Military Review English Edition July-August 2015 | Page 53

COMMON UNDERSTANDING

T

here is an old joke describing how a soldier, a
Marine, a sailor, and an airman each responded differently to the command to “secure the
building.” The soldier quickly assembled his platoon,
posted a guard mount, and controlled all entrances
and exits. The Marine mobilized his force, outlined the
plan, engaged the building with indirect fire, assaulted
on line, cleared the building, sequestered survivors, and
prepared to repel counterattacks. The sailor leisurely
walked in; unplugged all the coffee pots; turned off the
lights, computers, and printers; locked the doors; and
left. The Air Force officer immediately contacted a real
estate agent and negotiated a multi-year lease with an
option to buy.
Similar confusion often occurs when talking with
joint and interagency colleagues about how to help
junior leaders progress. As military leaders, we help
others develop through various means, including offering advice, providing support, allowing mistakes, and
setting the stage for career advancement. When discussing leader development with our peers in partnering organizations, we often share insights and exchange
techniques. It is important to establish a common
understanding of the words mentoring, coaching, and
counseling to help define the role of a leader.
A leader’s tool kit to develop others contains three
main tools: mentoring, coaching, and counseling. These
terms have different meanings between the military
services and government agencies, and among leaders
within a service as well. To add to this confusion, different generations of Army leaders often use the terms
differently. Just what do we mean by mentoring, coaching, and counseling?
The meanings of these words have been evolving
in military doctrine as each of the services attempts
to define them. The Army took a hard look at leader
development and tweaked its use of the words of mentoring, coaching, and counseling in the latest leadership doctrine (Army Doctrine Reference Publication
[ADRP] 6-22, Army Leadership).1 Perhaps the biggest
difference in how the Army and other services and
agencies view these functions is reflected in the concept
of mentoring.

Mentoring
One of the challenges in discussing mentoring is
that people usually use the word in ways that reflect
MILITARY REVIEW  July-August 2015

their own environments. Army Regulation 600-100,
Army Leadership, defines mentorship as the “voluntary
developmental relationship that exists between a person
of greater experience and a person of lesser experience
that is characterized by mutual trust and respect.”2
ADRP 6-22 uses this definition and further expounds
upon the doctrinal view of mentoring relationships. A
key point highlighted in ADRP 6-22 is that “mentoring
relationships are not confined to the senior-subordinate
relationship. They may occur between peers and often
between senior NCOs [noncommissioned officers] and
junior officers.”3 This distinction expands the mentoring relationship beyond one of rank. It also focuses on
the aspect of a mentor as someone with more experience helping to develop someone of less experience based
on individual developmental needs. In the Army’s view,
a mentor is usually a person who specializes in the
same occupational field as the mentee. For example, a
more experienced artillery noncommissioned officer
may serve as a mentor for a young artillery lieutenant.
This doctrinal view shifts the emphasis of the action of
mentoring from an inclusive view of a leader serving as
the wise and trusted counselor for every soldier in the
command to the view of a person exercising leadership
as a wise and trusted counselor to an individual.
From the Army’s perspective, the interactions
between a mentor and mentee are at the personal level.
An informal relationship reflects a personal commitment from both parties to improve the mentee. This
shift in the doctrinal construct does not abrogate the
responsibility of leaders to develop their subordinates
but instead adds a responsibility for each leader to
devote time to be a mentor to a select few. The Army’s
doctrinal approach to mentoring does not mandate or
assign duties, nor does it establish a formal program
requiring a mentor be assigned to each officer. Rather,
the approach reflects the preferences of soldiers for
voluntary relationships, which usually extend outside
the chain of command, with experienced and trusted
persons. Mentoring can be beneficial, both for the mentee and the mentor, producing positive organizational
and developmental outcomes. Effective mentoring can
increase retention, morale, and productivity, in addition to enhancing personal and professional development.4 Establishing an informal professional nurturing
relationship with another promotes an environment
of leadership development within the Army. Such
51