Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Sarah A. Hezlett
Sharon K. Gibson
The problem and the solution. Although mentoring theory, research, and practice have begun to mature,
relatively few articles on mentoring have appeared in the human resource development (HRD) literature.
The purpose of this article is to examine past theory, research, and practice on mentoring through the lens
of HRD, in order to identify gaps in what is known about mentoring that are relevant to HRD professionals.
After reviewing core aspects of mentoring central to all domains of HRD, the authors summarize key issues
that have been studied regarding mentoring and career development, organization development, and
training and development, proposing new directions for future research. The authors conclude with a
research agenda that identifies where researchers need to go with mentoring research and HRD to better
inform the practice of mentoring in organizations.
Key Words: mentoring • human resource development • literature review • career • training • organization
development
S. K. Gibson
The Developmental Relationships of Women Leaders in Career Transition: Implications
for Leader Development
Advances in Developing Human Resources, October 1, 2008; 10(5): 651 - 670.
[Abstract] [PDF]
J. K. Beck
Jewish Adult Learning and the Workplace
Advances in Developing Human Resources, August 1, 2006; 8(3): 364 - 372.
[Abstract] [PDF]
Executive Summary
Current writers seem to suggest a shift away from a one-way teacher-to-protégé instruction to a power free,
two-way, mutually beneficial relationship. Are these two extreme, either or positions correct, or can it be
both? Who better to ask than the partner? During the fourth quarter of 1998, 130 visitors to our home page
completed our Effective Mentoring Survey. All we asked, as participants in the survey, was that they be
partners not mentors and that they keep their most effective mentoring relationship in mind as they
responded to the questionnaire.
1. Who the mentor was, peer, direct supervisor, friend, or manager other than their direct
supervisor did not change what was seen as critical attributes of an effective mentoring
relationship.
2. The respondents were satisfied with the mentoring relationship. On a 5 point scale, the
average response was, 4.2.
3. The role of mentor, coach, and supervisor is different. The mentor is person-focused; the
coach, job-focused; and the supervisor, results/productivity-focused.
4. The top four words chosen to depict the mentor’s dominate styles were: direct,
friend/confidant, logical, and questioner.
5. Partners felt the primary benefits for the mentor was satisfaction from fulfilling a role as
helper and developer of others and a learning experience for the mentor.
6. The partner wanted a mentoring relationship for two primary reasons: career development
and development of their potential.
7. The three primary things provided by the mentor were they: listened and understood,
challenged, and coached the partner.
8. Partner's are very proactive in establishing and maintaining the mentoring relationship.
9. Two "musts" to be a good partner were: listen, and second, implement, act on advice, put
things into effect.
10. Most of the contact between partner and mentor occurred at least once a week and in face-to-
face meetings.
11. These results support the conclusion that mentoring is a power free, two-way, mutually
beneficial learning situations where the mentor provides advice, shares knowledge and
experiences, and teaches using a low pressure, self-discovery approach
Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Deluxe Editions, defines mentor as "n. [from Mentor,
the friend and counselor of Odysseus and Telemachus.] a wise and faithful counselor." In the thesaurus,
synonyms like advisor, instructor, tutor, master, and guru appear. Current writers seem to suggest a shift
away from this one-way teacher-to-protégé instruction to a power free, two-way, mutually beneficial
relationship. Are these two extreme, either or positions correct or, can it be both? Does this represent the
values of those charged with implementing mentoring programs and training mentors? Who better to ask
than the partner? During the fourth quarter of 1998, visitors to our home page were asked to participate in
an Effective Mentoring Survey. The limits of this self-selection process are known. All we asked, as
participants in the survey, was that they be partners not mentors and, that they keep their most effective
mentoring relationship in mind as they responded to the questionnaire.
This article is based on the 130 respondents. Based on their E-mail top level domain name extensions, 73%
resided in the United States; 18% were in International locations; 5%, 2% and 2% were from educational,
government, and military organizations respectively.
This reminds us of our recent trip to Germany when after looking at the menu, our first question to the
waitperson was, "English?" and the response, "A little". As indicated in Chart 1, in excess of half the
respondents felt their most effective mentor was their direct supervisor.
