The art of creating a leader: how knowledge multiplies the value of a business

My professional insights · Lyudmil Karaulanov · 13 min read

Published: 3 August 2026 · Version 1.0

When a younger manager asks what to do, the easiest response is to give the answer your experience suggests. You will probably save time and help resolve the task. But if this is repeated, the person may become increasingly skilled at seeking your approval without becoming more independent in their judgement.

For me, passing on experience requires another effort too: explaining why I see the situation that way, what concerns me and what else I would check. And leaving room for the other person to reach a different decision for which they will bear their own responsibility.

Judgement as an invisible asset

In business, the most important knowledge can rarely be conveyed fully through rules, training and procedures.

It is possible to describe how to prepare a budget, review a contract or organise production. It is much harder to convey judgement: when an investment should wait, when a risk is acceptable, when an apparently good opportunity conceals a dangerous dependency and when a formally correct decision is strategically wrong.

This ability is not built through listening alone. It emerges from observation, action, feedback and real consequences. A person needs to see how a decision is prepared, participate in it, defend their own position and then compare their expectations with the actual result.

Mentoring is therefore not a shortcut to someone else's experience. It is an environment in which a person gradually builds their own analytical ability without being left alone to face every possible mistake. Like a safety net beneath a tightrope walker who is learning: the net does not walk the rope for them.

Followers or independent leaders?

It is pleasing to be heard by someone who respects your experience. Yet respect can quietly make disagreement difficult. I therefore ask myself whether such conversations develop the other person's thinking or teach them to recognise what answer is expected.

If someone learns mainly to reproduce another person's judgement, they will find it harder to act when the familiar advice is no longer available.

A mentor's experience is the product of a particular time, market, set of rules and personal appetite for risk. A decision that created value twenty years ago may be inappropriate in today's conditions. The mentor's task is not to explain how their own path can be repeated. It is to pass on the logic through which each subsequent decision can be tested.

A useful conversation does not end with the words:

“Do it this way because it worked for me.”

It begins with other questions:

• What assumptions are you making?
• What risk have you not accounted for?
• What will happen if your expectation is not borne out?
• Which consequences will be reversible, and which will not?
• What fact would make you change your decision?

The true value of mentoring becomes apparent when dependence on the mentor gradually diminishes.

A critic is more valuable than a loyal follower

Leaders often say they seek feedback. In practice, however, they do not always allow an opinion that could genuinely change their decision. Sometimes the question is asked after the choice has already been made. Confirmation is sought rather than scrutiny. Disagreement begins to be interpreted as disloyalty, insufficient experience or failure to understand the overall direction.

Gradually, those who remain around the strong authority figure are people skilled at anticipating what they are expected to say.

Good mentoring works in the opposite direction. It develops the capacity for reasoned objection. A young professional adds little value by repeating the mentor's conclusions with less confidence. They become valuable when they can notice something the mentor has missed, defend a different proposition and take responsibility for it.

Criticism also requires maturity. Disagreement alone does not demonstrate independent thinking. It is valuable when grounded in facts, an understanding of the context and a willingness to propose a better option. The aim is not constant challenge to authority. It is to ensure that the organisation does not lose its corrective voice precisely when the authority figure is wrong.

Feedback is not an instruction

Seeking an opinion is only the first step. The harder part is judging how much weight to give it.

Advice can be logical but based on incomplete context. It can be sincere but reflect the adviser's personal appetite for risk. It can be sound as a general principle but inappropriate at a particular moment. An opinion therefore deserves neither automatic acceptance nor defensive rejection, but examination: what facts it rests on, how well the adviser knows the business's constraints, whether they have experience of the same problem and what personal beliefs or interests may influence their assessment. Whether they bear any part of the consequences is particularly important.

A mature manager does not collect opinions until they find one that matches their wishes. They use another person's position to identify weaknesses in their own proposition.

The asymmetry between advice and consequences

When I propose a bold step, I try to remember who will live with it. The other person will work with the team, put money at risk and explain the result. This obliges me to be clear about the grounds and limitations of the advice rather than treating my authority as sufficient evidence.

