Coaching or Mentoring in Leadership?

You've probably been in this moment. A team member comes to you with a problem, and the solution is obvious—at least to you. You could explain it in thirty seconds and everyone moves on. So you do.

 And that's exactly where things go wrong.

 The instinct to provide solutions is one of the most common traps leaders fall into—and one of the most costly.** Every time you give an answer instead of guiding someone to find their own, you trade short-term efficiency for long-term capability. You get the problem solved, but you don't get a team member who can solve the next one without you.

The distinction between coaching and mentoring offers a way out of this trap—but only if you understand when each approach serves your team and when it holds them back.

 Coaching and Mentoring: Different Tools for Different Situations

 These terms often get used interchangeably, but they serve fundamentally different purposes.

 Coaching focuses on unlocking potential through guided questioning. The assumption is that your team member has the knowledge and experience to find their own solution—they just need help accessing it. Your role is to ask the questions that prompt reflection, challenge assumptions, and build confidence in their own judgement.

Mentoring involves sharing your expertise directly. You're drawing on your own experience to provide specific guidance, frameworks, or knowledge that the other person doesn't yet have. This approach is more directive—you're filling a gap, not drawing out what's already there.

For leaders focused on developing their team's capabilities, coaching should be the default. But reality is messier than that. Most effective leaders blend both approaches, shifting between them based on what the situation demands.

 The key is making that shift intentionally, not defaulting to mentoring because it's faster.

 When Mentoring Is the Right Call

 There are situations where direct guidance isn't just appropriate—it's necessary.

When time pressure is real, not just uncomfortable. If a client deadline is tomorrow and your team member has never handled this type of deliverable, now isn't the moment for exploratory questioning. Provide the direction they need, then debrief afterwards.

When foundational knowledge is missing. You can't coach someone to an answer they don't have the building blocks to construct. A junior team member who's never run a budget forecast needs you to explain the mechanics before they can think critically about the approach.

When the stakes of getting it wrong are too high. Some situations don't allow for learning through trial and error. Regulatory compliance, legal exposure, major client relationships—these may require you to be directive first and developmental later.

The trap isn't mentoring when it's needed. The trap is mentoring when it isn't—because it's quicker, because you enjoy being the expert, or because you haven't noticed you're doing it.

 The Cost of Providing Solutions Too Often

 When leaders over-rely on giving answers, the consequences compound over time:

Critical thinking atrophies. Team members stop trying to work through problems themselves because they've learned that waiting for your input is easier. The cognitive muscle that should be strengthening with each challenge starts to weaken instead.

Ownership erodes. When the solution comes from you, the accountability feels like it does too. Team members execute rather than own. They follow instructions rather than make decisions.

 Your bottleneck grows. Every answer you provide reinforces your position as the person who has them. Your team becomes more dependent, not less. Your calendar fills with problems that shouldn't need you. 

Growth stalls. The richest learning comes from wrestling with a challenge, making a decision, and seeing the results. When you short-circuit that process, you short-circuit development.

 Coaching That Actually Works

 Effective coaching isn't just asking questions—it's asking the right questions at the right moments, and resisting the pull to jump in with your own thinking.

Start with open questions that prompt genuine reflection. Not "Have you considered X?"—that's a suggestion dressed as a question. Try "What options have you already ruled out, and why?" or "What would you do if you had to decide right now?"

 Use the GROW framework to structure the conversation

 Goal: What are you trying to achieve here? What does “success” look like here, in concrete terms?

Reality: What's actually happening? What have you tried?

Options “If you had the magic wand, what could you do? What else? (Ask "what else" at least twice—the first answers are rarely the most interesting ones.)

Will: What will you do? When? What support do you need?

When you're stuck on options, try this: Instead of offering your solution directly, reference someone else's approach. "I remember a situation where a colleague tried X. Does anything about that seem relevant here?" This provides a spark without taking over their thinking.

 Create safety for imperfect answers. If team members feel they need to have the "right" answer before speaking, they'll wait for you to provide it. Make it clear that thinking out loud is welcome, that wrong turns are part of the process.

 What This Looks Like in Practice

 Michael, a marketing manager I worked with, described a recent situation that illustrates the blend well.

Sarah, a junior member of his team, was struggling to develop a campaign strategy for a new product launch. She was overwhelmed, unsure where to start, and looking to Michael for direction. 

Recognising that Sarah was missing some foundational knowledge, Michael started with mentoring. He walked through a few approaches that had worked in similar situations and explained the key principles of campaign planning. This gave Sarah the building blocks she needed.

 Then he shifted. In their next conversation, instead of prescribing the strategy, he asked: "What do you think are the main goals of this campaign?" Sarah had to articulate her own thinking. When discussing tactics, Michael referenced a past campaign—"John took a social media-first approach in a similar situation. What do you think about something like that here?"—but left the decision with Sarah.

The result: Sarah developed a strategy she owned, built confidence in her own judgement, and learned something she could apply to the next campaign without needing Michael's input.

 Michael still provided guidance. But he did it in a way that developed capability rather than dependency.

 Blending the Two Approaches

 In practice, you'll rarely use pure coaching or pure mentoring. The skill is in the blend—and in being conscious of which mode you're in.

 A mentoring moment might sound like: "Based on what I've seen work, here are three approaches worth considering."

 Adding a coaching layer: "Which of these feels most relevant to your situation? What would you need to adapt?"

 The goal isn't to avoid sharing your expertise—it's to share it in a way that still requires your team member to think, choose, and own the outcome.

 Watch for the signs that you've slipped into solution-providing without noticing:

o   You're talking more than listening

o   You feel the satisfaction of being helpful (a warning sign, not a good sign)

o   Your team member is nodding but not engaging

o   The same people keep coming back with similar problems 

The Shift That Changes Everything

 Avoiding the solution trap requires a fundamental shift in how you see your role. You're not there to have the answers—you're there to develop people who can find their own.

 This doesn't mean withholding help when it's genuinely needed. It means being honest with yourself about when you're mentoring because the situation requires it, and when you're doing it because it's faster or more comfortable.

Start with one conversation. The next time a team member brings you a problem, pause before responding. Ask yourself: do they need my answer, or do they need help finding their own?

 Then ask them a question instead.