Mentoring is occurring both on a formal, organized basis and on an informal need basis. Who the mentor
was, affected only the magnitude of the differences in determining most and least important attributes of an
effective mentoring relationship, not the rank of the responses. The results will be presented based on the
entire group. Bottom line, how satisfied were this group of respondents with this particular mentoring
relationship? Very, on a 5 point scale, the average response was, 4.2. This article attempts to understand
what contributing factors lead to such a high level of satisfaction.
This was an open-ended question, resulting in a resounding YES! Only 9 respondents saw no difference
between the three roles, 5 felt the coach and mentor played similar roles different from that of the
supervisor and 3 felt the coach and supervisor, played similar roles different from that of the mentor.
In summary, the mentor is person-focused; the coach, job-focused; and the supervisor, results/productivity-
focused.
"A mentor is like a sounding board, they can give advice but the partner is free to pick and choose what
they do. The context does not have specific performance objectives. A coach is trying to direct a person to
some end result, the person may choose how to get there, but the coach is strategically assessing and
monitoring the progress and giving advice for effectiveness and efficiency. The supervisor’s ultimate
responsibility is to make sure the job gets done, they hold the person accountable for the deliverables of the
job."
"Mentor is biased in your favor. Coach is an impartial focus on improvement in behavior. Supervisor is the
evaluator."
"A mentor is a guide, there when you want them. A coach helps you better get from point A to B. A
supervisor manages."
The major theme for the mentor was one who had a deep personal interest, personally involved—a friend
who cares about you and your long term development. The major theme for the coach was one who
develops specific skills for the task, challenges, and performance expectation at work. The supervisor was
almost unanimously seen as focusing on performance management, getting the job done as teller, director,
and judge.
What was disturbing was the consistent negative view of the supervisor’s role, a view that will not be
altered by just a cosmetic change in title to "coach". It appears that a supervisor who wants to enter into a
mentoring relationship with a direct report must wear different hats during those mentoring, coaching, and
supervisory discussions. Can it be done? Evidently, since more than half the respondents said their
immediate supervisor was their most effective mentor.
This view of the mentor was further reinforced when respondents were asked to pick from a list of 14
descriptive words that best described your mentor’s dominant style. The top four are shown in Chart 2.
The four least chosen were Hard nosed, Spontaneous, Critical, and Gentle. Inclusion of the words "direct"
and "logical" could lead to the conclusions that mentoring is not solely a passive Socratic process.
From the partner’s perspective, the mentor achieved the type of satisfaction that reinforces this helping,
engaging, personal focus. When asked the open ended question, "What benefits(s) did your mentor get out
of this relationship?" Only 3 said none and 9 didn’t know. Fifty nine percent of the responses fell into two
themes: Affirmation of the value of and satisfaction from fulfilling a role as helper and developer of others;
A learning experience for the mentor from my feedback and insight. The later gives weight to the view of a
two-way, power free relationship.
Effective mentoring appears to be a learning and development process for both parties. This leads to this
advice for current and potential mentors; explore and learn, don’t assume that you must be an all-
knowing expert in this area, such a position could be detrimental to the mentoring process;
mentoring is a fulfilling assignment—let both yourself and the partner learn from the process.
"In retrospect, he clearly saw his role at work and in life as a developer of young people and this allowed
him to do so."
"The ability to look at situations from a different perspective, I am a Generation X and he is in his 60’s."
When asked "Why did you want a mentor?". Chart 3 shows the two run away favorites.
When asked to select those things this mentor did for them, the top group is shown in Table 1.
This strong theme of helper, development, and growth is reinforced in the response to the open ended
question: "What is the one most significant thing your mentor did?" The following four themes, capture
62% of the responses:
° Built my confidence and trust in myself, empowered me to see what I could do.
° Stimulated learning with a soft, no pressure, self discover approach.
° Shared experiences, taught me something, or explained things.
° Listened and understood.
In response to the open ended questions "What one thing should your mentor do more of?"; although 19%
indicated that they were satisfied by writing, "nothing", the top three choices are shown in Chart 4
Conversely, the response to the open ended question: " What one thing should your mentor do less of?";
65% indicated that they were satisfied by writing, "nothing". Only one significant theme, "imposing ideas,
giving advice too early, giving me answers, and not letting me figure things out for myself" emerged,
representing 17% of the responses.
