Coaching and Mentoring International | - Course map · Web viewLarge holding companies sometimes...

Mentoring Programme Manager’s Workshop

Appendices

© David Clutterbuck Partnership 2013

Course map

Train the Trainer Workshop

Trainer’s guide Making the most of developmental mentoring booklet Exercises Powerful questions for coaches and mentors booklet Slides

o Trainer introductiono Diversity mentoring basicso Executive mentoring basicso Mentoring review session

Programme Manager Workshop

Programme manager’s manual Case studies Appendices including ISMPE standards and self assessment guide Facilitator’s workshop notes and exercises Slides – Making developmental mentoring work

2

Contents

Course map.....................................................................................................2Appendix 1: Cross-organizational mentoring..............................................4Appendix 2: International Standards for Mentoring Programmes in Employment....................................................................................................7Appendix 3: Self-assessment for the ISMPE.............................................12Appendix 4: Choosing a mentor: interview guidelines.............................66Appendix 5: Getting the best from international programmes of coaching and mentoring..............................................................................72Appendix 6: Why mentoring programmes and relationships fail............76Appendix 7: Second Wave Mentoring........................................................81Appendix 8: Making the most of informal mentoring...............................86Appendix 9: The effective mentor for small businesses..........................89Appendix 10: A longitudinal study of the effectiveness of developmental mentoring......................................................................................................91

3

Appendix 1: Cross-organizational mentoring

There is only a relatively small number of mentoring programmes, which have been designed from the start to facilitate mentoring between employees of a consortium of organizations. Some examples, where this has happened, include:

A programme to support career development of women in junior and middle management at An Post, the Irish Post Office. Mentors were drawn from a variety of companies in the supply chain – both suppliers and customers.

A large bank looked beyond its own walls for mentors to its regional directors. Building the mentees’ commercial awareness was one of the principal aims, but mentors were drawn from leaders in both public and private sector organizations.

Senior managers from a dozen companies were recruited as peer mentors for prison governors. In this case, the companies played an active role in building relationships both with the governors and in some cases, more widely with the prisons.

Large holding companies sometimes encourage mentoring relationships between companies and divisions. For example, Petronas, the Malaysian oil company, offers mentees two mentors – one within their own company or division and one in another company within the group. Most mentees report they gain greatest value from the mentor outside their immediate organizational boundaries.

Public sector organizations in the same general location have formed mentoring (and in some cases, coaching) consortia to share resources. Local authorities, higher education and public services, such as health trusts, police and fire services have collaborated to share the costs of training and administration and to create a wider pool of mentors for mentees to choose from.

The benefits of this kind of mentoring can be considerable. Among them:

A very different perspective on issues, from someone not involved in the corporate politics or acclimatised to the organizational culture

Shared costs – particularly for training, administration, support for mentoring pairs, and evaluation

Potential for greater openness between mentor and mentee, because there are fewer issues of confidentiality

Mutual support and learning for programme facilitators (it can sometimes feel like a lonely role if you are running a programme by yourself!)

4

But there are disadvantages, too. In particular:

It takes more organization and coordination to make the process work, especially at the recruitment stage. For example, there are a lot more people to convince that this is a good idea!

Employers may have greater concerns about “poaching” of talent (although the more different the organizations are in sector, size and culture, the less likely such issues are to arise)

What should you look for in consortium partners?While some difference in corporate values is desirable, a common set of broad values around talent management, respecting employees and openness to constructive challenge create a strong foundation for success. Ideally, there should be few, if any, areas of direct competition between the organizations – if only because of the inevitability of privileged information being part of mentoring conversations. Important questions include:

Is mentoring on this organization’s agenda right now? (If not, by the time they are ready to commit, other potential partners, who are ready now, may have lost interest or found other solutions.)

Are there obvious champions in HR and in senior management? How compatible will the partner organizations be? Do they have potential sources of funding? Will they be active or passive partners? What is the minimum number of partner organizations we need? What is the maximum number?

Key rolesA lead facilitator, who takes responsibility for general programme management and chairing the steering group, is essential. This person can come from outside the consortium (it helps avoid accusations of partisanship), but an internal HR professional, who is able to gain the trust of participants, sponsors and the programme lead in each of the other organizations, can be equally effective. A degree of passion about mentoring in general and the programme in particular seems to be a requisite characteristic.Some administrative support is also desirable.

Key programme stagesThe key stages are:

1. Definition – what is this programme all about? What will be the benefits for the employer organizations and the participants? What is the vision of success? How many organizational partners do we need?

2. Organizational recruitment – putting together the champions and helping them. Remember in communications that each organization may need a different message to sell the concept in to its HR and line management infrastructure. Setting up the cross-organization steering committee and establishing how it will move from storming to performing.

5

3. Programme design – recruitment, training, matching, ongoing support, review and evaluation. Research among potential participants is recommended.

4. Launch – ideally one event for senior managers of all consortium organizations and key influencers; and a series of mini events in each member organization

5. Recruitment and matching6. Training 7. General programme management and ongoing support, including

monitoring and reviewing8. End of phase one evaluation and celebration of achievements.

Some FAQsShould we train people from the same organization together, or have a mixture of participants from across the organizations? Given that the intention is to benefit from different perspectives, it generally makes more sense to mix participants.

What other support/ learning could we provide for participants? One useful idea, originating from diversity mentoring, is to engage mentees in collective projects, with a representative from each company in each project group. This provides additional opportunities for cross-organizational learning.

What do participants need to know about the other organizations? Learning between the mentees is enhanced when they have opportunities to get to know something of all the organizations. In both mentor and mentee training, it is useful to have presentations by participants from each company about their organization’s culture, scope, products, approach to leadership and so on.

