Chapter 4 Coaching versus Mentoring: Are There Any Differences?

Abstract

This chapter focuses on two major concepts in entrepreneurship training, namely coaching and mentoring. A study of these concepts reveals at least two schools of thought, that coaching and mentoring are two parallel and distinct activities that can be used to support each other, and that coaching and mentoring are not separate activities — coaching is considered part of the mentoring activity or mentoring part of the coaching activity. Data from 36 university-based training programmes and 450 coaching and mentoring cases at 7 Swedish universities were analysed. We used a checklist to gather information on 21 items linked to these 4 distinctive groups: first structural issues (mission, form and task); second, process issues (i.e. connection to programme content, meeting environment, problem solving, assessing the opportunity or idea, operative role, confidentiality and networking); third relationship (i.e. extent, meeting, initiative, homework, documentation and follow-up) and fourth character of the coach and mentor (background and experience, engagement, integrity, social skills and role or ethics).

Coaching and mentoring differed markedly, for example in terms of mission, problem solving and use of generalist versus specialist competence. Similarities occurred in the areas of opportunity or idea assessment, and meeting environment, operative role and confidentiality agreements. The authors are convinced that the coach and the mentor have different roles in helping the young individual to become a better entrepreneur. Coaching and mentoring were found to be parallel activities that complement each other.

Citation

Klofsten, M. and Öberg, S. (2012), "Chapter 4 Coaching versus Mentoring: Are There Any Differences?", Groen, A., Oakey, R., Van Der Sijde, P. and Cook, G. (Ed.) New Technology-Based Firms in the New Millennium (New Technology Based Firms in the New Millennium, Vol. 9), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1876-0228(2012)0000009006