Consistent with the previous results and indicative of how the mentor-partner relationship is changing, in
Chart 5 the percentage of time these words were chosen as the "best descriptive word for your most effect
mentor." Teacher and partner win, hands down.
Hmm… In the thesaurus synonyms like advisor, instructor, tutor, master, and guru appear? Development
via a two-way, power free relationship seems to be desired. Effective mentors provide feedback, their time
and support in an effort to help the partner gain insight and find solutions. They sometimes share
knowledge and give advice but know how to time it so they don’t preempt the learning process for the
partner.
These partners are a very proactive, taking responsibility for their own development and growth group of
people. Selecting a mentor was a very purposeful action. This is supported by the responses to the open
ended question: "How did you find or select this person as your mentor?". The theme, "they worked
together as a peer or manager" accounted for 40% of the responses while, "through my search, they had
traits I admired, and I asked them to be my mentor" accounted for 33% of the responses.
To borrow a phrase, be careful, "smile, you’re on candid camera", seems appropriate. How others see and
evaluate your skills and behaviors are driving their decisions to approach you to be their mentor. Take this
request seriously, the data suggests that the partner has done the detective work to ferret you out as
someone who could be helpful to their development and growth. Finally, 17% of the responses fell into the
theme, "they were assigned or they asked me to be their partner".
Finding a mentor is just the start, keeping the relationship alive is equally important. Again, the partner felt
a strong responsibility for actions that would keep the relationship going as indicated by the responses to
the open ended questions "What is the most significant thing you did to maintain the relationship?". Four
themes included the majority of the responses, see Table 2:
Clearly, the partner is not a passive vessel, waiting for the mentor’s call and time. Additional support to this
active partners role is given by the responses to the open-ended question: "What two guidelines would you
way are "musts" to be a good partner?". Two thirds of the responses group into five themes, see Table 3:
Sounds like a pretty serious group! Mentoring is more effective when the partner takes a proactive role in
maintaining contact with the mentor. In fact, it may be an essential element. partner's should be made
aware of the importance of taking the lead in maintaining the relationship and responding to the mentors
efforts to help the process be successful.
As final affirmation of the proactive partner role, when asked the open-ended question: "What will (did)
cause this relationship to cease?"; "it will continue" accounted for 30% of the responses; 52% attributed it
to "inaccessibility due to relocation or unavailability"; 14% to "other priorities, lack of contact, no value
added, or we out grew each other"; while only 9% attributed a "lack of trust, competition, deception, harsh
reactions, or taking credit for the accomplishments of the partner". Sounds like a pretty committed group.
High tech has not yet arrived, high touch still is in. For the question: "How often were you in contact with
your mentor?", 69% said "at least once a week" and 20% "at least once a month". For the question: "What
was your primary form of contact with your mentor?", 80% said "face-to-face", and 16% "phone".
Effective mentoring is a significant personal commitment in time and energy for both mentor and partner.
These results support the conclusion that mentoring is a power free, two-way, mutually beneficial, learning
situation where the mentor provides advice, shares knowledge and experiences, and teaches using a low
pressure, self-discovery approach. Teaching using an adult learning versus teacher to student model and,
being willing to not just question for self discovery but also freely share their own experiences and skills
with the partner. The mentor is both a source of information/knowledge and a Socratic questioner. It is not
an either or proposition, instructor/advisor or friend and facilitator. This data suggests that the partners
actively seek out and maintain relationships with mentors who have the background and skills to do both in
a way that maintains the partners freedom of choice and decision.
Matt M. Starcevich, Ph.D. CEO, Center for Coaching & Mentoring and Fred L. Friend each have over
twenty years experience in training and organziation development, as internal change agents and external
consultants. For comments or additional information email Matt from the selection below.
Mentoring Programs
The concept of mentoring is becoming increasingly popular in both the school and the workplace as a
means for improving educational and work outcomes. At the moment, there exists a noticeable mentoring
movement in which "mentoring" is well on the way to becoming a buzzword--and losing a specific
definition which makes it possible to describe and evaluate this approach to education (Freedman & Jaffe,
1992).