What if mentor and mentee live and work in widely separate locations? Distance mentoring is an increasingly common phenomenon. Training for mentors and mentees can include skills of mentoring by telephone or email.

What if relationships don’t work out? It’s actually easier to rematch people, when they are from different organizations -- there are fewer consequences and less embarassment. More difficult is gathering the informal feedback – the organizational chatter – that alerts the programme facilitators to problems with individual relationships.

6

Appendix 2: International Standards for Mentoring Programmes in Employment

These standards have been generated to fill a gap in the evaluation of mentoring programmes, with particular emphasis on programmes in adult employment and development. Six core standards have been identified, as follows:

1. Clarity of purpose 2. Stakeholder training and briefing 3. Processes for selection and matching 4. Processes for measurement and review 5. Maintains high standards of ethics 6. Administration and support (practicalities of marketing, communication,

troubleshooting etc)

Clarity of purpose

The intended outcomes and benefits of the programme are clearly defined and understood by all the stakeholder audiences.

The outcomes are translated into viable and well-understood objectives for each mentoring relationship.

Performance criteria:1.1 There is a published and readily available statement of programme

purpose1.2 There is a published and readily available statement of values.

Mentoring is clearly defined and terms of reference are understood by all participants.

1.3 Stakeholders are engaged in discussion about the meaning and implication of the programme purpose and values; and have an opportunity to influence these

1.4 Where appropriate, the programme purpose is linked clearly to the overall objectives of the organisation, under whose auspices the programme takes place, and/ or achieving change in the organisation

1.5 Each mentoring pair is encouraged to establish learning and/ or other goals from the relationship; their goals may extend beyond organisational goals, there is a process to monitor whether this has been done

1.6 Both mentors and mentees have clear and complementary expectations from the programme and from their relationship

1.7 The target audience(s) for the programme is clearly defined1.8 There is a process to test both programme and where appropriate

individual goals against reality1.9 Participants understand clearly why mentoring is an appropriate

process for achieving the programme and relationship purposes

7

Stakeholder training and briefing

Participants and stakeholders understand the concept of mentoring and their respective roles

Participants are aware of the skills and behaviours they need to apply in their roles as mentors and mentees; and have an opportunity to identify skills gaps

Learning support is available throughout the first 12 months of their involvement in the programme

Performance criteria:2.1. Participation in a process to learn the basics of mentoring is a non-

negotiable condition of taking part in the mentoring programme, for both mentors and mentees

2.2. There is a clear and well-founded conceptual framework to explain mentoring functions and behaviours

2.3. Participants obtain a clear distinction between mentoring and other forms of help and learning (e.g. coaching, counselling, tutoring)

2.4. There is a clear and well-founded framework of competencies for mentors and mentees, upon which the training is based

2.5. There are opportunities to reflect on personal experience and to build self-awareness

2.6. Appropriate diagnostic instruments are applied to build understand of self and each other

2.7. The training deals in depth with issues of confidentiality and ethicality 2.8. The training deals in depth with issues of relationship management2.9. There is opportunity to practise the skills of being an effective

mentor/mentee and/or evidence of prior competence in the role2.10. Other stakeholders (such as line managers, teachers, parents) are

informed about the programme, are aware of how it can benefit them, and have an opportunity to discuss how they can provide appropriate support

2.11. The training design is appropriate for the cultural environment, in which the programme takes place

2.12. Time is allocated to the initial training process, to allow participants to begin the relationship with confidence and an awareness of the behaviours required of them

2.13. Training and/ or learning extends beyond the initial awareness raising event; mentors in particular have opportunity to reflect upon and discuss learning as they experience the relationship

2.14. Trainers a) have prior experience as or exposure to the role of mentors/ mentees in their own right b) have a knowledge of mentoring beyond the immediate requirements of the training workshops and c) have a wider knowledge of developmental dynamics

2.15. There is a process to counsel would-be mentors, who demonstrate a lack of core skills/ behaviours during training

8

2.16. Participants and stakeholders are able to influence the conduct and content of future training/ briefings

2.17. The quality of training is assessed at the point of delivery and changes made to future training programmes as appropriate.

Processes for selection and matching

Mentors are selected to meet the specific needs of mentees. Both mentors and mentees have an influence on whether they

participate and who they pair with. The experience gap permits significant learning by the mentee. There is a process for recognising and unwinding matches that do not

work; and for reassigning the participants, if they wish.

Performance criteria:3.1. There are clear criteria for participation and/or selection of mentors and

mentees 3.2. Participation is voluntary, even where the programme is targeted at

specific groups3.3. There is a consistent process for identifying mentees’ needs and

comparing these to mentor characteristics 3.4. Participants have a say in who they are matched with wherever

possible 3.5. Mentors and mentees are aware of the “no-fault divorce” arrangements

available to them 3.6. The success of matching processes is reviewed regularly to enable

repairing or additional support where necessary 3.7. People, who have requested to be mentors/ mentees, but are not

selected, receive appropriate feedback 3.8. The experience gap permits significant learning by the mentee (NB this

does not necessarily imply a status differential – peer mentors may have equal, but dissimilar experiences and therefore a high experience gap)

Processes for measuring and review

The programme is measured sufficiently frequently and appropriately to: Identify problems with individual relationships Make timely adjustments to programme processes apart from 4.3

below (see comments) there is nothing to measure this Provide a meaningful cost-benefit analysis and impact analysis

Performance criteria:4.1 Measurements are based upon the goals defined in the programme

purpose and programme values; and upon the goals defined within the individual pairings

4.2 Mentors and mentees receive clear feedback from each other on their performance in the role

9

4.3 Wherever possible best practice is reviewed and relevant learning incorporated into the programme

4.4 Measurements relate to both processes and outcomes4.5 Measurements relate to both the programme and individual

relationships (within the bounds of confidentiality)

