamics experienced by others. When mentoring, guidance does not reflect diverse realities. It can unintentionally reinforce existing norms and inequities.

Impact on confidence, progression and retention

Career confidence is a key driver of performance, engagement and retention. When mentoring interactions override an individual’s thinking rather than strengthen it, confidence erodes.

For employees who already experience marginalization or reduced visibility, advice-led mentoring can reinforce a sense of not belonging. This affects discretionary effort, internal mobility and long-term commitment to the organization.

From a learning and development perspective, this represents a missed opportunity. Mentoring should be a mechanism for building capability at scale, not a well-intentioned but uneven experience dependent on individual mentor style.

Why this mentoring mistake persists in organizations

This mistake persists because mentoring is often treated as a relational activity rather than a developmental intervention. Mentors are rarely trained, supported or supervised. Assumptions are made that experience alone equals capability.

There is also limited accountability. Mentoring outcomes are seldom evaluated beyond participation metrics. Without clear expectations or feedback loops, ineffective or even harmful mentoring behaviors can go unnoticed.

Additionally, many organizations conflate mentoring with knowledge transfer. While experience has value, complex organizations require employees who can think critically, navigate ambiguity and adapt. These capabilities are not built through advice alone.

The opportunity for a hybrid mentor-coach capability

There is a significant opportunity for organizations to strengthen mentoring impact by developing a hybrid mentor-coach capability. This approach combines the contextual insight of mentoring with the reflective, inquiry-based practices of coaching.

Hybrid mentor-coaches are intentional about when they share experience and when they facilitate thinking. They are trained to recognize power dynamics, manage boundaries and create psychological safety. Importantly, they understand that their role is to develop capability, not dependency.

For Learning and Development and People leaders, this approach offers consistency and quality. It enables mentoring to be aligned with organizational values, inclusion goals and leadership standards.

Growth mindset as an organizational capability

From a strategic perspective, growth mindset is not an individual trait. It is a cultural capability. Mentoring interactions either reinforce learning and curiosity or signal that success depends on having the right answers.

Hybrid mentor-coach practices model learning behaviors at scale. They normalize uncertainty, reflection and experimentation. This is particularly important in complex environments where agility and judgement are critical.

By embedding this approach into mentoring programs, organizations can reinforce growth mindset in a way that is practical and observable.

Belonging, ethics and risk management

Mentoring is not a neutral intervention. It involves power, influence and access. Without clear ethical standards, mentoring can create risk for both individuals and the organization.

Advice-led mentoring can unintentionally silence diverse perspectives or pressure individuals to conform. In contrast, a hybrid mentor-coach approach prioritizes consent, transparency and choice. This reduces ethical risk and supports inclusion and belonging.

For senior leaders, this is not just a cultural issue. It is a governance issue. Mentoring relationships require clarity of role, boundaries and accountability.

Five actions leaders can take to fix mentoring mistakes

To improve mentoring effectiveness, organizations can take the following steps:

1. Define mentoring capability clearly
   Move beyond seniority as a selection criterion and define the behaviors and skills expected of mentors.
2. Train mentors in reflective and inclusive practice
   Provide development in inquiry, listening, boundaries and ethical awareness.
3. Introduce a hybrid mentor coach model
   Equip mentors to balance experience sharing with coaching style reflection.
4. Create oversight and support mechanisms
   Offer supervision, peer learning or review processes to maintain quality and safety.
5. Measure impact, not just participation
   Track outcomes related to confidence, progression, inclusion and retention.

Mentoring as a strategic capability

For Heads of Organizational Development, L&D and Chief People Officers, mentoring should be viewed as a strategic capability, not a goodwill initiative.

When mentoring is poorly designed or unsupported, it risks reinforcing dependency and inequity. When it is intentional, ethical and capability focused, it becomes a powerful lever for development, inclusion and performance.

By addressing the mentoring mistake of advice-led practice and investing in hybrid mentor-coach capability, organizations can transform mentoring from a well-meaning activity into a sustainable driver of talent success.

Save 30% on Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging in Coaching with code AHR30.