Mentoring has been defined, most generally, as a relationship between a young person and an adult in
which the adult offers support and guidance as the youth goes through a difficult period, enters a new area
of experience, takes on important tasks, or attempts to correct an earlier problem. Mentoring is thought to
be useful in particular for providing positive adult contacts for youth who are isolated from adults in their
schools, homes, communities, and workplaces (Flaxman, Ascher, & Harrington, 1988).
The new importance of mentoring in youth programs is partly a function of the conditions in which young
people increasingly live in America--in urban America, in particular. Widespread family breakdown,
erosion of neighborhood ties, and time demands of parent work have created a situation in which few
young people have even one significant close relationship with a non-parental adult before actually
reaching adulthood (Steinberg, 1991). For inner-city youth, the problem of having positive adult role
models is compounded by the relatively higher rates of single-parent homes, the existence of fewer
working adults, the strength of youth gangs, and more prevalent substance abuse (Wilson, 1987).
Mentorship programs for youth have been designed to help fill this need for positive adult role models,
support, and guidance. The issue to be addressed in the following review of research, therefore, is the
extent to which mentorship has been able to fill these needs.
Mentoring programs aimed at facilitating the school-to-work transition and related issues such as dropout
prevention and the transition from school to college have been implemented by four kinds of organizations
(Crockett & Smink, 1991): schools, community organizations, business-education partnerships, and higher-
education institutions. The following are examples of some of these programs.
The school-based Norwalk Mentor Program began in 1986 and concentrates its efforts on potential high
school dropouts (Weinberger, 1992). The signs used to indicate a high probability of dropping out of school
and therefore used as criteria for admission to the program, include single-parent family status, poor school
attendance, poor attitude in class, and a family history of substance abuse. The program consists of a
number of steps, all of which are undertaken by program staff: (1) Mentors are recruited from the
community and screened then (2) undergo an orientation and training program. As part of this phase,
selected mentors sign an agreement regarding their responsibilities in the program. (3) Mentors are matched
with participating students. (4) Mentors and students meet in weekly sessions on campus. Initially, program
staff emphasize informing mentors about activities that are likely to cultivate effective relationships (i.e.,
"ice-breakers"). (5) The program is evaluated through surveys of mentors and students. (6) All participants
mark the year's end with "celebrations and renewal" activities. Program staff, however, do all that they can
to ensure that mentor-student relationships do not end at the close of the school year but instead continue in
the summer months and into the following year.
Community-based mentoring programs have been in existence for some time in this country. The Big
Brothers/Big Sisters programs, for example, which involve mentor-like relationships, have been in
existence for ninety years. An example of a program which aims more specifically to smooth the transition
from school to work is the Greenville Urban League's Partnership Program Mentorship Component. This
program offers minority students in grades ten through twelve the mentorship of an African American
professional in the Greenville community. Students are encouraged to meet with mentors in the workplace,
both to observe the world of work and to discuss issues. Another example is the Oregon Community
Mentorship Program, a statewide effort resulting from Oregon's recent Student Retention Initiative. The
goal of the program is to keep students in school and to provide orientation to the world of work. The first
step in getting the program operating is to establish local committees of education and business groups,
who then proceed to outline a program, select students, recruit mentors, and coordinate the program. Thus,
although the mentoring is essentially a statewide effort, each mentor program is geared to the needs of
participating communities.
College- and university-based efforts to assist disadvantaged youth have become more common recently. A
1989 study found over 1,700 mentoring or tutoring programs sponsored by higher education institutions for
primary and secondary students across the country (Reisner, 1989). Mentoring is the focus of 17% of these
programs; and of these mentoring programs, 27% concentrate on secondary school students (Cahalan &
Farris, 1990). There are, therefore, roughly 80 higher education-based mentoring programs for high school
students across the country.
Career Beginnings is an example of this kind of mentoring program. Organized by the Center for Human
Resources at Brandeis University, Career Beginnings is a national program for high school juniors from
low-income families who have average attendance and academic records. The program is therefore
designed to serve students who have the potential to succeed in school and the workforce but are not doing
so. The program operates 25 projects in 22 cities nationally. In all Career Beginnings-sponsored programs,
at least half of the participating students must be economically disadvantaged, 80% must be of the first
generation in their families to attend college, and 45% must be male. The program itself offers to students
the mentorship of an adult and a quality summer job experience, job skills and college application training,
and continuing guidance through their senior year and transition from school to college or work.
