#173 Why Mentor Coaching cannot make you the coach you aspire to be
If Mentor Coaching and Coaching Supervision both support coach development, why do they feel so different in practice? The answer lies in their underlying philosophies of learning.
Mentor Coaching, especially within the ICF credentialing pathway, is rooted in a Technological Schooling philosophy (see article #172 for an explanation of different philosophies of learning). It focuses on observable behaviours, measurable competencies and standardised assessment. Its purpose is to ensure consistency and quality control. There is nothing wrong with this, until we mistake it for a pathway to mastery.
Supervision, by contrast, is grounded in a Humanistic Learning philosophy. It is relational, reflective and concerned with who the coach is, not just what the coach does. It supports identity, presence and ethical maturity. It helps coaches grow into themselves.
Transactional Analysis offers a useful lens here. TA describes three ego states - Parent, Adult and Child - which, when applied to culture, become Etiquette, Technicalities and Character.
In the coaching profession:
Etiquette is expressed through frameworks like competencies and the Global Code of Ethics.
Technicalities are what we learn in coach training: models, skills, contracting, listening, questioning, etc.
Character is what practitioners actually do; it is who we become as practitioners, demonstrated by our philosophy, presence and signature.
Here’s the tension: several coaches have told me, ‘If I coached the way I actually coach, I would fail my credentialing.’ This is a profound statement. It reveals that Mentor Coaching reinforces Etiquette and Technicalities but does little to nurture Character. It keeps coaches within the culture of Schooling rather than supporting the deeper work of Learning. This runs the risk of creating performative coaches.
Supervision, however, invites you into that deeper work. It helps you integrate your lived experience, values and intuition. It supports you in making sense of your practice, not just demonstrating it for external assessment. It creates the conditions for authenticity, rather than conformity.
Crucially, supervision aligns what is espoused, what is practised, and what is experienced. My supervisees consistently describe the work as Humanistic: spacious, relational and resonant. Mentor Coaching does not always achieve this alignment, because its purpose and philosophy differ.
So here is my challenge to Mentor Coaches: What is your philosophy of learning? And how does it align - or clash - with the ICF’s philosophy of learning?
Until we ask these questions, we risk confusing competence with maturity, and credentialing with development. Coaches deserve more than that. They deserve spaces where they can become who they truly are.
