Why Mentoring Matters More in the AI Era

A quiet shift is happening in organizations. AI is automating the very work that once trained employees. The repetition of spotting weak arguments in a memo, interpreting ambiguous data, and anticipating stakeholder’s concerns, built judgment. Exposure built intuition. Strip out that layer and you lose training ground.

The structural stakes are significant. If the on-ramp for professional judgment disappears, so does your leadership pipeline. And on-demand learning platforms and one-off training sessions aren’t enough to close the gap. They don’t transfer judgment, pattern recognition, professional instinct, or the tacit knowledge that accumulates through exposure to how experienced leaders actually think.

In my work coaching CHROs and C-suite leaders, I keep hearing the same urgent question: How do we accelerate employee development to build a stronger leadership pipeline? There is one scalable intervention that makes a real difference, and its return on investment is well-documented and supported by research: mentoring.

But the challenge now is that traditional mentoring models assume foundational learning has already occurred through hands-on work. That assumption no longer holds. Talent management executives are realizing that mentoring must be redesigned from the ground up in this new AI context. This isn’t just about accelerating leadership development, but restoring the experiential foundation that AI has removed.

Redesigning Mentoring for the AI Era

The first step is to define the competencies senior leaders need to succeed today so you can focus mentorship where it matters most. These include critical thinking, professional judgment, pattern recognition, proactive communication, stakeholder management, prioritization, and the ability to navigate ambiguity. Once those competencies are clear, the mentoring architecture needs to be built to develop them intentionally. Here are the patterns I’ve observed across companies that have navigated this transition well.

Clarify expectations. Embed mentoring into your onboarding and development programs with a defined cadence, tied to real deliverables and supported by clear expectations on frequency, focus, and competencies to be developed. In practice, this means specifying the “what” upfront. Which competencies is this relationship designed to develop? What does progress look like in 30, 60, 90 days? How often will mentor and mentee meet and what will they discuss to ensure competencies are growing?

Vague mentoring relationships where both parties assume good things will happen organically tend to drift and eventually dissolve without seeing results. Structured mentor-mentee relationships produce results. Consider building a simple one-page mentoring agreement at the start of each relationship that defines goals, competencies to gain or enhance, cadence of meeting, and what both parties are committing to. A clear agreement alone changes the trajectory or the relationship and the outcome.

Incentivize mentors. If organizations truly value leadership pipelines, they must value the leaders who build them. That means tracking velocity, quality of decision-making, critical thinking, and cross-functional effectiveness over time and incorporating mentoring outcomes into performance evaluations.

Build a mentoring component into every senior leader’s annual review. Ask more than just, “Did you mentor someone?” Ask, “How did the people you developed grow, and what evidence supports your answer?” Further, recognizing mentors publicly in team meetings and leadership forums demonstrates the leaderships commitment to mentoring programs.

Finally, ensure your highest performing leaders, who everyone wants access to, have protected time for it. Without that protection, mentoring gets squeezed or postponed by urgent matters too often as your talent pipeline quietly empties.

Offer support. Seniority does not automatically translate into coaching and mentoring skills. That’s because not all senior leaders were trained in a coaching leadership style needed for mentorship. Leaders need tools for giving feedback, asking powerful questions, teaching judgment not just output, and creating psychological safety that makes honest exchange possible. Short workshops on how to ask powerful questions in a coaching style such as “What would you do differently?” versus a directive style, “Here’s what you should do” make a measurable difference in how the mentoring relationship develops.

Training mentors to provide guidance or ask the right questions to help mentees come up with their own resonant understanding of how to change their approach or figure out the next steps ahead will develop mentees’ critical thinking faster than just correcting output.

Match mentors to skills gaps, not org charts. If the development gap is not specific functional knowledge, consider matching mentors by soft-skill capability gaps. Pair a high-potential employee who needs to strengthen stakeholder management with a leader known for navigating complex relationships. Connect someone who struggles with prioritization to a mentor skilled at making tough trade-offs. This approach targets growth where it is most needed instead of defaulting to proximity.

To implement this approach, ask managers and HR partners to identify the top one or two capability gaps for each of their employees during annual reviews. Then create the mentor match deliberately. It requires a slightly larger investment of coordination upfront, but produces far stronger development outcomes than simply pairing people with whoever is available by proximity.

Make invisible thinking visible. Senior leaders carry years of contextual knowledge that earlier career employees used to absorb through observation and participation. AI has eliminated much of that participation. Mentors can close this gap by making their thinking more visible: explaining how they choose one strategy over another when data is incomplete, how they read ambiguous metrics, and how they evaluate risk and anticipate second-order consequences.

Even better? Encourage senior leaders to narrate their decision-making in real time wherever possible. Before a high-stakes meeting, a mentor might say to their mentee, “Here’s how I’m thinking about this room and what I’m watching for.” Afterward they might debrief what shifted in that room and why. This is not theoretical advice. It is lived experience translated into teachable moments that can accelerate pattern recognition which otherwise might take years to build.

Build learning into everyday conversations. Encourage leaders to have more “as you work” conversations. A senior leader reviews a draft and explains why they would reposition the recommendation. A director walks through the tradeoffs embedded in a project decision. These 15-to-30-minute exchanges reveal decision logic in real time. They translate experience into a language earlier career employees can absorb and apply immediately. The key is normalizing this kind of conversation, so it does not feel like a special event.

When leaders treat development commentary as a routine part of how they work and not a formal mentoring session they need to schedule, the learning becomes continuous and rewires how employees process their own experience.

. . .

AI is not slowing down. Organizations will continue to automate routine work. Employees will continue to move into complex projects faster than any previous generation without all the necessary skills to succeed. The question is whether they will be equipped to handle them. Alison Levin, President of NBC Universal, Advertising & Partnerships, framed it well in her talk at the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s annual leadership meeting, “The best AI strategy in the world won’t matter if we stop producing people who can actually lead this industry forward.”

Companies that pair efficiency with intentional mentoring will not just fill a development gap. They will build stronger leaders faster and sustain the talent pipelines that make long-term growth possible. The alternative, Levin pointed out, could be a story of fragmentation, chaos, and missed opportunity.

Companies get to choose which story they want to be a part of.

Copyright 2026 Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate.

Explore AAPL Membership benefits.