When Working Life Changes, One May Find Better Path with the Support of Others, Instead of Finding It on Its Own
Working life has become less linear, which support for life and career direction more important. Many people need to rethink several times what they can do, what they want to do and learn, what kind of work feels meaningful, and what kind of community they want to belong to. They often need more than information about jobs, education, or entrepreneurship. They also need time and space where their thoughts can be shared, tested, and developed with others.
Muse-mentoring is developed to answer this need in a community-based way. The aim is not to guide every participant toward one fixed career path. Instead, participants are supported in understanding their own situation in a changing working life. Their strengths, values, purposes, and possibilities are explored together with others. Direction for the future is not given from outside, but it is built through reflection, dialogue, and shared thinking in a peer group mentoring session. (Aaltonen et al., 2026.)
The Muse-mentoring idea is quite close to life design thinking in career research. In life design thinking (Savickas et al., 2009), a career is not seen as one fixed choice or a straight path. Instead, it develops step by step and is influenced by a person’s life situation, values, opportunities, and environment. This way of thinking fits well with today’s working life, where change happens all the time. Because of this, the Life Design model focuses on flexibility, adaptability, and continuous learning.
Career coaching should support this kind of thinking. It should help people imagine different future paths and explore who they could become (Savickas et al., 2009). Muse-mentoring also works in a similar way, as it encourages people to reflect, explore, and shape their own path.
Mentoring, Group Mentoring and Coaching as Support for Direction
Mentoring can support people when their own direction and possibilities are being explored. A mentor can offer experience, questions, encouragement, and new perspectives. Previous research shows that mentoring can be connected with many positive outcomes, such as career development, motivation, relationships, and work-related attitudes (Eby et al., 2008). Mentoring is useful in life and career transitions, where both support and new perspectives are often needed.
Group mentoring is especially important for understanding Muse-mentoring. In group mentoring, support does not come only from one mentor to one mentee. Learning can be created through many relationships inside the group. Huizing (2012) describes several forms of group mentoring, such as one-to-many, many-to-one, many-to-many, and peer-based mentoring.
Coaching complements mentoring because it gives the process structure and a future focus. While mentoring often brings experience and inspiration, coaching can help participants clarify goals, identify strengths, consider alternatives, and plan small next steps. Research shows that coaching can support goal-directed self-regulation, wellbeing, coping, work attitudes and skills (Theeboom et al., 2014). Life coaching research also suggests that coaching can support goal striving, wellbeing, and hope (Green et al., 2006).
It is important to understand that mentoring and coaching are not the same, even though they are quite similar. According to Passmore (2010), coaching is usually more formal and is often used to improve skills and performance. A mentor usually has more experience and knowledge about the topic.
Bresser and Wilson (2010) also explain the difference in two main ways. A mentor shares their own experience and gives advice based on what they know. In contrast, a coach does not always need to be an expert in the topic. Instead of giving direct advice, a coach helps the person find their own answers and develop their own skills.
To put it simply, a mentor guides and advises, like a teacher or an expert. A coach helps people learn to guide themselves. In Muse-mentoring, both mentoring and coaching are used, which makes Muse a powerful combination of both perspectives, as it brings together guidance and self-development.
Psychological Safety Makes Deeper Reflection Possible
Psychological safety and trust are needed in a peer group mentoring. Edmondson (1999) describes psychological safety as a shared belief that a group is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. This means that people feel they can speak, ask questions and share unfinished ideas without fear of being rejected or embarrassed.
A safe and confidential space is needed because finding one’s own path is not only a rational process. It can include uncertainty, hopes, fears and unfinished thoughts. If a group does not feel safe, deeper reflection may remain hidden. This is why safety is not only a practical issue in mentoring, but it is a condition for meaningful reflection.
A safe space does not just happen on its own. It needs to be built over time. This often starts with simple things, like agreeing on shared rules. People listen to each other, respect different opinions, and keep discussions confidential. It is also important to give everyone a chance to speak, so that no one feels left out.
Safety is not only a practical issue in mentoring, but it is a condition for meaningful reflection.
Open and honest dialogue plays a big role here. People need to feel that they can share their thoughts without being judged. Sometimes this also means that facilitators or other group members support quieter participants and invite them into the discussion. At the same time, they help keep the conversation respectful and balanced.
When these things are done in everyday interaction, people start to feel safer. Over time, trust begins to grow. This is important, because the group can only become a real source of support after trust has been built. (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006.)