4.6

4.7 Review meetings are held to discuss feedback from participants, including line managers

4.8 Feedback from mentors and mentees is analysed by the coordinators to identify recurring themes relevant to the programme or to other development issues within the organisation

4.9 Review meetings are held with the programme sponsors 4.10 At appropriate timings, improvements are made to the programme as a

result of information received in items 4.1- 4.7

Maintain high standards of ethics and pastoral care

The programme adheres to clear guidelines on the behaviour and responsibilities of all stakeholders

There is a process for recognising and managing conflicts of interest between stakeholders (e.g. between mentees and the organisation)

Performance criteria:5.1 Has a Code of Conduct for all parties (mentors, mentees, line

managers, programme support staff and the organisation in general)5.2 The Code of Conduct is understood by and discussed with all

stakeholders5.3 Performance against the Code of Conduct is monitored5.4 There is a process for dealing with breaches of the Code of Conduct5.5 Participants understand clearly the hierarchy of interests (mentee,

mentoring pair, organisation) and have discussed the implications for managing relationships and the programme

Administration and support

Participants have adequate support throughout the formal programme and, where appropriate beyond

The programme is managed professionally

10

Performance criteria:6.1 The programme coordinator and other support staff have a clear,

written description of their roles and responsibilities and are assessed against them

6.2 A central database is maintained to track the overall progress and outcomes of relationships

6.3 Participants are encouraged to maintain personal learning logs6.4 There is a budget and a financial administration process where

appropriate6.5 The mentoring process is clearly linked to other development activities,

where appropriate (e.g. appraisal, personal development planning or a process of continual personal development)

6.6 There are processes to remind participants of responsibilities at key points in the relationship (e.g. initial ”are we suited?” review; winding up)

6.7 There is a practical and accessible support resource for participants to seek advice on the conduct of their relationship

6.8 There is a clear and accessible process to assist participants in dealing with issues, which fall outside the remit of the relationship (e.g. an Employee Assistance Programme)

6.9 There is a documented quality control process

11

Appendix 3: Self-assessment for the ISMPE

This document has been designed to help potential applicants for the award to

understand what type(s) of evidence could be produced for each item provide a means of self-assessment and indicate readiness for formal

assessment

There are two main types of evidence: documents and verbal accounts gained through an interviewing process. Listed against each Standard are suggestions: not all the documents given need to be provided; they are simply examples of how you might evidence that particular part of the Standard. With regard to interviewing, it is possible that representative samples of all those listed will be requested.

General notes on assessment are given towards the end of this document.

The Standards have been generated to fill a gap in the evaluation of mentoring programmes, with particular emphasis on programmes in adult employment and development. The six core Standards are as follows:

1. Clarity of purpose2. Stakeholder training and briefing 3. Processes for selection and matching4. Processes for measurement and review5. Maintains high standards of ethics 6. Administration and support

12

Clarity of purpose

The intended outcomes and benefits of the programme are clearly defined and understood by all the stakeholder audiences

The outcomes are translated into viable and well understood objectives for each mentoring relationship

Performance Criteria

Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

1.1 There is a published and readily available statement of programme purpose

(a) Is there a statement of purpose?

(b) Is it clearly understandable?

(c) Is it easily accessible?

(d) Do participants know what the purpose of the programme is?

Documentation:— published information guide

(hard copy; website)— information day

slides/handouts;— newsletters/other marketing

materials

Interviews:— participants, co-ordinator, other

stakeholders (e.g. sponsor, line managers, steering group, trade union rep, champions, other third parties)

Appendices D, F refer


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

1.5 There is a published and readily available statement of values. Mentoring is clearly defined and terms of reference are understood by all participants.

(a) Is there a statement?

(b) Is it clearly understandable?

(c) Is it easily accessible?

(d) Do participants know what the values are?

(e) Do participants think the values are relevant?




materials


stakeholders (e.g. sponsor, line managers, steering group, trade union rep, champions, other third parties)

Appendix A refers

13


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

1.10 Stakeholders are engaged in discussion about the meaning and implication of the programme purpose and values; and have an opportunity to influence these.

(a) Was there genuine dialogue?

(b) Were suggestions from stakeholders encouraged? Considered? Used?

—


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

1.12 Where appropriate, the programme purpose is linked clearly to: the overall objectives of the organisation, under whose auspices the programme takes place; and/or achieving change in the organisation.

Is it clear:

(a) What changes/behaviours the organisation wishes to encourage?

(b) What the business priorities are and how mentoring can support them?

(c) Are participants aware of this?

Documentation:— published information

guide (hard copy; website)

— information day slides/handouts;

— newsletters/other marketing materials;

— Sponsor/steering group talks at training workshops;

— programme management reports

Interviews:— participants, co-

ordinator, other stakeholders (e.g. sponsor, line managers, steering/advisory group, trade union rep, champions, other third parties)

14


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

1.15 Each mentoring pair is encouraged to establish learning and/or other goals from the relationship; their goals may extend beyond organisational goals; there is a process to monitor whether this has been done

(a) Is there documentation or training input to encourage goal setting?

(b) Has the co-ordinator checked that people have set goals?

(c) Has action been taken to assist any pairs, which have not discussed learning goals?

(d) Is the monitoring process recorded?

Documentation:— information day

agenda/slides/handouts— training programme

content/participant guide— organisational mentoring

guidelines— mentoring contracts— item on participant 3-6 month

questionnaire— outcomes of above question— e-mail/other correspondence

(co-ordinator participants)— database outputs/records

Interviews:— participants, co-ordinator

Appendices B, C, M, N refer


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

1.19 Both mentors and mentees have clear and complementary expectations from the programme and from their relationship

(a) Have mentors and mentees explored expectations generally in training sessions?

(b) Have they discussed these issues within the relationship?

