In 2018, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) formally launched its own Coaching and Mentoring Program. In an Office Order, I was designated as one of its coaches. The program was structured. There were guidelines, forms, defined timelines. It was part of institutional development. I accepted the role because it was assigned. I continued it because I believed in it.
In the CSC, we are careful with our terms. Coaching and Mentoring are not interchangeable.
Mentoring is broader. It is career-shaping, values-forming and long-term. It extends beyond performance into judgment, identity, and professional philosophy.
Coaching strengthens capability. Mentoring shapes character.
The Office Order made me a coach. I believe that experience — and perhaps age — made me a mentor.
When the Program Ends, Responsibility Does Not
Programs have life cycles. They expand, contract, get redesigned, sometimes fade into the background as priorities shift. But leadership development cannot depend entirely on formal architecture.
After more than three decades in public service, I have seen what happens when developmental relationships are absent. Bright young officers are left to navigate complexity alone. Institutional memory becomes thin. Hard-earned lessons disappear when senior leaders retire.
Knowledge exits quietly. And the next generation begins again from zero.
I remember one early coaching conversation not long after the program began. A young officer sat across from me — competent, articulate, clearly capable. Yet he spoke in lowered tones about doubting whether he “belonged” in the leadership pipeline. He had the credentials. He had the performance record. What he lacked was confidence that he would be supported if he stepped forward.
We did not revise a performance plan that day. We reframed a narrative. Months later, he accepted a stretch assignment he had initially hesitated to pursue.
That was when I understood: development is not always about skills. Sometimes it is about permission.
Mentoring became, for me, an act of stewardship. It was a way of saying: what I have learned — through mistakes, reforms, conflict, and recovery — should not evaporate.
Policies can be read. Competencies can be trained. But discernment — when to push reform, when to sequence it, when to disagree, when to absorb pressure — is learned relationally.
That transmission does not happen accidentally. It requires intention.
What the Evidence Tells Us
The value of coaching and mentoring is not merely intuitive; it is supported by research.
A comprehensive meta-analysis by Eby et al. (2013) found that mentored employees report higher job satisfaction, stronger organizational commitment, and better career outcomes than those without mentors. Leadership coaching has likewise been linked to improved goal attainment, resilience, and psychological well-being (Theeboom, Beersma, & Van Vianen, 2014).
The gender dimension makes this even more urgent. The 2019 McKinsey & LeanIn.Org Women in the Workplace report identified what it called the “broken rung.” For every 100 men promoted to manager, only 72 women were promoted. That early gap narrows the leadership pipeline long before executive levels are reached.
The issue is not always competence. It is access.
Research distinguishes between mentorship and sponsorship. Mentors advise you. Sponsors advocate for you in rooms you are not in. Without sponsorship, advancement slows — even when performance is strong.
In the Philippine context, the mandate for substantive equality is clear. The Magna Carta of Women (Republic Act No. 9710) obligates government institutions to remove structural barriers to women’s participation and leadership. The CSC integrates Gender and Development principles within HR systems and PRIME-HRM frameworks.
But policies alone do not guarantee preparation. They create conditions. People create confidence.
The Gendered Reality of Development
Even in institutions where women are numerically strong, authority does not automatically distribute equitably. Informal networks matter. Visibility matters. Access to stretch assignments matters. Sometimes opportunities are not denied — they are simply not extended. Intentional coaching and mentoring help level that field.
For younger women, mentoring can:
• Normalize ambition without apology
• Deconstruct impostor syndrome
• Model authority that is firm but humane
• Provide language for navigating resistance
For men, mentoring can:
• Redefine strength beyond dominance
• Encourage emotionally intelligent leadership
• Expand comfort with collaborative authority
Coaching builds competence. Mentoring builds confidence. Sponsorship builds access.
When done consciously, developmental relationships become instruments of institutional fairness — not favoritism. They ensure that potential does not remain invisible.
From Compliance to Conviction
What began in 2018 as compliance with an Office Order evolved into something more personal.
I found myself asking younger colleagues questions that went beyond performance metrics:
- What kind of leader do you want to be?
- What reform do you believe in enough to defend?
- What risk are you afraid to take?
Over time, I realized mentoring is not about producing replicas. It is about producing successors who think more critically than you, decide more wisely than you, and perhaps correct the blind spots of your generation.
That is not loss. That is institutional maturity.
The Measure That Matters
In public service, we measure outputs constantly — policies drafted, systems digitized, reforms launched, compliance achieved. But there is another measure that rarely appears in performance indicators: Who is ready when we step aside?
Titles expire. Positions rotate. Even reforms evolve. What remains are people.
If there is one quiet responsibility senior leaders carry, it is this: to leave behind prepared minds.
Coaching begins with designation. Mentoring begins with decision.
I was 'designated' in 2018. I decided to continue. Not because the program required it. But because institutions do not endure on structure alone. They endure on succession. And succession does not happen by accident nor overnight.
A Final Reflection
The longer I stay in public service, the clearer this becomes: Systems survive on compliance. Institutions endure on stewardship. Coaching ensures people perform. Mentoring ensures they grow.
And when both are practiced intentionally — with awareness of gender, access, and equity — leadership becomes less about holding authority and more about multiplying it.
The Office Order may have started the process. But conviction made it permanent.
And perhaps that is the quiet work of our generation — not simply to lead well, but to ensure that when our turn is over, someone capable, confident, and prepared is already standing.
- Director Noreen
References
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. L. (2013). Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 106–116.
Ibarra, H., Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2010). Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review, 88(9), 80–85.
McKinsey & Company, & LeanIn.Org. (2019). Women in the Workplace 2019. McKinsey & Company.
Republic Act No. 9710 (2009). Magna Carta of Women. Republic of the Philippines.
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18.
CSC Service Commission. Memorandum Circular No. 3, s. 2012 as revised by Memorandum Circular No. 1, s. 2021, and Offie Memorandum No. 10, s. 2018.
The level of identifying what is lacking in an organization is what makes a leader a true LEADer. Redefining mentoring from experience was a chef’s kiss. Thanks, Dir. Noreen!
ReplyDeleteFor me naman, it starts with the cognitive and behavioral matter of an individual, hehe. When external stimuli, such as what they hear and see in their work environment, cause them to tell themselves not to be performative or not be competitive, because either way, they can be a target and identified in the worst possible way. Or maybe their organization/workplace made them feel they did not belong. That’s why a lot of young people nowadays always doubt themselves and their craft, and are afraid to share their ideas. Self-confidence is always a constraint for many, no matter how great their potential, capabilities, and skills are.
Shaping the new generations of young leaders or even young pips is a great and yet challenging responsibility. It’s right, mentoring shouldn’t only rely on shaping their characters. Mentoring should also teach them to navigate independently with lifelong pursuit of learning, allow them to lead/work with confidence, and provide them with opportunities that can help them grow and not be limited. From that, I believe we can stop the cycle of going back to zero.
And oh, I think the future is bright when this happens.
Insightful point. Institutions sometimes teach people to shrink—often unintentionally, through hierarchy or culture. Mentoring does the opposite: it reminds them they were meant to grow.
Delete