Reverse Mentoring: Challenging Traditional Leadership Dynamics

Patrice Gordon is unfazed by sceptical questions. With years of experience as a finance director and leadership consultant for companies including British Airways, Royal Mail, and Virgin Atlantic, she has earned her reputation as the leading voice in reverse mentoring. She approaches the subject not with idealism, but with stark pragmatism: “Controversially, I don’t think reverse mentoring is a solution for all organisations,” Gordon notes candidly in a recent podcast interview with Headspring.

Gordon defines reverse mentoring as “senior leaders being mentored by individuals underrepresented at the leadership table.” It’s less about admiration and emulation, and more about confronting uncomfortable truths. “We’re not looking up the hierarchy for answers. We’re looking more broadly,” she asserts.

Patrice’s own journey, from Chartered Accountant at PwC to reverse mentor at Virgin Atlantic and celebrated leadership consultant, has hinged upon challenging entrenched perspectives. Her TED Talk, viewed by millions, encapsulates an approach increasingly adopted by companies such as Estée Lauder, where senior vice presidents are paired with Gen Z employees to stay ahead of rapidly evolving consumer trends. “It means innovation moves faster,” says Gordon. “If you’re not learning from people who are different from you, you’re actually falling behind.”

But the promise of reverse mentoring isn’t straightforward. While senior leaders might acquire insights on everything from digital transformation to consumer trends, critics question whether these short-term relationships genuinely tackle systemic biases or merely scratch the surface.

Not for every organisation

Indeed, Gordon herself acknowledges reverse mentoring isn’t universally applicable. She warns against deploying it in organisations lacking fundamental psychological safety, suggesting it might exacerbate vulnerabilities. For organisations entrenched in rigid power dynamics, she recommends caution. “Sometimes, the psychological safety just isn’t there. You risk exposing mentors – typically junior and underrepresented – to uncomfortable power imbalances,” Gordon says candidly.

One paradox highlighted by Gordon is reverse mentoring’s inherent power exchange. While junior mentors gain “access to hierarchy,” and thus “feel seen and heard,” this exposure doesn’t automatically translate into structural empowerment. Critics might argue it’s an illusion of influence unless backed by tangible shifts in company culture and policy.

However, when implemented correctly, the results can be profound. Gordon describes one senior leader she mentored as having experienced “a revelation” in recognising how disconnected he’d become from employee realities. Yet, awareness doesn’t automatically equal change. Gordon insists senior leaders must commit genuinely: “Reverse mentoring is impactful precisely because it’s impossible to delegate. It forces leaders to reflect deeply.” For a programme to work, she recommends leaders to engage at least two hours a month to see impact – therefore caution before commitment is a must for already time poor executives.

Despite its potential pitfalls, feedback from mentors is often overwhelmingly positive, especially when leaders authentically engage. Employees not only feel “empowered to drive change” but report increased workplace satisfaction. Yet, sceptics rightly caution that without robust follow-up actions, reverse mentoring risks becoming a superficial box-ticking exercise.

Start small, scale carefully

Gordon advocates an evidence-based, iterative approach. Start small – “ten mentors, ten mentees” – evaluate impact, and scale carefully. She cautions HR leaders against rushing, emphasising “psychological safety” as foundational. True innovation, she argues, emerges only when mentors feel comfortable challenging senior leaders directly.

Gordon recommends six-month pilots with regular check-ins, explicitly designed around Timothy Clark’s model of psychological safety. She argues that these relationships must evolve organically, moving through stages of inclusion, contribution, and ultimately – challenge. Without this progression, she warns, the programmes risk devolving into mere performative exercises.

Ultimately, reverse mentoring is no silver bullet for corporate stagnation. Still, Gordon’s stance is clear: its success or failure rests entirely on leaders’ willingness to genuinely listen and adapt. For the most seasoned, seen-it-all HR leaders, the challenge isn’t adopting reverse mentoring but acknowledging the vulnerabilities it exposes. The question is whether they’re prepared for the discomfort – and the potential rewards –that come with genuinely reversing the power.