Confusing prominence with fit
A prominent or highly successful person is not automatically the best source of support for the startup's current situation.
Practical guide
Mentor Matching for Startups: Criteria and Process
A suitable mentor does not simply have experience in the same industry. What matters is the contribution that the person can make in the startup's current situation.
Quick answer
Good mentor matching connects the startup's support needs with relevant experience, resources, a clearly defined role and personal fit. The SMART model helps describe these needs through Structuring, Motivation, Access, Reflection and Transfer.
What does mentor matching mean for startups?
Mentor matching is the deliberate process of connecting a startup with a person whose experience, resources and way of working fit the current support needs of the founding team.
Good matching therefore does not begin by asking which mentor is particularly well known or successful. It begins by asking what kind of support the startup currently needs.
This distinction is important because support needs change throughout the entrepreneurial process. At an early stage, a team may need orientation. Later, contacts, specialist knowledge, critical reflection or support with implementation may become more important.
Mentor matching is therefore not a one-time search for the perfect person. It is a context-dependent decision that should be reviewed regularly.
Why industry experience alone is not enough
When selecting mentors, industry knowledge is often considered first. It can be valuable, but it is not always the most important criterion.
A mentor from the same industry may contribute relevant market knowledge, contacts and experience. However, this person is not automatically the right choice for structuring a decision, critically examining assumptions or supporting implementation.
Conversely, someone from another field may be highly valuable if that person can provide exactly the function the startup currently needs. Industry experience is therefore one possible matching criterion, but it should not automatically determine the selection process.
Criteria for selecting a coach or mentor
| Criterion | Guiding question |
|---|---|
| Current support need | What should the person help the startup accomplish? |
| Required support function | Does the startup need Structuring, Motivation, Access, Reflection or Transfer? |
| Venture stage | Is the venture in idea development, validation, pre-founding, market entry or early implementation? |
| Relevant experience | Has the person supported comparable decisions, situations or challenges? |
| Access to resources | Can the person provide relevant contacts, knowledge, networks or opportunities? |
| Expected role | Is the startup looking for a sparring partner, specialist adviser, connector, implementation partner or critical discussion partner? |
| Way of working | Does the person's approach fit the team and the current task? |
| Availability | Can the person contribute sufficient time and attention? |
| Conflicts of interest | Are there dependencies, commercial interests or competing obligations? |
| Personal fit | Can the relationship support trust, openness and constructive dialogue? |
Not every criterion needs to have the same weight. Priorities depend on the startup's specific situation.
The five SMART dimensions in mentor matching
| Dimension | Support function | Possible matching criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Structuring | Creates clarity, organises information and structures decisions | Analytical ability, experience in moderating complex decisions, prioritisation and planning |
| Motivation | Strengthens confidence, willingness to act and persistence | Appreciative communication, experience with difficult entrepreneurial phases and credible encouragement |
| Access | Opens access to people, knowledge, resources and networks | Relevant contacts, industry access, investor relationships and connections to specialists or potential partners |
| Reflection | Questions assumptions, decisions and existing interpretations | Critical dialogue, perspective taking, independence and the ability to reveal blind spots |
| Transfer | Translates insights into concrete actions and next steps | Implementation focus, experience with experiments, accountability and systematic follow-up |
A startup may require support across several dimensions at the same time. The matching process should still identify which function currently has the highest priority.
A six-step matching process
- Describe the current situation. What decision needs to be made? What is preventing the next step? Which information, resources or tested assumptions are missing?
- Determine the support need. Identify which SMART dimensions are particularly relevant to the current situation.
- Formulate a specific search profile. Define which function the person should provide and which experience is required.
- Identify suitable people. Build a reasoned selection through networks, universities, startup centres, associations or recommendations.
- Assess personal fit. Use an initial conversation to clarify expectations, communication style, availability and potential conflicts of interest.
- Review the collaboration. After an agreed period, assess whether the required support function has actually been provided.
A specific search profile
We are looking for someone with experience in research-based ventures and technology transfer. The person should be able to structure different commercialisation options, question assumptions critically and provide access to suitable partners.
A smaller, well-founded selection is usually more useful than a long list of prominent names.
Professional fit and personal chemistry
Functional fit alone is not enough to create a strong mentoring relationship. Trust, communication style, mutual expectations and the willingness to engage in constructive disagreement also matter.