(c) How does the co-ordinator know that this has happened?

(d) Have mentors and mentees agreed when and how they will measure progress against the relationship goals?




guidelines— mentoring contracts— items on participant 3-6

month questionnaire— outcomes of above

questions— e-mail correspondence (co-

ordinator participants)— database outputs/records


Appendices B, C, M, N refer

15


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

1.23 The target audience(s) for the programme is clearly defined

(a) Have all stakeholders been issued with a statement that defines the target audience?

(b) Is it clear who is included/excluded in this definition?

(c) Has due consideration been given to the impact on people not included?

(d) Is there a rational and fair explanation for why this group has been selected?

(e) Is there both a business and ethical case for this selection?

(f) Has there been discussion about demographics and different needs within the target group and how this might affect mentoring relationships differently?



slides/handouts;— newsletters/flyers/other

marketing materials— meeting outputs— training materials— e-mail/other correspondence

Interviews:— participants— co-ordinator— senior management— other stakeholders (e.g.

sponsor, line managers, steering/advisory group, trade union rep, champions, other third parties)

Appendix E refers

16


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

1.29 There is a process to test both programme and, where appropriate, individual goals against reality

(a) Do all participants have learning logs?

(b) Does the training programme help them set and work towards relationship goals?

(c) Has top management publicly endorsed the programme?

(d) Do participants and line managers believe the programme goals are realistic?

(e) Do participants believe their personal goals for the relationship are realistic?

Documentation:— common access to pro-

forma documents— training includes goal

setting and goal tracking techniques

— items on participant 3-6 month questionnaire

— outcomes of above questions

— database outputs/records— sponsor/top management

communication— focus group feedback

Interviews:— participants, co-ordinator,

senior management, other stakeholders (e.g. sponsor, line managers, steering/advisory group, trade union rep, champions, other third parties)

Appendices B, E, J, N refer


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

1.34 Participants understand clearly why mentoring is an appropriate process for achieving the programme and relationship purposes

(a) Is there appropriate documentation, detailing the benefits to all stakeholders, including the organisation?

(b) Do all participants have copies (or access to copies on a website)?

(c) Has this issue been discussed during training?

(d) Has top management reinforced this message?




— newsletters/other marketing materials

— training content includes discussion of benefits; output flips

— sponsor/senior management communications


other stakeholders (e.g. sponsor, line managers, steering group, trade union rep, champions, other third parties)

Appendices B, E, F refer

17

Stakeholder training and briefing

Participants and stakeholders understand the concept of mentoring and their respective roles

Participants are aware of the skills and behaviours they need to apply in their roles as mentors and mentees; and have an opportunity to identify skills gaps

Learning support is available throughout the first 12 months of their involvement in the programme

Performance Criteria Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.1. Participation in a process to learn the basics of mentoring is a non-negotiable condition of taking part in the mentoring programme, for both mentors and mentees

(a) Is there a policy to require all mentors and mentees to attend training?

(b) Is this policy rigorously enforced? (i.e. are there some matches made with participants who have not been trained?)

Documentation:— operating principles/policy;

published info guide— training attendee lists— database outputs/records


Appendices E, L, M refer

18


Evidence

2.2 There is a clear and well-founded conceptual framework to explain mentoring functions and behaviours.

(a) Does the training material use and explain a behavioural model?

(b) Does it relate mentoring activity to a broader developmental context?

(c) Is the level of explanation appropriate for the audience?

(d) Do participants understand the model?

(e) Are they able to use it as a practical baseline for their role as mentor or mentee?

Documentation:— training participant materials— training ‘happy sheets’— information day slides/handouts;— newsletters/other marketing

materials— participant

application/registration/— preparation forms


(trainer)

Appendices B, F refer


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.3 Participants obtain a clear distinction between mentoring and other forms of help and learning(e.g. coaching, counselling, tutoring)

(a) Does the training material provide succinct and easily grasped distinctions?

(b) Do participants have an opportunity to discuss and internalise those distinctions?

(c) Are the boundaries between the different forms of “helping to learn” clear?

(d) Are the commonalities between the different forms of “helping to learn” clear?

Documentation:— training materials clarify the

distinction— published information guide



materials


(trainer)


19

2.7 There is a clear and well-founded framework of competencies for mentors and mentees, upon which the training is based

(a) Is there a competency base at all?

(b) Is it a proper framework, or simply a list of skills?

(c) Is it supported by research?

(d) Is it clear why these skills/ competencies are important for a mentor?

(e) Do participants have an opportunity to discuss these?

Documentation:— training materials explain

competencies— training agenda includes

opportunities to discuss competencies


— newsletters/other marketing materials


(trainer)



Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.12 There are opportunities to reflect on personal experience and to build self-awareness

(a) Does the training process allow people time to reflect?

(b) Are they asked to do some reflective thinking before they attend?

(c) Does the training have appropriate exercises to encourage reflection?

(The latter question is applicable particularly to e-learning resources.)

Documentation:— joining instructions— training agenda provides

reflective opportunities— registration/matching/

application forms


(trainer)

Appendices B, G refer

20


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.15 Appropriate diagnostic instruments are applied to build understanding of self and each other

(a) Does the training use any diagnostic instruments?

(b) Is the purpose of these clearly explained?

(c) Do participants see the relevance of them?

(d) Is there time/space to discuss the implications of the scores for each individual?

(e) Are the diagnostics general behavioural/developmental; or do they also include some that are specifically designed for mentoring?

(f) Do participants find them useful in defining their aptitudes as mentors/mentees?

Documentation:— training agenda and materials

includes reference to diagnostics as appropriate

— diagnostic tools included in pre-work, e.g. learning styles, team roles


(trainer)

Appendix O refers

21


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.21 The training deals in depth with issues of confidentiality and ethicality

(a) Are the topics covered at all?

