Mentorship vs. Formal Training: Developing Leaders the Right Way

The Leadership Development Dilemma

Building a strong pipeline of future leaders is a critical priority for organizations in every industry. Yet many companies struggle with how best to develop leadership talent. A recent survey found about 45% of managers believe their company isn’t doing enough to cultivate future leaders, with leadership training cited as the most neglected development initiative. This gap in leadership development has serious implications, ineffective leadership can hurt employee engagement and performance, and poor succession planning leaves businesses vulnerable. How, then, should organizations prepare the next generation of leaders? Two common approaches stand out: formal leadership training programs and mentorship. Each method offers distinct benefits, and choosing the right approach (or the right mix) is key to “developing leaders the right way.” In this article, we’ll explore the roles of formal training and mentoring in leadership development, compare their effectiveness, and discuss how a balanced strategy can yield the best results.

No organization can thrive without effective leadership. Developing new leaders is not just an HR concern, it’s a strategic imperative. Studies show that strong leadership development is linked to better financial performance and organizational health. Yet despite global companies spending hundreds of billions on training programs, many leadership initiatives fall short of expectations. In 2019 alone, businesses invested an estimated $370 billion globally in corporate training (with a significant portion focused on leadership development), reflecting the high priority placed on nurturing leadership talent. However, a Deloitte report found that 41% of business leaders feel their organizations’ leadership development efforts don’t meet necessary standards. In other words, many companies pour resources into formal training but still aren’t seeing the leadership bench strength they need.

What’s going wrong? Often, the issue isn’t that training is useless, formal programs can impart valuable skills and knowledge, but that training alone may not be enough. Leadership is a complex, human skill set that requires more than classroom instruction. This is where mentorship enters the conversation. Organizations are increasingly recognizing that while workshops and courses provide foundational knowledge, emerging leaders also need personal guidance, real-world practice, and role models to truly grow. In fact, mentorship and other on-the-job development make up a majority of how adults learn professional skills. A well-known 70:20:10 learning model suggests that only about 10% of learning comes from formal education and training, whereas 20% comes from developmental relationships like mentoring and coaching, and 70% from hands-on experience. This doesn’t mean formal training has no value, rather, it highlights that social learning and experience are indispensable for cultivating effective leaders. With that context, let’s examine each approach in detail.

Formal leadership training refers to structured programs designed to teach leadership competencies in a systematic way. These programs can take many forms, multi-day workshops, seminars, classroom-based courses, online leadership academies, MBA-style training modules, or corporate university programs. Often led by experienced instructors or consultants, formal training typically covers topics like leadership theory, management techniques, communication skills, strategic thinking, and business knowledge. The content is delivered through lectures, case studies, role-playing exercises, group activities, and sometimes practical projects. The goal is to provide emerging leaders with a consistent foundation of knowledge and skills.

Benefits of formal training include:

• Structured Curriculum: Formal programs follow a planned curriculum aligned with organizational leadership models. This ensures all participants learn core concepts (e.g. situational leadership, emotional intelligence, feedback skills) in a logical sequence. It creates a common leadership language across the organization.
  
  
• Expert Instruction: Trainers or coaches who specialize in leadership development often bring research-based methods and expertise. Participants can learn best practices and frameworks developed by academics or industry experts. For example, meta-analyses have found that well-designed leadership training can improve participants’ learning by about 25% and job performance by 20% on average. These gains indicate that formal training, when done right, can yield measurable improvements in leaders’ capabilities.
  
  
• Scalability: A formal course can train many people at once, which is efficient for organizations with large management pools. Dozens (or hundreds) of managers can go through the same program in cohorts, ensuring broad reach. This is harder to achieve with one-on-one development alone.
  
  
• Measurable Outcomes: Because formal training is structured, it’s easier to evaluate. Pre- and post-training assessments, feedback surveys, or performance metrics can be used to gauge effectiveness. This helps stakeholders justify the investment. Some organizations have found that extending leadership training deeper into the company (not just senior levels) led to significant improvements in overall organizational performance.
  
  

Formal training clearly has a role in leadership development. It builds fundamental knowledge, instills common values, and can jump-start skill growth. Many successful companies have signature leadership programs, for instance, General Electric’s famous Crotonville leadership institute or Apple University, which have trained generations of leaders in a controlled setting. However, formal training also has limitations. Classroom learning tends to be removed from day-to-day work, so participants might struggle to apply concepts back on the job. Lessons can remain theoretical if not reinforced by practice. Additionally, generic training may not address each individual’s specific growth areas or the nuances of a company’s culture. As a 2016 Harvard Business Review analysis noted, only about one in four senior managers felt that their company’s training programs were critical for achieving business outcomes, suggesting a disconnect between training efforts and real-world impact. This is not to diminish formal training’s importance, but to underscore that it’s not a silver bullet. To truly develop leadership talent, other approaches need to complement the classroom.