SMART Compass can structure the startup's support needs and show which experiences or contributions a suitable person should provide. However, it does not assess personal chemistry automatically. Personal fit should be evaluated through direct interaction.
Both sides can consider questions such as:
- Does the founder feel understood without receiving premature solutions?
- Can the mentor challenge the founder without taking control of the decision?
- Do communication style, availability and expectations fit?
- Is there sufficient trust to discuss uncertainty and doubt openly?
- Can the relationship remain constructive when both sides disagree?
A useful match therefore connects the startup's current support needs, the potential mentor's relevant experience and resources, and personal fit in direct interaction.
Example: Founding a company or licensing the technology?
A researcher has developed a business idea based on scientific research. The appropriate route to application remains unclear: create a new company or license the technology to an established business?
The researcher lacks suitable co-founders and has little experience in building a company. At the same time, it is unclear how the two commercialisation options should be compared and how either route should be approached.
Reflection helps examine personal goals, assumptions and the consequences of both options. Does the researcher want to take on entrepreneurial responsibility? Which scientific and professional goals should be preserved?
Structuring creates a transparent decision process. Relevant criteria may include market potential, intellectual property, financing requirements, development time, the researcher's future role and the desired level of control.
Access is needed to connect the researcher with potential co-founders, technology transfer offices, patent specialists, industry partners or investors.
Transfer translates the decision into concrete steps. These might include a licensing strategy, initial conversations with companies or a plan for team building, validation and financing.
The appropriate match is therefore not automatically a mentor from the same scientific discipline. A more suitable person might combine experience in technology transfer, research-based ventures and the evaluation of different commercialisation routes. Additional specialists can later contribute expertise in intellectual property, licensing negotiations or financing.
The example illustrates that good mentor matching is not based only on industry or specialist knowledge. What matters is the contribution that a person can make to the current decision and the next steps.
The full case study shows how this becomes a coaching roadmap: Create a Startup or License the Technology? A SMART Compass Case Study.
Common mentor matching mistakes
Selecting only by industry experience
Industry experience can be useful, but it does not answer which support function the startup requires.
Failing to clarify the role
Conflict can arise when founders expect a sparring partner while the mentor assumes the role of a decision-making adviser.
Expecting one person to provide everything
A mentor does not need to cover all five SMART dimensions. Different people may be appropriate for different support needs.
Confusing chemistry with suitability
A pleasant conversation is important, but it does not provide sufficient evidence of a good match.
Failing to review the collaboration
A match may be useful initially but no longer fit the startup's changing support needs later.
Limits of structured mentor matching
A systematic process cannot guarantee the success of a mentoring relationship.
The quality of the collaboration also depends on openness, commitment, mutual trust and the willingness to evaluate recommendations critically. Availability, expectations and possible conflicts of interest also influence the relationship.
The SMART model is therefore not intended to select the best person automatically. It provides a reasoned foundation for the search, the initial conversation and the joint decision.
About the method
The SMART model is a process-based typology for entrepreneurial coaching. It describes support contributions across five dimensions: Structuring, Motivation, Access, Reflection and Transfer.
SMART Compass operationalises the model as a diagnostic tool. Founders can reflect on their current situation, structure their support needs and derive appropriate next steps.
Further information about the definition, development and academic foundation can be found on the page The SMART Model in Entrepreneurial Coaching.
The article Startup Coach and Mentor: What Support Do I Need and When? explains how holistic coaching support and targeted mentor expertise work together.
Academic sources
- Deng, C., Gulseren, D. B. and Turner, N. (2022). How to match mentors and protégés for successful mentorship programs: A review of the evidence and recommendations for practitioners. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(3), 386 to 403.
- Hagedorn, A. (2017). The Impact of Social Capital for Venture Creation. Doctoral Dissertation, HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management.
- Hagedorn, A. (under review, 2026). A Process-Based Typology of Entrepreneurial Coaching Functions: The SMART Model. Submitted to the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing.
- Kirsch, J., Dibbern, R., Patzelt, H. and Breugst, N. (2025). Entrepreneurs’ Evaluations of Mentors: The Role of Value Similarities and Mentors’ Experiences. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 8(3), 371 to 401.
Suggested citation: Hagedorn, A. (2026). Mentor Matching for Startups: Criteria and Process (Version 0.1). SMART Compass. https://www.smartcompass.app/mentor-matching-startups/
Make support needs visible
SMART Compass structures the current situation through five dimensions and creates a better foundation for selecting suitable support.