In many working sessions with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), I often hear leaders say:
“We really want to train and develop our employees, but limited budget and time make it impossible to do what large corporations can.”
This is a common sentiment. However, the interesting fact is that SMEs are actually where coaching and mentoring can be most impactful—because their smaller scale makes implementation easier, connections stronger, and results visible right in day-to-day work.

Coaching and Mentoring – What’s the Difference?
In simple terms, coaching is like training someone to run a good sprint, while mentoring is like accompanying them to complete the entire career journey.
Mutual Benefits – Why SMEs Need It Even More
In SMEs, employees often wear multiple hats—learning while doing. This makes coaching and mentoring a truly two-way tool:
A Deloitte study found that 67% of SMEs with effective mentoring programs retain employees longer, significantly reducing the high cost of recruitment—a persistent pain point for SMEs.
How to Build a “Coaching Culture” in SMEs
The key is not to turn coaching & mentoring into a short-term trend (a few workshops and then stop), but to embed it into a sustainable, practical learning culture.
Some practical suggestions for SMEs:
Conclusion
For SMEs, where people are the most valuable “asset,” coaching & mentoring is not only a tool for employee development but also a strategy to retain talent and nurture future leaders.
When SMEs successfully build a coaching culture—where every manager knows how to coach, and every employee is willing to share and learn—the organization becomes not only stronger but also more sustainable in a volatile market.
Start with small steps: a one-on-one conversation, a guiding question that helps an employee find their own solution, a mentor willing to share their experience. These small actions will gradually create a strong culture—one that helps Vietnamese SMEs grow and thrive.
Wishing you success,
Lead-UP Academy | Learn to Act – Act to Lead



Across many organizations, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam, learning and development initiatives are implemented on a regular basis. Annual training plans are established, budgets are allocated, and participation rates are generally high. Classroom engagement is often positive, and post-training evaluations frequently reflect high levels of satisfaction.
In the context of 2026, Vietnamese enterprises are simultaneously facing several critical challenges: increasing pressure to optimize costs and improve productivity; workforce volatility, particularly within operational teams and middle management; and a widening gap between strategic intent and execution capability. Through its R&D activities and practical implementations across multiple industries—including banking, telecommunications, services, hospitality, real estate, and manufacturing—Lead-UP Academy presents in this article a clear and consistent message:
In recent times, as Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been increasingly discussed in executive meetings, a recurring question has emerged: “Will AI make L&D redundant?” In some organizations, this question is taken even further: “Is it still necessary to invest in training when AI can already provide answers to almost everything?”
In modern human resource management, the 9 Box Grid (Performance – Potential) model is commonly used to classify employees. For Gen Z, this is an important tool that helps organizations identify who needs additional professional training, who requires coaching to improve performance, and who should be mentored to develop leadership potential. This context shows that coaching and mentoring are not merely management techniques but strategic approaches to building a sustainable succession pipeline.
When training fails to deliver results, it not only wastes resources but also creates negative sentiment, making it harder for the organization to implement future programs. Turning Every Course into “Learning to Act – Acting to Grow”
During a working session with a large manufacturing company in Southern Vietnam, I heard a troubling story: the plant director suddenly resigned to join a competitor. The problem was not about hiring a replacement, but about the fact that the company had no one ready to step in immediately. More than 300 workers were left waiting for direction, production plans stalled, and customers complained about delayed orders.