(b) Is there any opportunity to discuss the implications?

(c) Are participants’ concerns adequately brought into the open?

(d) Is reference made to appropriate Codes of Conduct and are these available to participants?

(e) Do participants feel this aspect of the relationship has been dealt with adequately?

(f) Are there remaining concerns about confidentiality?

Documentation:— training materials and agenda

include discussion of ethics/confidentiality

— Codes of Conduct available to all; published on website

— mentoring agreement/contract— operating principles/policy— training ‘happy sheets’— confidential advisor available to

participants


(trainer)

Appendices A, B, C refer


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.27 The training deals in depth with issues of relationship management

(a) Do participants have an opportunity to discuss good practice in managing the mentoring relationship?

(b) Are there clear guidelines in the support materials?

(c) Are roles and responsibilities of both parties clear?

(d) Are mentees clear about the need for them gradually to take more control of the mentoring discussions?

Documentation:— training materials and agenda

include roles/ responsibilities— focus group opportunities

available – scheduled dates/attendees

— items on participant 3-6 month questionnaire

— outcomes of above questions


(trainer)

Appendices E, B, N refer

22


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.31 There is opportunity to practise the skills of being an effective mentor /mentee and/or evidence of prior competence in the role

(a) Is there sufficient practice time to put learning into practice during the training process?

(b) Does each pair have an opportunity to reflect upon and discuss the learning they have gained from the practice?

(c) Do practising pairs receive feedback from an observer?

(d) Do experienced mentors have an opportunity to refresh/ enhance their skills?

Documentation:— training agenda includes practice

opportunities— participant application - history— on-going training/development

opportunities provided – schedule/attendee lists

Interviews:— participants, co-ordinator, (trainer)

Appendix B refers

23


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.35 Other stakeholders (such as line managers, teachers, parents) are informed about the programme, are aware of how it can benefit them, and have an opportunity to discuss how they can provide appropriate support

(a) Are there appropriate methods to brief other stakeholders about the programme?

(b) Are they aware of how they can help?

(c) Is there a source of training/more extensive briefing that will enhance their ability to support the mentoring relationship? (Some organisations invite line managers to the mentor training, for example.)

(d) Do mentees feel their line managers and/or work colleagues are aware of the aims of the mentoring programme and supportive towards them?

Documentation:— published information guide (hard

copy; website)— education/briefing session

slides/handouts/flips— attendee lists for above— correspondence/other materials


stakeholders (e.g. line managers, steering/advisory group, trade union rep, champions, other third parties)

Appendices E, H refer

24


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.39 The training design is appropriate for the cultural environment in which the programme takes place

(a) Have cultural differences been taken into account in designing the programme?

(b) Has there been input into the design from people with different backgrounds, within the mentee and mentor groups?

(c) If there is a steering group, how representative is it of the diversity of participants?

(d) Do the co-ordinators demonstrate an adequate understanding of cultural difference and its impact on relationships?

Documentation:— participant feedback clearly

linked to training design changes

— steering group composition


(trainer)


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.43 Time is allocated to the initial training process, to allow participants to begin the relationship with confidence and with an awareness of the behaviours required of them

(a) Do participants feel they have had sufficient training time to get started?

(b) Are participants able to give feedback at the end of the initial training as to how well prepared they feel?

(c) Are they aware of continuing support available to them, as they grow into the role of mentor/mentee?

(d) Do they feel they have a broad understanding of what they have to do, even if they still need practice?

Documentation:— training agenda includes

practice opportunities— training ‘happy sheets’

include confidence/ commitment measure


(trainer)

Appendix B refers

25


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.47 Training and/or learning extends beyond the initial awareness raising event; mentors in particular have opportunity to reflect upon and discuss learning as they experience the relationship

(a) Is there provision for mentors at least (preferably both mentors & mentees) to:a. Talk over

difficulties they are having with the role?

b. Acquire additional mentoring skills and techniques over the first 12 months after initial training?

c. Share their learning about mentoring with peers?

d. Maintain and gain feedback on learning logs?

Documentation:— on-going training/development

opportunities provided – agendas/schedules/attendee lists

— focus group/action learning set schedule and attendee logs

— confidential advisor available to participants

— e-mail/other correspondence


(trainer)

Appendix L refers


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.51 Trainers (a) have prior experience as or exposure to the role of mentors/ mentees in their own right (b) have a knowledge of mentoring beyond the immediate require-ments of the training workshops and (c) have a wider knowledge of develop-mental dynamics

(a) Are they currently in at least one mentoring relationship?

(b) Are they able to give practical examples, from their own or other people’s experience, of issues that commonly arise within mentoring relationships?

(c) Have they read around the subject?

(d) Have they read more widely around developmental dynamics? (e.g. learning styles, double-loop learning, coaching, counselling)?

(e) Do participants feel the trainers are knowledgeable on the topic?

(f) Have trainers had at least one experience as a mentor/mentee?

Documentation:— trainer CV/biography— trainer questionnaire

Interviews:

— participants, co-ordinator, (trainer)

Appendix K refers

26


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.57 There is a process to counsel would-be mentors, who demonstrate a lack of core skills/behaviours during training

(a) Is there a written policy/set of procedures?

(b) Is it used?

(c) Does the procedure include:

a. a process to make the mentor aware of the problem?

b. a process to provide additional counselling/coaching?

c. a process to allow him/her to withdraw gracefully and positively from the programme if s/he is unwilling/unable to perform the role effectively?

Documentation:— mentoring policy/operating

principles— guidelines for co-ordinators— information day

slides/handouts— FAQs document (hard

copy/website)


Appendix L Refers


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.62 Participants and stakeholders are able to influence the conduct and content of future training/ briefings

(a) Are there further opportunities to enhance mentor/mentee skills?

