Many organisations invest heavily in mentoring programmes, leadership coaching, allyship initiatives and sponsorship schemes. These approaches are often positioned as evidence of commitment to fairness and inclusion. And yet, despite this activity, familiar patterns persist. Progression gaps remain stubbornly unchanged. Access to opportunities still flows through word of mouth. Some voices are loudly amplified whilst others are drowned out. The question is not whether organisations are doing enough, but whether they’re being deliberate enough about what they are doing.
Fairness at work is not driven by the volume of DE&I work. It is shaped by how power, insight, safety and opportunity are distributed. Mentorship, allyship, coaching and sponsorship all play a role in that distribution, but only when they are used with clarity, in the right context, and with an honest awareness of risk.
One of the key challenges in conversations about fairness is that many methods we rely on are assumed to be inherently positive in every context. Mentoring is seen as supportive, coaching as developmental, allyship as a moral good, and so on. Because these approaches are viewed as ‘good things’ they are rarely examined with the same scrutiny as formal systems like recruitment or performance management. Their impact on fairness is often assumed rather than tested.
But none of these approaches are neutral. Each one shapes access, beliefs around professionalism and potential, who is protected, and who is advocated for. In other words, each one plays a role in how fair an organisation is.
In many organisations, mentoring, coaching, allyship and sponsorship are spoken about interchangeably. Leaders are encouraged to ‘mentor and coach’ or be ‘allies and sponsors’ without clear agreement on what those roles actually involve.
This lack of precision can have a negative impact. When definitions blur, so does responsibility. Expectations become inconsistent, outcomes vary, and fairness becomes dependent on who is involved rather than on intentional design.
All four approaches can meaningfully support fairness at work. They simply do so in different ways, and in different contexts. Each also carries a distinct fairness risk when poorly applied.
Mentoring plays a critical role in environments where systems are opaque. It can widen access to informal knowledge, and address a fairness gap in insight. However, mentoring also carries a well-known risk: affinity bias and benevolent advice which leads nowhere.
When mentors gravitate towards people who remind them of themselves, or when ‘fit’ is unconsciously prioritised, mentoring can reinforce dominant norms rather than challenge them. Informal matching and self-selection often mean the same people receive disproportionate access to guidance, while others remain excluded.
On the other hand, mentoring also carries another distinct fairness risk. Minoritised groups are frequently over-mentored and under-sponsored. They receive guidance, feedback and encouragement, but far less often advocacy or access to opportunity. Support is offered in place of power. The fairness risk is not mentoring itself, but the way it can become a substitute for advocacy or true power-sharing. It can reinforce the idea that individuals need more guidance to progress, rather than recognising that access to opportunity is the real constraint.
Advice is also not the same as advocacy; giving someone advice and pointing them in the right direction lead to very different outcomes.
Coaching has the potential to improve fairness in how capability and potential are assessed. At its best, coaching creates space for reflection, supports individuals navigating any type of transition, and helps separate confidence from competence. In this way, coaching can counter unfair environments.
But coaching can be misused. It is often deployed reactively, when individuals are perceived as lacking confidence or presence – labels that are unevenly applied across gender, race, disability and other identities. When structural barriers are framed as personal development needs, coaching can individualise bias rather than address it. Coaching drives fairness when it challenges biased assumptions, but can undermine it when it validates them.
Allyship was a buzzword in 2020, but six years later we are losing momentum. It still holds the power to interrupt unfair treatment, reduce the personal cost of speaking up, and redistribute safety. Yet it’s one of the most inconsistently applied, misunderstood approaches. When it’s left to personal values, support becomes uneven. Some are protected, others are exposed. When organisations focus on allyship, or celebrate allyship through awards or lists, it becomes more about praising dominant groups than changing conditions. When that becomes reality, it does more harm than good.
Sponsorship is one of the most powerful but risky of the methods. It shapes who is advocated for, who is put forward for stretch opportunities, and whose potential is trusted in decision-making spaces. Research shows that only about 5% of Black employees have sponsors, compared to ~20% of White employees.
Whilst sponsorship addresses fairness of opportunity, it operates largely behind closed doors, meaning it’s especially vulnerable to bias. It can reinforce favouritism and entrench existing power structures.
Sponsorship relies on a system set up so that careers progress based on ‘behind closed doors’ conversations. Instead of giving people more sponsors, shouldn’t we be disrupting that system and rebalancing to a fairer approach, based on objective criteria and bias removal?
None of the fairness failures described above are usually the result of bad actors. They emerge when responsibility is diffused, when skills are uneven, and when good intentions are placed at the centre of DE&I efforts. Fairness is not driven by activity alone, it’s driven by deliberate use.
This requires answering some uncomfortable questions:
Who has access, and who does not?
Who benefits from how this currently operates?
Where are we relying on informal judgement rather than explicit criteria?
What risks are we choosing not to see?
Where are we supporting people to jump into a game which is rigged, rather than questioning whether the game should be played fairly?
One of the most overlooked aspects of fairness is capability. Organisations often roll out initiatives without equipping people with the skills to use them responsibly, even though these skills are the mechanism through which fairness is advanced or undermined.
Mentoring calls for system awareness and perspective-taking, not just experience.
Coaching requires curiosity and bias mitigation, not fixing.
Allyship requires interruption skills and courage.
Sponsorship calls for judgement, transparency and accountability.
Without these capabilities, the same approach can produce wildly different outcomes.
If organisations are serious about fairness, the question is not whether they have mentoring schemes, coaching budgets, allyship statements or sponsorship programmes. It is about whether these approaches are being used intentionally, consistently and with an honest awareness of their risks.
Fairness can only exist when:
The purpose of each approach is clear.
Access is designed intentionally.
Skills are developed.
The impact is examined.
For more information, watch Alice’s on-demand webinar, A Fairer Approach to Mentoring, Allyship, Coaching & Sponsorship. If you would like to build the skills to become an effective ally, view our Inclusion Allyship in the Workplace training, or explore our Inclusive Leadership training to learn how to lead confidently, fairly and inclusively.
Alternatively, if you’d like to talk through an inclusion project you’re currently working on, get in touch to arrange a complimentary call with one of our consultants.