The programs described in the preceding paragraphs are all explicitly mentoring programs. It is important
to note, however, that many mentoring programs exist as components of larger school-to-work efforts.
Mentorships are a component of the career academy model in California (Stern, Raby, & Dayton, 1992).
Co-op programs such as Oregon's Partnership Project in the retail and manufacturing industries and the
National Alliance of Business and Bank of America's Quality Connection banking program also use
mentorship as a key program ingredient. In addition, youth apprenticeship programs such as the Youth
Apprenticeship Demonstration Project in Broome County, New York, and Boston's Project ProTech
generally reflect the view that mentorship is an important feature of an effective school-to-work program.
Although the four types of mentoring programs illustrated above have important differences, stemming
primarily from the perspective of the organization that operates the program, each type has in common the
fundamental relationship of mentoring and a concern about the transition from school to work. Through
mentoring, students are exposed to career education (or at least to postsecondary options), which is thought
to help students understand the expectations of employers about the attitudes, preparedness, and skills
required for work as well as to give students the chance to see the application of school activities to
subsequent life. In addition, many mentoring programs offer youth assistance in obtaining summer and
postgraduate jobs (U.S. Department of Education, 1990). At the most basic level, mentoring programs offer
to youth the support of an adult, without which the educational and vocational futures of an increasing
percentage of youth are in doubt.
The popularity of mentorship in youth-serving programs belies the newness of the use of mentorship in a
systematic way in these programs. Not surprisingly, therefore, there is little research evidence to support
the intuition and anecdotal evidence of the success of mentoring for youth (Greim, 1992). The evidence
that exists is mixed. The Adopt-a-Student program, for example, has been evaluated by several analysts.
Stanwyck and Anson (1989) find that students who were assigned mentors were more likely than the
comparison group to enroll in a postsecondary institution. Freedman (1991), however, asserts that
participants are no more likely to graduate from high school or to be employed subsequently than students
without mentors. Similarly, in the case of Career Beginnings, Moloney and Mckaughan (1990) argue that
the majority of adults and youths in the program felt good about the mentoring experience and could
identify important benefits. Cave and Quint (1990), however, find that participating youth went on to
college at only slightly higher rates than the control group.
Additional research indicates that youth and mentors form successful relationships in fewer than half of the
matches made in the Campus Partners in Learning mentoring program (Tierney & Branch, 1992). Yet, an
evaluation of the Norwalk Mentor Program indicates that almost all mentors (96%) report excellent or good
relationships with their students, and 85% feel that the relationship has made a positive impact on the
student's life. This evaluation contained less subjective evidence as well: 87% of participating students
show improved attendance, and 96% show greater cooperation in class (Weinberger, 1992).
Despite the current lack of conclusive knowledge about whether and how mentor programs work, several
analysts have begun to produce "best practice" recommendations for future efforts (see Freedman, 1991;
Greim, 1992; Hamilton & Hamilton, 1990; Styles & Morrow). Hamilton and Hamilton (1990), for
example, have concluded that
In summary, mentorship programs designed to assist in the school-to-work transition are becoming more
popular. These programs enjoy several advantages over other approaches to this issue, including their
relatively low cost, the directness of their intervention in the lives of youth, their simplicity, and their
flexibility (Freedman, 1991). In addition, on a theoretical level, the need for mentorship programs,
particularly for urban youth, has never been higher.
However, on an empirical level, the evidence is mixed. There has not been, as yet, a study that conclusively
demonstrates the contribution that mentoring programs are thought to be capable of making. It is worth
keeping in mind that mentoring programs create relationships that are but one of many influences on the
youth involved (Freedman, 1991). Mentoring, in this sense, is a "modest intervention." Its power to
substitute for missing adult figures is limited. Until more extensive research has been conducted, it is
important that mentoring programs not be oversold, for such could lead to the diversion of attention from
the causes of the problems these programs have been devised to ameliorate in the first place (Flaxman et
al., 1988).