(b) Are mentors and mentees consulted about the style and content of these?

Documentation:— on-going

training/development opportunities provided – agendas/schedules/attendee lists

— focus group notes and actions

— participant evaluation/feedback requests; clear links to training design changes


(trainer)

27


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.64 The quality of training is assessed at the point of delivery and changes made to future training programmes as appropriate

(a) Is an evaluation sheet completed after each training event?

(b) Is the data from this aggregated and shared with:a. Participants

b. Senior managers

c. Steering group (if applicable)?

(c) Has the data been used to make improvements in the training content/approach?

Documentation:— ‘happy sheet’

roll-ups/summaries— programme management

reports/ correspondence, indicating outcomes and improvements identified


other stakeholders (e.g. sponsor, line managers, steering/advisory group, trade union rep, champions, other third parties)


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

2.69 There is provision for further learning about mentoring outside of the formal training process

(a) What materials are available to help participants further their learning?

(b) What additional support is provided to them?

Documentation:— availability of additional

materials (books, e-learning, videos etc.)

— availability/use of additional support

— information guide (hard copy or website)

— sponsorship for studying mentoring qualifications


Appendices E, F refer

28

Processes for selection and matching

Mentors are selected to meet the specific needs of mentees Both mentors and mentees have an influence on whether they

participate and who they agree to pair with The experience gap permits significant learning by the mentee There is a process for recognising and unwinding matches that do not

work; and for reassigning the participants, if they wish


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

3.1 There are clear criteria for participation and/or selection of mentors and mentees

(a) Is there a clear definition of the experience and other characteristics expected of the mentors and mentees?

(b) Is it clear which characteristics are essential and which “nice to have”?

(c) Are participants clear why they have been selected (volunteered)?


(hard copy; website)— information day slides/handouts;— training materials— e-mail/other correspondence


Appendix F refers


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

3.4 Participation is voluntary, even where the programme is targeted at specific groups

(a) Is there a clear statement of the voluntary nature of the programme?

(b) Are participants required to give their consent in writing?

(c) Do participants perceive that they are genuinely volunteers


(hard copy; website)— information day slides/handouts;— application/registration forms— written agreement to becoming a

participant, e.g. letter, e-mail, documented tel conversation


Appendices E, M refer

29


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

3.7 There is a consistent process for identifying mentees’ needs and comparing these to mentor characteristics

(a) Is appropriate information collected about the background and interests of both mentors and mentees?

(b) Is appropriate information collected about their learning goals? (Both mentor and mentee)

(c) Is there a consistent process for comparing wants and needs?

(d) Has there been an input into this process from participants?

Documentation:— participant

registration/application/matching forms

— published matching process— information guide (hard copy or

website)— database

Interviews:— co-ordinator, participants

Appendices E, F, G, L refer

30


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

3.11 Participants have a say in who they are matched with wherever possible

(a) Is there a procedure to ensure participants’ wishes are taken into account?

(b) Do participants (both mentors and mentees) feel they had an opportunity to turn down matches they did not feel comfortable with?

(c) Does the process allow for people to exercise preferences for same sex/ same race mentoring partners?(Ideally, mentees should have a choice of mentors.)

(d) Is there a record of agreement to the choice?

Documentation:— participant application/matching

forms— published matching process— FAQs published in hard copy/on

website— information guide (hard copy or

website)— database— evaluation questionnaire item

and outcomes— written confirmation that pairing

is acceptable e.g. e-mail, record of face to face/telephone conversation, feedback from participant

Interviews:— co-ordinator, participants

Appendices E, G, M, L, N refer

31


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

3.15 Mentors and mentees are aware of the “no-fault divorce” arrangements available to them

(a) Is there a clear “no fault divorce” process?

(b) Do participants receive guidance on what to do if the relationship does not appear to be working?

(c) Do they feel free to discuss openly with the other party in the relationship, how the relationship is progressing?

(d) Do they feel they are under no pressure to try to make an unsuitable relationship work?

(e) Do they know what to do if they are unhappy with the relationship?




guidelines— mentoring contracts— FAQs published in hard

copy/on website— item on participant 3-6 month

questionnaire— outcomes of above question— e-mail/other correspondence

(co-ordinator-participants)— database outputs/records


Appendices B, E, L, N refer


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

3.20 The success of matching processes is reviewed regularly to enable repairing or additional support where necessary

(a) Is there a process to check with each mentor and mentee within the first three months and subsequently?

(b) Is there a process to re-match?

(c) When re-matching occurs, do participants have an opportunity to influence the choice?

Documentation:— e-mail correspondence (co-

ordinator-participants)— FAQs published in hard

copy/on website— database outputs/records— questionnaire items and

outcomes


Appendices E, L, M refer

32


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

3.23 People, who have requested to be mentors/mentees, but are not selected, receive appropriate feedback

(a) Is there a clear policy about this?

(b) Is there a clear procedure to keep them informed?

(c) If mentors are deemed unsuitable, do they receive open and honest feedback about why they have not been selected?

(d) Is such feedback supported by appropriate counselling?

(e) Are they offered help in developing their abilities as developers (e.g. become a mentee themselves, attend further courses)?

Documentation:— mentoring policy/operating

principles— guidelines for co-ordinators— notes/correspondence re

feedback given— FAQs document (hard

copy/website)


Appendix L refers

33


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

3.28 The experience gap permits significant learning by the mentee (NB this does not necessarily imply a status differential – peer mentors may have equal, but dissimilar, experiences and therefore a high experience gap)

(a) Is the experience gap considered as a key element of the matching process?

(b) Is there a procedure for assessing the gap in each case?

(c) Is it appropriate to the confidence levels and learning needs of the mentees?

(d) Is the hierarchical gap (if any) appropriate to permit free dialogue?

