Founders say Mentors are not nearly as good as they think.

What’s the metric for success for mentors? Most mentors (and founders) think it’s delivering insightful suggestions as quickly as possible. They each spend their energy fluttering (metaphorically) from flower to flower hoping to find the nectar they seek - a mutually satisfying exchange or relationship. But it takes a LOT of wing-flapping to find that sweet spot and both often get exhausted trying.

Data suggests that 70% of mentors participating in the average accelerator cohort don’t get asked back. Why? Founders are continually disappointed in the series of 10-to-30-minute interactions where smart, successful people who have accomplished great things tell them how to fix/improve their business.

Mentors sense the failure and attribute it to the founder not being “open to listening” or “not ready for this advice”, or worse… “too dumb to see the wisdom in it”. They shrug their shoulders and buzz off in search of another flower.

Founders feel they get “recommendations” from people who did something great, but don’t fully understand the nuances of what is being built now and how the circumstances may differ. They too fly off to the next mentor meeting.

BOTH are seeking the same thing, yet BOTH are trapped being too busy to find it. Why?

1. Founders don’t often know what questions really need to be asked. They tend to frame their queries in language and constructs that reflect the limits of their personal experience - which is precisely what they seek to improve through mentorship. But they don't know what they don't know.
2. Mentors see patterns between the founder questions and past experiences, and seek to minimize time/effort by jumping quickly to “do this, it worked great for me.”
3. BOTH are looking for shortcuts - mistaking “smart” for “valuable”.?

Brilliant insights don’t just get passed from one person to another transactionally. They come at the intersection of experience and perspectives shared by two or more people. When you and I take some time to talk and explore topics together, we are far more likely to find practical inspiration by blending what we’ve learned into something slightly new to both of us. But that may take a bit of time.

Maybe an hour. Maybe a few hours over a few weeks. Maybe a month or more.

The right metric for mentorship is not “delivering insightful suggestions as quickly as possible”. It’s “exchanging and transferring knowledge to help illuminate new possibilities for accomplishing goals.”? Mentorship NOT about making better/faster decisions; it's about creating better decision-makers.

To achieve this we first have to come to trust one another and get comfortable being vulnerable about what we DON’T know and overcome our instincts to just listen for something “smart”. The first version of great advice is often too garbled or too subtle to reveal itself, so we need some time together to process it. And we need to trust the other person enough to let it out in its raw form before it gets evaluated too harshly.

Even better, two or more mentors involved in the founder discussion (simultaneously or sequentially) bring even more perspectives and experience. We all see things differently and our innovation pathways work in different ways. What may emerge as a half-baked thought from one person could be transformed into a breakthrough when nudged just a few degrees in a different direction by someone else.

Effective mentorship (“exchanging and transferring knowledge…”) cannot be accomplished transactionally. Being “smart” isn’t enough, and being time-efficient, while important, isn’t the primary goal. Both founder and mentor need to invest in finding and working with people who have very relevant life experience and a willingness to exploring topics. They need to cross-pollinate in an environment where each feel safe being stupid with one another.

Only then do both get smarter. Which makes better decision-makers.

—-------------------------------------????

Pat LaPointe is Founder and Interim CEO of The Entrelliance Foundation