BYU employs thousands of hard-working, highly-qualified staff, administrative, and faculty personnel -
many of which directly supervise student employees. These supervisors can be a valuable resource to you
as you prepare to enter the workforce.
Working closely with a mentor will help you get a head start on your career. According to a recent article in
U.S. News and World Report, an "on-campus job may afford the opportunity to build up a resume while
banking cash." You can easily get hands-on experience right here on campus while going to school.
These work experiences will help you develop skills that will transfer to any job after graduation. These
mentored jobs are not ordinary on-campus jobs. They have undergone a screening process to ensure that
you will be given challenging experiences to help you grow and develop more than you would with a
regular job. You and your supervisors will get all the help you want and need to ensure that the quality of
your experience will rest solely on your desire and dedication.
In addition, you may – depending on your major – qualify for internship credit. Think of it – you get all the
benefits of working on campus (competitive pay, lower taxes, close proximity, etc.) with the career-
enhancing benefits and college credit of an internship! Find out from your respective department or the
internship office to see if you qualify.
Coaching / Mentoring / Consulting / Learning Organizations
Find coaching, mentoring, consulting, knowledge management and how to build a learning organization
resources.
Knowledge Management (1) Consulting (32) Networking (4) Dealing With Bad Bosses ...
Group Mentoring
Effective relationships and learning are the mainstays of organizational success today. Organizations that
find meaningful ways for their employees to connect are more likely to realize greater productivity,
enhanced career growth, freely flowing innovation and overall improvement in employee performance.
Group mentoring is a value-added tool for connecting employees and advancing learning within the
organization.
What Do You Mean My Company’s a Stepping Stone?
With baby boomers – all 80-plus million of them – starting their exodus from the workforce and into
retirement, the labor pool is shrinking. No, Chicken Little, that doesn’t mean the sky is falling. But it does
mean that organizations that distinguish themselves as destinations for talented and valued employees will
see their stock rise - and not just on Wall Street. Find mentoring to be an employee recruitment and
retention strategy.
GROUP MENTORING
Effective relationships and learning are the mainstays of organizational success. Organizations that find
meaningful ways for their employees to connect are more likely to realize greater productivity, enhanced
career growth and overall improvement in employee performance. Group mentoring connects employees
and advances learning within your organization.
Group mentoring affords an organization the opportunity to extend its mentoring efforts and reach more
people in a time-efficient manner. It solves the dilemma of mentoring many people when there are not
enough qualified mentors in an organization to make one-to-one mentoring matches.
Group mentoring is a way to honor and share the knowledge and expertise of individuals and to provide
other employees with exposure to their specific know how. Group mentoring also avoids the perception of
favoritism that can result when there are limited numbers of mentors and many potential mentees.
Organizations have found group mentoring to be a welcome alternative to combat mentor fatigue and
burnout.
Because group mentoring involves more than two individuals, it promotes diversity of thinking, practice
and understanding. The diversity of perspectives that emerges from group mentoring interaction is a
powerful motivator for employee development. Group mentoring supports individual accountability,
establishes a more-connected workplace and provides a welcome alternative for those who learn better in
group settings.
Group mentoring also contributes to the vibrancy of a mentoring culture, especially when coupled with
one-to-one mentoring. It expands the mentoring capacity of the organization and affords the opportunity to
move learning to the next level.
Facilitated group mentoring allows a number of people to participate in a learning group and to benefit
simultaneously from the experience and expertise of a mentor or mentors. The richness of the
experience multiplies as each group participant brings personal experiences into the conversation. The
facilitator asks questions to keep the dialogue thought provoking and meaningful, shares their own
personal experiences, provides feedback and serves as a sounding board.
Example: Once a month seven physicians meet to talk about issues pertinent to their small subspecialty
area of practice. For each session, they choose an outside facilitator (usually a medical academician)
based on the topic they are exploring.
• Peer-group mentoring:
Peer-group mentoring brings together peers with similar learning interests or needs. The group is self-
directed and self-managed. It takes responsibility for crafting its own learning agenda and for
managing the learning process so that each member's learning needs are met and everyone derives
maximum benefit from each other's knowledge, expertise and experience.