Documentation:— published matching process

broadly assesses the mentee’s learning need and the mentor’s relevant experience

— information guide (hard copy or website)

— database


Appendix F refers

34

Effective processes for measurement and review

The programme is measured sufficiently frequently and appropriately to: Identify problems with individual relationships Make timely adjustments to programme processes Provide a meaningful cost-benefit analysis and impact analysis


Evidence

4.1 Measurements are based upon the goals defined in the programme purpose and programme values; and upon the goals defined within the individual pairings

(a) Have clear measures been established before matching begins?

(b) Are these measures clearly based upon programme goals?

(c) Has there been an input into those measures by the relevant stakeholders?

(d) Do programme sponsors feel that these measures are appropriate and useful?

(e) Are participants aware of how the success of the programme will be evaluated?

(f) Are participants aware of the need to set relationship goals?

(g) Are they clear about how to do so?

(h) Have they done so?

Documentation:— information guide— FAQs published in hard

copy/on website— training agenda/content— meeting

notes/correspondence— evaluation questionnaire

items and outcomes


other stakeholders (e.g. sponsor, line managers, steering group/ champions, other third parties)

Appendices B, N refer

35


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

4.9 Mentors and mentees receive clear feedback from each other on their performance in the role

(a) Do participants understand the importance of getting and giving each other feedback about how they perform their roles as mentor and mentee?

(b) Do they feel confident about broaching this subject?

(c) Have they done so?

(d) Does the co-ordinator maintain a record to check that each relationship has had such a discussion at least once in the first few meetings?

Documentation:— information guide— mentoring

contracts/agreements— FAQs— training agenda/content— evaluation questionnaire item

and outcomes— administrative records


Appendices B, N, M refer

36


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

4.13 Wherever possible best practice is reviewed and relevant learnings incorporated into the programme

(a) Does the co-ordinator (and where appropriate, the steering group) continue to read about other organisations’ experiences in operating mentoring programmes?

(b) Has there been an exchange of good practice with other programme co-ordinators?

(c) Is there a process for occasional or regular benchmarking activities?

(d) Have any changes been made to the programme as a result of these activities?

Documentation:— records of benchmarking visits— library of articles/relevant

journals— membership of mentoring

network forums— correspondence— internal newsletters/information

updates— programme amendments, e.g.

budget— subsequent open day materials


37


Evidence

4.17 Measurements relate to both processes and outcomes

(a) Do some of the measures address process issues (e.g. whether and how often people meet, how successful the matching process has been)?

(b) Do some of the measures address outcome measures (e.g. what has been achieved as a result of the mentoring process)?

(c) Are at least some of these measures ‘SMART’?

(d) Do stakeholders understand the importance of contributing to this aspect of the measurement process?

Documentation:— evaluation

questionnaires/question sets— administrative records— mentoring meeting record

forms— % relationships

maintained/dissolved— evaluation outputs— satisfaction levels with

programme


stakeholders (e.g. sponsor, line managers, steering group/ champions, other third parties)

Appendix N refers

38


Evidence

4.21 Measurements relate to both the programme and individual relationships (within the bounds of confidentiality)

(a) Do some of the measures assess the impact of the programme upon organisational goals?

(b) Do some assess the achievement of relationship goals?

(c) Does the measurement process capture unexpected as well as expected outcomes?

(d) Are at least some of these measures ‘SMART’?

(e) Is there a policy and process to ensure that data gathered about individual relationships remains confidential? Is this published and participants made aware of it?

(f) Do stakeholders understand the importance of contributing to this aspect of the measurement process?

Documentation:— evaluation

questionnaire/question set items

— administrative records— evaluation outputs


stakeholders (e.g. sponsor, line managers, steering group/ champions, other third parties)

Appendix N refers

39


Evidence

4.27 Review meetings are held to discuss feedback from participants, including line managers

(a) Is there at least one review meeting within the first 12 months?

(b) Is feedback from measurement aggregated and fed back to participants ahead of the review meeting?

(c) Is sufficient time given to discuss this feedback?

(d) Do review sessions also provide an opportunity to provide additional skills/technique training?

Documentation:— diary records— evaluation outputs— meeting agendas,

notes/actions and attendees

— participant logs


stakeholders (e.g. line managers/other third parties)

Appendices M, N refer


Evidence

4.31 Feedback from mentors and mentees is analysed by the co-ordinators to identify recurring themes relevant to the programme or to other development issues within the organisation

(a) Is feedback recorded in a form, from which themes can be extracted?

(b) Is there a process to consider such feedback?

(c) Are there examples of this process working?

(d) Is there a process to raise broader issues (e.g. the quality of appraisals) that emerge from the feedback, with those responsible in the organisation?

Documentation:— evaluation outputs over

mentoring cycle— meeting agendas,

notes/actions and attendees

— sponsor/top management reports

Interviews:— co-ordinator, stakeholders

(e.g. sponsor, HR/ training & development staff)

Appendix N refers

40


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

4.35 Review meetings are held with the programme sponsors

(a) Is there a schedule of review meetings with sponsors?

(b) Do they take place?

(c) Are they minuted?

(d) Do sponsors find them useful?

Documentation:— diary records— meeting agendas, notes/actions

and attendees

Interviews:— co-ordinator, sponsor,

steering/advisory group

Appendix M refers


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

4.39 At appropriate timings, improvements are made to the programme as a result of information received in items 4.1-4.7

(a) Is it clear how the measures will be used to improve the programme?

(b) Is it clear how they will be used to promote confidence in the programme from the various stakeholders?

(c) Has this been the case?