Muse-Mentoring Model: Key Features and Process
Muse-mentoring is built as a clear but flexible peer group process. The process combines the participants’ own reflection, group dialogue and a sense of community that develops over time. The exact implementation can vary, but the key elements should remain the same: the participant chooses a Muse mentor, the work is done in dialogue with others, and the process is time-bound but meaningful. (Aaltonen et al., 2026.)
The process begins with meet-and-greet sessions, where possible Muse mentors are introduced, and participants are given a chance to get to know them. The aim is not only to share information, but also to create interest and connection. Participants are invited to notice which Muse mentor speaks to them in their current life situation. This choice is important because it gives participants an active role from the beginning.
Participants then apply for the mentoring programme by choosing a Muse mentor. Peer groups are formed around these choices. The groups are not based just on predefined categories, such as profession, age or life situation. People from different backgrounds can end up in the same group. Diversity is used as a resource for reflection and learning.
The actual mentoring process usually includes four group meetings. These meetings create the basic structure for the process. Participants discuss their own situations, share experiences and reflect together with others. A theme can be prepared for each meeting, but space is also left for open dialogue and unexpected turns in the conversation. The Muse mentor supports the dialogue but does not control its content.
Reflection continues between the meetings through everyday thinking, possible learning diaries and tasks. This is important because the participants’ own process develops over time, not only during the group sessions.
The Muse events also support shared learning. Here participants from different Muse-mentoring groups are able to meet and talk together. They can share their own experiences and notice how others have developed over time.
All this helps people understand that everyone has their own path, but there are also similarities. In this way, personal learning becomes part of a shared group experience (Aaltonen et al., 2026).
Experiences From Two Pilot Rounds
During the Muse-mentoring pilots, feedback was collected from both participants and Muse mentors before and after the mentoring process. The feedback focused on four areas: values and meaningfulness, competence and its development, networks and encounters, and future and hopefulness. Positive changes were reported in all four areas. The greatest change was related to recognizing one’s own competence and willingness to develop it. The second strongest change was related to networks and interaction skills. These results should still be interpreted carefully. The methods used do not prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship between mentoring and the changes. However, the feedback shows that many participants experienced changes in their thinking, skills and attitude toward the future during the process. (Aaltonen et al., 2026.)
One of the strongest themes in the feedback was peer support. The group was experienced as a source of community, strength and encouragement. Participants valued hearing honest stories from others because they helped them see that they were not alone in their questions.
Some direct quotes from participants:
“The group’s support was really important in an uncertain situation.”
“It was a safe space to pause and reflect on my own thoughts.”
“It was good to realize that others are struggling with similar issues.”
These comments show that the group was not only a practical setting for mentoring. It became an active source of support and reflection.
Another important theme was the role of dialogue. Participants described the discussions as open, honest and meaningful. Through dialogue, new perspectives were opened, and personal assumptions were challenged.
One participant explained:
“The conversations brought my own blind spots to light.”
“The conversations were courageous and sparked new ideas.”
This is important because finding one’s own path often requires more than encouragement. It also requires a space where one’s own thinking can be questioned and developed in a safe way.
The role of the Muse mentor was also important. The mentors were seen as people who listened carefully, encouraged reflection, and created trust in the group. Their stories, questions and examples helped participants see new possibilities. Mentor feedback showed that group mentoring requires different skills from one-to-one mentoring. A Muse mentor needs to listen, give space, balance different voices and support quieter participants when needed.
Some quotes from mentors:
“The group tells you what it needs when you surrender to listening.”
“Facilitating a group is always a responsibility, and every word and action matters.”
“Having a good plan gives more room for improvising… Next time I will improvise more.”
Coaching-based support also strengthened the process. Coaches and facilitators helped to create the structure for mentoring. They supported practical arrangements, helped mentors when needed, and ensured the process was not dependent solely on the mentor’s experience. This support was especially important during the model’s early phase.
As one coach reflected:
“In the first pilot round, coaching was needed more than in the second round, because the structure had become clearer.”
Coaching supported the process without taking ownership away from the participants, mentors, or the group.
Based on pilot experiences, the strength of Muse-mentoring lies in the combination of three elements. The mentor brought inspiration and questions. The coach or facilitator brought structure and process support. The peer group brought encouragement, recognition and shared reflection. Together, these elements created the conditions where the group could become more than a group. It could become a collective mentor.