Mentorship is a development approach based on relationships and experience-sharing rather than classroom instruction. In a mentoring program, a less-experienced individual (the mentee) is paired with a more seasoned professional (the mentor) who provides guidance, advice, and feedback over time. This relationship is often one-on-one and can last months or years, allowing the mentee to learn directly from the mentor’s real-world insights. For developing leaders, mentors are typically higher-level managers or executives who can show protégés “the ropes” of leadership in the organization.

How mentoring develops leaders: Unlike formal training that occurs in a controlled setting, mentoring embeds learning into everyday work life. A mentor might coach their mentee through a tough project, demonstrate how to handle a team conflict, or share stories of past successes and failures. The mentee learns by observing the mentor’s behaviors and decision-making (learning through role modeling), and by getting personalized feedback on their own attempts. This continuous, hands-on learning helps build practical leadership skills and judgment in a way a course can’t fully simulate. It’s no surprise that research finds mentoring to be one of the most effective practices for leadership development, as it fosters learning through real organizational challenges and relationships.

Key benefits of mentorship include:

• Personalized Development: A mentor tailors guidance to the mentee’s individual needs and goals. If a new manager struggles with delegation, the mentor can focus on that; if another needs confidence in strategic planning, the mentor can work through those challenges. This customization is hard for one-size-fits-all training to achieve. As one mentoring expert put it, the absence of mentoring often leaves a gap that “no amount of formal training can fully close,” because mentoring addresses the nuanced, human side of leadership growth that courses often miss.
  
  
• Knowledge Transfer: Mentors pass down institutional knowledge and hard-earned wisdom. They share company-specific insights, from navigating internal politics to understanding customer nuances, which are rarely taught in textbooks. This knowledge transfer is crucial for leadership continuity. Notably, 100% of Fortune 50 companies and over 84% of Fortune 500 companies run mentoring programs, reflecting how vital they consider mentoring for sustaining leadership know-how. Organizations don’t want critical knowledge to walk out the door when veterans retire or leave; mentoring helps capture and transmit that wisdom to emerging leaders.
  
  
• Building Confidence and Soft Skills: Through a supportive mentor relationship, mentees often gain confidence, resilience, and improved interpersonal skills. Regular conversations with a mentor provide a safe space for aspiring leaders to ask “dumb” questions, reflect on setbacks, and receive encouragement. This psychosocial support builds the mentee’s self-awareness and emotional intelligence, traits essential for effective leadership that formal training might not fully instill. Mentees frequently report greater leadership self-confidence and motivation as a result of mentoring relationships. In fact, engaging with a respected mentor can help an individual start seeing themselves as a leader, which is a crucial psychological step in becoming one.
  
  
• Higher Engagement and Retention: Employees involved in mentoring tend to feel more valued and connected to the organization. They develop a sense of loyalty from the investment in their growth. The results can be dramatic: one well-known corporate study at Sun Microsystems found that retention rates for mentees (72%) and mentors (69%) were far higher than for employees who did not participate (49%). Similarly, Deloitte research indicates that employees with mentors are significantly more likely to stay at a company for 5+ years compared to those without mentors. By strengthening engagement and reducing turnover, mentoring programs help companies retain their top talent (and save greatly on recruiting costs).
  
  
• Real-world Skill Development: Mentoring accelerates learning by tackling real challenges. Instead of hypothetical case studies, mentees work on actual projects and decisions with mentor guidance. This “learn by doing” approach builds practical leadership competencies, like negotiating, problem-solving, influencing others, in context. Mentors can also open doors for their mentees, assigning them stretch projects or introducing them to key stakeholders, which further hones the mentee’s leadership abilities and visibility.
  
  

Given these benefits, it’s clear why mentoring has a powerful impact on leadership pipelines. Many organizations attribute faster promotions and career growth to mentoring. In the Sun Microsystems example, the company’s mentoring program led to participants being promoted 5–6 times more often than non-participants, and 25% of mentored employees received salary grade increases versus only 5% of those without mentors. Both mentors and mentees benefited, highlighting that mentorship creates a win-win: protégés advance in their careers, and mentors often sharpen their own leadership and coaching skills through the process. The hands-on experience and mutual learning in mentoring simply cannot be replicated by formal training alone.