Example: Each participant presents a problem or issue. The other members of the group respond to the
problem or issue presented. As a result, the collective wisdom of the group is harnessed to solve
problems and improve practices, and value is created for all group members.
• Team mentoring:
Team mentoring offers a methodology for facilitating the learning of an intact team. Together the
individuals making up the team articulate mutual learning goals and work simultaneously with one or
more mentors who guide them through a deliberate and deliberative process to facilitate their learning.
The mentoring process allows the team to be supported and to learn from each other’s experience and
knowledge.
Example: In a law firm, two mentors with different legal specialties work with an internal group of
associates with the goal of helping them better understand what they do and how they do it.
There are many variations on these themes and innovative group mentoring practices are emerging all the
time.
Readiness starts with clear articulation of the goals and purposes for the group mentoring concept. An
organization must develop a standard of expectation and practice for mentoring groups. It must clarify
roles, and the responsibilities of the individual participants and the group must be mutually understood.
1. Align your group mentoring process so that it fits your organization’s culture.
2. Establish ownership for mentoring groups in the organization.
3. Get the right infrastructure in place to support the group mentoring process.
4. Provide adequate budget and time.
5. Articulate roles and responsibilities in group mentoring.
Create multiple group mentoring opportunities to meet a variety of learning needs in your organization.
Experiment and be creative.
1. Choose the model that will afford your organization the greatest success and build from there.
2. Train your mentoring group leaders.
3. Share new strategies, ideas, and best practices across mentoring groups.
4. Provide opportunities to integrate new learning.
5. Monitor the progress of the mentoring groups.
Organizational mentoring requires multiple supports, some visible to the eye, others not. Think proactively
about the structures and practices you need to put in place to support group and individual mentoring.
Clearly group mentoring is an organizational practice whose time has come. Isn’t it time you considered
how group mentoring can benefit your organization?
Coaching and Mentoring ResourcesBuild a Mentoring CultureMentoring and Baby Boomers: Mentoring Is
a Strategic Business Imperative
Coaching for Improved Performance The Strategic HR Coach Want a Superior Workforce?
• termination information
• Recalls required?
• Bureau of National Affairs
Related Articles
People do these things. The people you have working for you today and the people you may hire tomorrow.
And, the people who may resign because no one has recognized their abilities.
Yet, clearly, organizations do not do a good enough job developing and promoting their most important
resource – their people.
It takes more than writing “equal opportunity” into your organization’s mission statement. It takes more
than sending someone to a training class. It takes more than hard work on the part of your employees. What
development takes is people – from the CEO’s office to the mailroom – people who are willing to listen
and to help their colleagues. Development takes coaches; it takes guide; it takes advocates. Development
depends on mentors.
Time after time, successful people I talk to say that one of the most important keys to their success is
having a mentor. It is hard to make it without a mentor and it takes too much time without a mentor.
But often there is no mentor around when you need one and especially when you face “particular
challenges.” What do I mean when I talk about the “particular challenges" that people in organizations
face?
Let me give you a few examples of some challenges we working people all deal with. Imagine that you are
facing these situations. How would you react?
First scenario. You’ve been working in a staff job and a line job opens up in another city. It would be a
perfect career move for you but the company fills the job without even asking if you’re interested. They
don’t ask because they assume your spouse wouldn’t want to leave his or her job to relocate. What would
you do?
Or imagine this. You’re in a meeting. It’s your opportunity to shine in front of upper management. You’ve
got an important point to make and you start to talk. Someone cuts you off. What would you do?
Or let’s say you make that important point—and no one says a word about it. But five minutes later, a guy
at the other end of the table says the same thing you did. This time it’s a brilliant idea, and he gets all the
credit. What would you do?
You’re in another meeting — there’s always another meeting - and one of your bosses tells a demeaning
joke about the Pope - you are Catholic, and everyone knows it. What would you do?
Or a joke about gays — which you are, and maybe no one knows it. Or a joke about women — which
you’re not, but some of your colleagues sitting right next to you are. What would you do?
My point is not so much whether you or I know how to react in each of these situations.
My point is really that we need to recognize that there are people in every organization — whether they’re
men or women, minorities, or people who grew up without any business role-models in their lives — who
don’t know how to react in these situations.