This difference makes the adviser more restrained. The smaller the share of real risk the mentor bears, the more careful they are with specific instructions.

A good mentor does not use their authority to make the decision for someone else. They identify risks, share comparable cases, ask uncomfortable questions and clearly distinguish facts from personal judgement. The final decision remains with the person who will bear responsibility. This also removes the possibility of subsequently explaining a poor result with the words:

“I did it because that is what I was told.”

Mentoring does not transfer responsibility. It improves the quality of the decision.

Experience is not measured only in hours

Many years of work can produce rich judgement, but can also entrench a comfortable habit. I am interested in how someone tests what they have learned: do they encounter different situations, receive honest feedback and change their approach after a mistake? This is where time begins to turn into professional maturity.

A person can repeat the same work for years without understanding more. They can acquire routine and still be helpless in a new, unfamiliar environment. Ten years of experience can sometimes be one year repeated ten times.

Real development requires tasks of increasing complexity, feedback, examination of mistakes and the gradual assumption of greater responsibility. There must be a constant comparison between initial assumptions and actual results. Experience is not accumulated time. It is the quality of the cycles between action, consequence, analysis and change.

The mentor has an important role precisely here. They can help a mistake produce knowledge rather than only disappointment or loss. But they cannot remove the other person's need to work through difficult decisions themselves.

Mentoring, training and coaching

Training, mentoring and coaching are often confused, but follow different approaches.

Training conveys structured knowledge or a specific skill. The trainer knows what must be learned and can assess the result. Mentoring rests on lived experience. It helps another person understand the professional environment, risks and the reasoning behind decisions. Coaching places greater emphasis on questions through which a person clarifies their own objectives, constraints and options. A coach does not necessarily need an in-depth knowledge of the particular business.

In practice, these approaches often overlap. A mentor may ask questions rather than provide ready-made solutions. A coach may have substantial management experience. A programme may include both training and mentoring. The problem lies not in combining methods but in an unclear promise. A person is entitled to know what they are receiving: technical knowledge, someone else's professional experience, structured feedback or help in clarifying their own position.

Short programmes and the illusion of rapid maturity

A short mentoring programme cannot create professional maturity in a few weeks. It cannot replace years of work, real decisions and bearing the consequences. That does not make it useless, however.

A well-designed short programme can offer initial access to a professional environment, exposure to a different way of thinking, feedback on a specific assignment or a clearer understanding of a particular role. It can show a young person not how much they already know, but how much they still need to develop.

A programme becomes a showcase when it promises transformation without time, effort and responsibility. When its main purpose is publicity for the organiser, photographs with “future leaders” and generic inspirational messages, participants can easily become scenery in someone else's performance. Value is not measured by the number of meetings or certificates issued. It is measured by whether the participant has received a real assignment, substantive feedback and a clear next step.

The mentor is assessed too

Everyone is entitled to assess the usefulness of the person from whom they are learning. That person's success provides important context but does not guarantee that they understand your circumstances or can explain their knowledge. A good relationship permits questions to the mentor too, including about advice that did not help.

Some people are excellent entrepreneurs but poor mentors. They act intuitively and cannot explain the reasoning behind their decisions. Others regard their personal model as universal and try to impose it regardless of different circumstances.

A useful mentor listens before offering guidance. They acknowledge the limits of their experience, distinguish facts from beliefs and do not create dependence on their own role. They accept criticism, do not claim credit for others' successes and do not use mentoring to obtain free labour, influence or publicity.

In my view, therefore, a mentor is not chosen by titles, fame or public image. The essential question is whether their involvement increases the other person's ability to think and decide independently.

Where is the point of instability?

What this concept means →

It arises when the relationship with the mentor begins to replace independent judgement. Or when the mentor's desire to help leaves insufficient space for the other person to bear responsibility.

A good result is recognisable in increasing independence: the person asks more precise questions, sees more consequences and can explain why they choose as they do. Sometimes this means they turn to their mentor less and less often. For the mentor, that can be one of the most meaningful forms of recognition.

This material is of a general analytical nature and does not constitute individual legal, tax, financial or investment advice.