Of course, mentoring is not a magic wand either. Its success depends greatly on the quality of the mentors, the commitment on both sides, and a good match between mentor and mentee. Informal, organic mentoring relationships can be wonderfully effective, but formal mentoring programs need careful design to avoid pairing people who don’t connect. Additionally, mentoring is resource-intensive, it relies on time given by senior staff, so without a culture that supports it, mentoring opportunities may not be available to everyone who wants them. Despite these challenges, the overwhelming evidence and widespread adoption of mentorship programs show their value in leadership development.

Both formal training and mentoring can play major roles in developing leaders, but they do so in very different ways. Understanding their key differences helps HR professionals and business leaders decide how to utilize each approach. Below are some head-to-head comparisons of mentorship and formal training:

• Learning Format: Formal training is classroom or course-based, often delivered in a one-to-many format (instructors to a group of learners) on a fixed schedule. Mentorship is relational and ongoing, delivered one-on-one (or sometimes in small groups) through conversations and shared experiences over time. Training might be a workshop spanning a few days, whereas mentoring relationships can span months or years.
  
  
• Content and Context: Formal training typically covers general leadership theories, models, and case studies that apply across situations. The content is often standardized for all participants. In contrast, mentoring focuses on context-specific guidance, advice and skill-building tailored to the mentee’s current projects, challenges, and goals within their actual job role. Mentoring situates learning in the context of the organization’s real environment, which can make it highly relevant and immediately applicable.
  
  
• Personalization: Mentorship is highly personalized, adapting to the mentee’s development needs. The mentor can address strengths and weaknesses unique to that individual. Formal training, even with interactive elements, is less personalized, as one curriculum must fit many learners. Participants in a training seminar all get the same material, regardless of their particular gaps or experience.
  
  
• Skills Emphasized: A training program might effectively teach technical or “hard” skills (like strategic planning methods, financial acumen, use of leadership tools) and foundational management knowledge. Mentoring, on the other hand, excels at developing “soft” leadership skills and intangibles, such as emotional intelligence, negotiation, handling office politics, leadership presence, and other nuanced capabilities. Mentors also model soft skills like listening, empathy, and effective communication in real situations, which trainees may not fully grasp in a classroom.
  
  
• Feedback and Guidance: In formal training, feedback to participants is usually structured (quizzes, role-play debriefs, or maybe a 360-degree assessment) but limited to the training period. In mentoring, feedback is continuous and real-time. The mentee can debrief a meeting that went badly with their mentor, or seek immediate advice on a decision, getting iterative feedback as situations unfold. This on-the-spot coaching helps refine the mentee’s approach in a way delayed, end-of-course feedback cannot.
  
  
• Scale and Accessibility: Formal training can scale broadly, a single program can reach many employees, and it’s easier to mandate all new managers attend a training course. Mentorship does not scale as easily, since it relies on enough willing and capable mentors for each mentee. Not every promising employee may find a mentor if the pool is limited. Organizations often have to be intentional to ensure mentoring opportunities are widely accessible (including to underrepresented groups who might have smaller internal networks).
  
  
• Consistency vs. Variability: Training programs offer a consistent experience, every participant is taught the same principles, which can be good for establishing baseline leadership expectations. Mentoring experiences can vary widely, some mentors are exceptional teachers, others less so; some pairs click, others may not. The outcomes from mentoring might be less predictable and harder to standardize.
  
  
• Cost and Investment: Formal training often involves financial costs (program fees, travel, materials) and scheduling time away from work, but once developed, a program can be repeated. Mentorship is cost-effective financially (little direct cost if done internally) but requires a cultural investment, senior leaders must devote time to it, and time is a precious resource. The “expense” of mentoring is the hours executives spend mentoring instead of on other tasks. That said, many companies find this a worthy investment given the returns in employee growth and retention.
  
  

In summary, formal training and mentoring fulfill different roles. Formal training is like laying the academic groundwork, it provides knowledge and tools in a structured way. Mentorship is like the practicum or apprenticeship, it transforms that knowledge into practiced wisdom through guidance and experience. Neither approach alone is sufficient for holistic leadership development. An over-reliance on formal training might yield leaders who know theory but struggle with practice or company-specific nuances. Relying only on ad-hoc mentoring might leave gaps in fundamental knowledge or consistency. The most effective leadership development strategies tend to leverage both, capitalizing on the strengths of each.

Rather than viewing mentorship and formal training as an either/or choice, leading organizations recognize that the two approaches complement each other. A balanced development program uses formal training to build foundational skills and knowledge, and mentoring to reinforce and apply those skills in the real world. When combined, this creates a powerful, continuous learning cycle for emerging leaders.