And it’s our responsibility to teach them.
Organizations are only as successful as the men and women who make them work.
So, if we care about our organizations and our people, we have to share our knowledge of the
organizational culture; we have to share our wisdom; we have to mentor.
If you want to establish a mentoring culture within your organization, here are some mentoring best
practices.
• Set organizational goals. Don’t establish a mentoring program just because it is a good business
practice. Develop a mentoring program based on solid business goals such as increasing diversity or
making your organization a better place to work.
• Find out why the talented employees you wanted to keep left you.
• McKinsey and Co. asked top people what they look for when deciding which company to join and
stay with. The answer: a great company and a great job. Talented employees want exciting challenges
and great development opportunities. They leave because they are bored. Mentoring is a key to
attracting and retaining talented employees.
• Develop people to their fullest potential. In order to develop your people, provide training
opportunities, challenging projects and assignments, feedback, coaching and mentoring. In one study
with people who had experienced real mentors, half of them said the mentoring experience “changed
my life.” Those are powerful words.
• Foster mentoring for women and minorities. Ten years ago, when I began a new job, I sat with
female colleagues during company presentations, and wondered, “Why are the guys up there and
we’re not?” One of my first job assignments was to develop and manage a mentoring program. We
included a special group mentoring program for women. Today, many of the young women I knew ten
years ago at that company, have, in fact, climbed onto the stage themselves. Mentoring helped move
women into the ranks of vice president, senior vice president and division president.
• Point to the money. Losing talented employees and wasting talent costs companies money.
And remember, whatever programs you design; they won’t be effective unless there is commitment from
the top. Visible, daily commitment.
More than ever before, organizations, large and small, are looking outside traditional mentoring paradigms to
raise the bar on the practice of mentoring by creating a mentoring culture.
A mentoring culture continuously focuses on building the mentoring capacity, competence, and capability of the
organization. A mentoring culture encourages the practice of mentoring excellence by continuously:
• Alignment. Alignment focuses on the consistency of mentoring practices within an institution’s culture.
It builds on the assumption that a cultural fit already exists between mentoring and the organization and
that mentoring initiatives are also are tied to goals larger than just initiating a program. When mentoring is
aligned within the culture, it is part of its DNA. A shared understanding and vocabulary of mentoring practice
exists that fits naturally with the organization’s values, practices, mission, and goals.
• Value and Visibility. Sharing personal mentoring stories, role modeling, reward, recognition, and
celebration are high leverage activities that create and sustain value and visibility. Leaders who talk about
formative mentoring experience, share best practices, and promote and support mentoring by their own
example add to the value proposition for mentoring.
In the first part of this article you learned about the first four hallmarks of a mentoring culture. Here are four
more hallmarks of a mentoring culture.
• Demand. Demand for mentoring has a multiplier effect. When it is present, there is a mentoring buzz,
increased interest in mentoring, and self-perpetuating participation. Employees seek mentoring as a way to
strengthen and develop themselves and look for mentoring opportunities.
Mentors become mentees and mentees become mentors. Employees engage in multiple mentoring
relationships, often simultaneously. Demand spurs reflective conversation and dialogue about mentoring
adding to its value and visibility.
• Education and Training. Continuing mentoring education and training opportunities are strategically
integrated into the organization’s overall training and development agenda. Existing training platforms
support mentoring and vice versa. Opportunities for “next step” and renewal education and advanced skill
training are available for “veteran” mentors. Networking and support groups meet regularly to exchange
best practices and promote peer learning.
• Safety Nets. Mentoring cultures establish safety nets to overcome or avoid potential stumbling blocks
and roadblocks with minimum repercussion and risk. Safety nets provide just in time support that enables
mentoring to move forward coherently. Organizations that proactively anticipate challenges are more likely
to establish resilient and responsive mentoring safety nets than those that do not.
A mentoring culture is a vivid expression of an organization's vitality. Its presence enables an organization to
augment learning, maximize time and effort, and better utilize its resources. The relationship skills learned
through mentoring benefit relationships throughout the organization; as these relationships deepen, people feel
more connected to the organization. Ultimately, the learning that results creates value for the entire organization.