When the Group Becomes a Mentor
The first key theme from the pilots was that the peer group was seen as an important source of support. Support was received not only from the Muse mentor, but also from other participants, who shared similar questions, doubts, and hopes. The group was described as safe, warm, and encouraging. This finding is in line with group mentoring theory, where learning is understood to happen through several relationships inside the group, not only through one mentor–mentee relationship (Huizing, 2012). However, in Muse-mentoring this idea was taken further. The group itself became a collective mentor.
The first key theme from the pilots was that the peer group was seen as an important source of support.
The second key theme was the role of the Muse mentor. The mentor was considered important because inspiration, questions, and personal examples were brought into the group. The mentors were seen as people who listened carefully, encouraged reflection and created trust in the group. Ready-made answers were not given. This is partly in line with earlier mentoring research, where mentoring has been connected with development, learning, and career reflection (Eby et al., 2008). Here Muse-mentoring differs from traditional mentoring. The mentor was not mainly an expert who guided one individual. Instead, the mentor helped to create space for dialogue and shared thinking.
The third key theme was coaching-based structure. Coaches and facilitators helped to create the conditions where mentoring and peer support could happen. Structure, rhythm, safety, and support for mentors were provided when they were needed. Coaching research suggests that coaching can support goal clarification, hope, well-being, and small next steps (Green et al., 2006; Theeboom et al., 2014). In Muse-mentoring, coaching elements were used not only in individual coaching, but also to support a group process where the ownership stayed with the participants and the group.
Together, these three elements explain the strength of Muse-mentoring. Mentor inspiration, coaching-based structure, and peer group support were combined in one process. Psychological safety was also needed, because unfinished thoughts could be shared only when trust had been built (Edmondson, 1999). The main insight is therefore clear: one’s own path can be supported strongly when personal reflection is combined with mentor inspiration, coaching structure and collective peer support.
Conclusion
Muse-mentoring offers a practical and flexible model for supporting people who are searching for their own path in work and life. It does not replace career guidance, education, employment services or individual coaching. It can complement them by offering a community-based space where competence, values, networks and future direction can be reflected together with others.
Based on the two pilot rounds, the strength of Muse-mentoring was created through three connected elements. Mentor inspiration, coaching-based structure, and peer group support were combined in one process. The mentor opened new perspectives, the coach or facilitator supported the structure, and the group offered encouragement, recognition and shared reflection. This combination made the model stronger than ordinary mentoring or peer discussion alone.
The findings should be interpreted as practice-based observations, not as direct proof of effectiveness. Still, the feedback suggests that participants experienced support in recognizing their competence, strengthening their networks and seeing the future with more hope. The most important insight is that one’s own path is often not found alone. It can be found more clearly when safe dialogue, shared experience and structured support are brought together.
References
Aaltonen, S., Heinonen, J., Kokko, K., Lainpelto, E., Lehtimäki, T., Lähdemäki, J., Rytisalo, M., Tuomisto, A., & Vuento, A. (2026). Muusamentorointi – Opas uudenlaiseen vertaisryhmämentorointiin. Turun yliopisto ja Tampereen ammattikorkeakoulu. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-02-0707-6
Bresser, F., & Wilson, C. (2010). What is coaching? In J. Passmore (Ed.), Excellence in coaching: The industry guide (2nd ed., pp. 9–26). Kogan Page.
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Green, L. S., Oades, L. G., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral, solution-focused life coaching: Enhancing goal striving, well-being, and hope. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760600619849
Huizing, R. L. (2012). Mentoring together: A literature review of group mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.645599
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413
Passmore, J. (Ed.). (2010). Excellence in coaching: The industry guide (2nd ed.). Kogan Page.
Savickas, M. L., Nota, L., Rossier, J., Dauwalder, J.-P., Duarte, M. E., Guichard, J., Soresi, S., Van Esbroeck, R., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2009). Life designing: A paradigm for career construction in the 21st century. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.004
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual-level outcomes in an organizational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.837499
Authors
Toni Lehtimäki
Coach and Senior Lecturer
Proakatemia
Tampere University of Applied Sciences (TAMK)
toni.k.lehtimaki@tuni.fi
ORCID: 0009-0008-3090-5210
His expertise focuses on leadership, coaching, and positive psychology, with a particular interest in sustainable high performance and wellbeing at work. He is finalizing his PhD.
Mari Rytisalo
Senior Lecturer, Degree Programme Director, Team Coach
Business and Media
Tampere University of Applied Sciences (TAMK)
mari.rytisalo@tuni.fi
Her expertise focuses on different areas of communication using interactive and coaching-based methods. She has strong experience in innovative pedagogy and curriculum development, internationalization and team coaching.
Photo: Antti Tuomisto / Turun yliopisto