Gift or Commodity? Exploring the meaning of mentoring in coach development
For the past five years I have been part of a National Governing Body of Sport mentoring programme. Primarily I have been supporting relatively inexperienced volunteer coaches working with children. Over the course of my involvement I have supported more than 40 coaches across six different clubs on a part-time basis. I’m remunerated for my time, not substantially but sufficiently enough to mean that I am employed in this role.
I have enjoyed the experience of supporting these coaches and witnessing their progress. Yet, I’m not sure I have ‘mentored’ them, I don’t feel that I have been a mentor in the way that I would describe my relationship with the people who have mentored me. Generally, my relationship with the coaches on the programme has felt rather shallow, I don’t think I have really dug deep into their beliefs and values and really explored what underpins their practice. I have attempted to understand and reconcile this feeling with various different explanations. Is it due to the short time that I have with each coach — between 10–20 hours; am I lacking in my own ability; is it because I don’t choose who I’m working with; is it because I represent the governing body which brings a certain dynamic to the relationship; or is it because the coaches often come with an expectation, however much I try to dismiss it, that I am going to solve their problems and suddenly transform their coaching? I sense these observations are all part of the explanation, but they don’t seem sufficient in themselves to fully explain my feelings. In a resolve to make more sense of my thoughts, and to better understand mentoring, I have explored an alternative approach, a different direction that can potentially shine a new light on my problem.
The gift as the basis of social relationships
Marcel Mauss in his book The Gift explores how many social relationships in pre-industrial societies are based on the giving of gifts. His argument, informed by rich anthropological research, focuses on the bonds forged between people through the act of giving and the obligation of the receiver to accept and offer something in return. This exchange mechanism sustains social relationships through an ongoing process of giving and receiving, through the obligation of accepting and returning. This general process also reveals the substance of the relationship between the individuals involved, where the motivation to give, and the meaning inherent in the return, signifies the bond between them. You might want to dwell on this the next time you give a gift to a loved one! Mauss also distinguishes this process with the concept of the ‘pure gift’, something he describes which is altruistically and selflessly given with no expected return. This type of gift does not generate social relationships between giver and receiver, there is no kind of reciprocal exchange process initiated by the gift. An example of this would be the donation of blood, a type of ‘pure gift’ because it is given and received anonymously.
Mauss explains the difference between the gift exchange process in pre-industrial societies and the social relationships formed in the conditions of modern capitalism. In industrial capitalist societies the gift exchange process is eclipsed by the emerging importance of commodity exchange. Something becomes a commodity when a market ascribes value to it and the exchange process is underpinned by a contractual relationship between buyer and seller. Private property rights are also conferred from the seller to the buyer, the buyer owns the commodity and the seller has no expectation or obligation of an ongoing relationship unless the contractual relationship is broken. This type of commodity exchange not only extends to objects but also incorporates the exchange of knowledge. For example, engaging the services of a solicitor when buying a property is a form of commodity exchange since the solicitor’s knowledge is something that you purchase for a market price. This kind of impersonal, individualised form of exchange has gradually supplanted the importance of exchanging gifts as the basis of modern social relationships, albeit not yet not to the point where gifts no longer matter, neither is the distinction between the two always clear. As Laidlaw (2000) argues, gift and commodity are not necessarily opposed to each other instead whether an object is treated as a gift or a commodity is dependent upon the context of its exchange and the relationship between giver and receiver. How then does this very brief summary enable me to better understand the dilemma I face as a mentor?
Knowledge as a gift or commodity
If I’m asked to identify those who I believe were, and in some cases still are, my mentors I could instantly cite a few names. Yet none of these individuals were paid to support me, none of them were employed or contracted as my mentor. Instead their advice and knowledge was given freely out of a willingness to support my learning. If I reflect on these relationships these individuals gave me a gift — the gift of their knowledge and experience. Looking back, I did feel an obligation to listen and respect their advice, and by way of returning their gift I committed to improving my coaching. This process deepened the relationship with each individual and created a bond that in some instances has endured over time as I continue to learn and develop.
More recently I have been on the other side of the mentor-mentee relationship, and I hope that some of my colleagues would describe me as one of their mentors. I have freely given them the benefit of my knowledge and welcome their willingness to seek my advice. Whilst I expect nothing concrete in return the sense that they are listening and thinking and using the advice is a type of return, and one that continues to sustain my relationship with them.
This feels very different to the mentoring role that I have been fulfilling for the past five years within the National Governing Body programme. The relationships with the coaches has been more contractual, like I am supplying my knowledge as a commodity which they are consuming. I also sense that my relationship with them does not feel as deep or as sustainable outside of the programme. It seems like a transactional exchange identical to purchasing the services of any other professional. I also feel less concerned about how the coaches are applying the knowledge and expertise I share with them, not unconcerned but I wouldn’t feel especially hurt if they ignored my advice. I still get paid!
As I try to reconcile my experiences I have developed a view that mentoring means giving other people the gift of your knowledge. You give and your mentees share their learning and development in return. This gift exchange between mentor and mentee creates a bond that is often meaningful and enduring enough to withstand the most challenging circumstances. Mentoring in a formal, organised programme where I am remunerated for my time, if not my expertise, is something else. It does not feel like a real or authentic type of mentoring but more like a form of professional development, a service where knowledge and experience is commodified and bought. This does not mean that one is necessarily more effective and better than the other, it is more that the nature of the relationship is different. One is organic and built on the foundations of friendship and respect, the other is contractual, transactional and arguably less personal.
As mentoring in sports coaching is increasingly recognised as an effective means of supporting coach development so there is a need to reflect more deeply and ask more questions about what it means. As more formalised, organised and structured mentoring programmes are developed this becomes even more salient — perhaps they should not be referred to as ‘mentoring’ but something else? Drawing on the work of Mauss has been beneficial in making more sense of my own experiences. It has helped me differentiate between mentoring my friends and colleagues in comparison to the coaches I support through the programme I’m employed on. To some coaches I give them the gift of my knowledge, to others I supply it as a commodity. As Laidlaw argues, gift or commodity depends on the context and the circumstances of the exchange process. Unpacking this in the context of coach development is arguably an important task.
References
Benson, M. and Carter, D. (2008) Introduction: Nothing in Return? Distinctions between Gift and Commodity in Contemporary Societies. Anthropology in Action 15:3 pp. 1–7.
Laidlaw, J. (2000) A Free Gift Makes no Friends. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Society. 6:4 pp. 617–634.