Here are some ways companies blend mentorship with formal training for maximum impact:

• Training Plus Mentoring Programs: Many organizations pair a training course with a follow-up mentoring component. For example, after managers attend a leadership workshop, they might be matched with a senior leader as a mentor to help implement the concepts learned. The formal training introduces new ideas, and the mentor then helps the mentee tailor and apply those ideas to their daily work. This approach bridges the “knowing-doing” gap. It’s much more likely that a manager will practice that effective feedback model from class if a mentor is guiding them through their first tough feedback session afterward.
  
  
• Mentor-Led Workshops: The reverse can also happen, companies leverage internal mentors to deliver parts of their training. Seasoned leaders can lead breakout sessions or share case studies during formal training events, effectively bringing mentoring insights into the classroom. This adds practical depth to the training curriculum and shows trainees how concepts play out in real company scenarios.
  
  
• On-the-Job Learning Structured by Training: A formal development program might include action learning projects or rotational assignments (a form of on-the-job training for leadership candidates). Mentors often oversee or coach these projects. For instance, an emerging leader could be assigned a cross-functional project as part of training, and also be given a mentor from the executive team to advise them through it. This weaves experiential learning (70%) and social learning (20%) into the framework of a structured program (10%).
  
  
• Culture of Continuous Development: Ultimately, combining approaches works best when organizations cultivate a culture where learning is ongoing. Formal training might occur at set intervals (say, a leadership course when someone is promoted), but mentoring and coaching conversations happen continually as part of work life. Companies like IBM and General Electric historically combined formal leadership courses with career-long mentoring and coaching relationships, creating an ecosystem where learning never stops. New leaders attend formal classes to gain tools and then have mentors and bosses coaching them for years after, an integrated process rather than discrete, one-off events.
  
  

The benefits of an integrated approach are clear. Formal training ensures consistency and coverage of essential leadership competencies, while mentoring provides the personalization and sustained reinforcement to truly ingrain those competencies. By learning theory in training and then practicing with a mentor’s feedback, future leaders solidify their skills much faster. They also remain more engaged, formal programs can energize employees with new ideas, and mentoring keeps that momentum going back on the job, preventing the post-training backslide where lessons are forgotten.

There’s also evidence that a diversified development approach yields better results. Organizations that blend formal and informal development see higher ROI on their training investments. One study noted that companies with robust mentoring in addition to training had 18% higher average profit than those without mentoring programs, highlighting that mentoring amplifies the impact of other learning efforts. The bottom line for HR and talent leaders is that mentorship and training should work hand-in-hand. By designing leadership development initiatives that include workshops and mentoring relationships (along with real work challenges), organizations can cover all facets of growth: knowledge, experience, and guidance. This ensures that when employees step into leadership roles, they are not only technically prepared but also supported and confident in applying their skills.

Developing great leaders is both an art and a science, it requires structured learning as well as personal growth experiences. Formal training provides the science: the frameworks, models, and baseline skills every leader should know. Mentorship provides the art: the nuanced, human lessons and confidence-building that come from personal guidance. As we’ve discussed, these approaches are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. Forward-thinking organizations use formal training to kick-start leadership development and mentoring to sustain and deepen it over time.

For HR professionals and business owners looking to “develop leaders the right way,” the key is to create a balanced leadership development strategy. Assess what skills and knowledge can be taught in classrooms or online modules, and ensure those programs are in place. Simultaneously, build or strengthen a mentoring culture where seasoned leaders actively nurture the next generation. Encourage leaders to take mentees under their wing, and give them the time and support to do so. By doing both, you address the whole spectrum of learning, from formal knowledge to informal wisdom.

Finally, remember that no two organizations are the same. The right mix of mentorship and formal training can vary based on company size, industry, and culture. A tech startup might rely more on informal mentoring and on-the-job learning due to its fast pace, whereas a large enterprise might have a more formal leadership academy plus a structured mentoring program. In any context, though, an awareness-stage focus on learning and development signals to employees that the company is invested in their growth. That in itself boosts morale and retention. Employees who see a path to develop into leaders, through courses, mentoring, and stretch opportunities, are more likely to stay and contribute at their highest potential.

In conclusion, developing leaders the right way isn’t about choosing mentorship or formal training, it’s about leveraging the best of both worlds. Formal training lays the groundwork, and mentorship builds on it to transform knowledge into effective leadership behaviors. By combining structured learning with the power of personal mentorship, organizations can create a robust leadership pipeline. The result is not just leaders who are trained, but leaders who are truly nurtured, equipped with both the head knowledge and the seasoned guidance to lead their teams to success.