Documentation:— meeting agendas, notes/actions

and attendees— e-mails/other correspondence— newsletters/information updates— subsequent open day materials— updated information guide— revised training materials


stakeholders (e.g. sponsor, line managers, steering/advisory group, trade union rep, champions, other third parties)

41

MAINTAIN HIGH STANDARD OF ETHICS AND PASTORAL CARE

The programme adheres to clear guidelines on the behaviour and responsibilities of all stakeholders

There is a process for recognising and managing conflicts of interest between stakeholders (e.g. between mentees and the organisation)


Evidence

5.1 There is a Code of Conduct for all parties (mentors, mentees, line managers, programme support staff and the organisation in general)

(a) Is there a Code of Conduct for:

a. mentors?b. mentees?c. line managers?d. programme

support staff?

e. the organisation?

(b) Is it clear what the responsibilities of each party are?

(c) Is it published/promoted to all parties?

(d) Has it been benchmarked against other Codes available?



— distribution lists— copies of Codes— training and briefing

agendas/contents— mentoring

contracts/agreements— benchmarking

records/articles/examples


ordinator, sponsor/top management, line managers, steering group

Appendices A, E refer


Evidence

5.5 The Code of Conduct is understood by and discussed with all stakeholders

(a) Do participants know and understand the Code, as it applies to them?

(b) Is it reviewed within mentor and mentee training?

(c) Are participants given practical examples, to illustrate how the Code works?

Documentation:— training and briefing

agendas/contents— training/briefing

attendance logs— mentoring

contracts/agreements


ordinator, sponsor/top management, line managers, steering group

Appendices A, B refer

42


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

5.8 Performance against the Code of Conduct is monitored

(a) Do participants know whom to contact, if they feel the Code is being (or may be) breached?

(b) Are the provisions of the Code reinforced at group review sessions?

(c) Are actual/potential breaches recorded?

(d) Is there a process to add to/amend the Code in the light of experience?

Documentation:— published process/info

guide (hard copy; website)— review meeting

agendas/contents— administrative records— steering/advisory group

meeting records— publication of updated

Code(s)


sponsor/top management, line managers, steering group

Appendices L, M refer

5.12 There is a process for dealing with breaches of the Code of Conduct

Are there clear procedures for:

(a) investigating any apparent breach of the Code?

(b) counselling all parties involved?

(c) extracting lessons from the case?


guide (hard copy; website)— administrative records— counselling meeting

records— publication of updated

Code(s)



5.15 Participants understand clearly the hierarchy of interests (mentee, mentoring pair, organisation) and have discussed the implications for managing relationships and the programme

(a) Is there a process for stakeholders to ask for advice about the Code and how it should be applied?

(b) Are participants aware of the hierarchy of interests?

(c) Do they feel it is adhered to?


guide (hard copy; website)— evaluation questionnaire

item and outcome— review meeting

agendas/notes


stakeholders

43

Administration and support

Participants have adequate support throughout the formal programme and, where appropriate beyond

The programme is managed professionally


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

6.1 The programme co-ordinator and other support staff have a clear, written, description of their roles and responsibilities and are assessed against them

(a) Are there clear, written job descriptions for each of the roles?

(b) Have they been agreed with the programme sponsors?

(c) Do the job descriptions clearly define the responsibilities of each role?

(d) Is there a clear description of the resources available to fulfil those responsibilities?

Documentation:— written job description/roles

& responsibilities— sponsor meeting

agenda/notes— programme resourcing

plan (people, ££)


sponsor/top management, steering/advisory group

44


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

6.5 A central database is maintained to track the overall progress and outcomes of relationships

(a) Is there a database?

(b) Is it up-to-date and well-maintained?

(c) Does it allow the co-ordinator to make judgements about the effectiveness of individual mentors, over the course of several relationships?

(d) Does it allow the mentor to extract data, useful for programme management?

Documentation:— sample of record keeping

method/reports— schedule of

updates/programme reviews

— co-ordinator programme management notes/ actions (confidential)


Appendix M refers


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

6.3 Participants are encouraged to maintain personal learning logs

(a) Are participants given a template for a learning log?

(b) Are both mentors and mentees encouraged to use a learning log?

(c) Is the design of the logs suitable for evidence of learning in an accreditation process? (i.e. does it demonstrate acquisition of skills and knowledge, along with reflection on learning?)

Documentation:— pro-forma documents— training agenda/contents— evaluation questionnaire

item and output— demonstrated use in

accreditation processes


Appendix J refers

45


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

6.4 There is a budget and a financial administration process where appropriate

(a) Is there a budget?

(b) Is there a process to oversee how the budget is spent and record expenditure against budget?

(c) Is this budget used to measure return on investment from the mentoring programme?

Documentation:— co-ordinator role and

responsibilities document— draft budget— sponsor meeting

agenda/notes— agreed budget— budget management

process and records— sponsor/top management

programme reports

Interviews:— co-ordinator, sponsor/top

management, steering/advisory group

Appendices L, M refers

46


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

6.7 The mentoring process is clearly linked to other develop-ment activities, where appropriate (e.g. appraisal, personal develop-ment planning or a process of continual personal develop-ment)

(a) Is there a clear statement of how mentoring links with other developmental and/or performance management processes?

(b) Is there a process to liaise with those responsible for each of those activities?

(c) Is there a process to ensure data from these sources is available for use in the mentoring relationship? (e.g. is appraisal data clear enough for the mentee to explore the implications with his/her mentor?)

(d) Are mentees encouraged to use feedback gathered from other developmental/performance management activities in their mentoring discussions?

(e) Is there a process to ensure that effective mentors are recognised for their role? (e.g. is it taken into account in their own performance review?)


guide (hard copy; website) showing cross-references

— meeting attendees, agendas, notes

— e-mail/other correspondence

— evaluation questionnaire items and outputs


sponsor/top management, steering/advisory group, line managers, HR

Appendices E, B refer

47


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

6.12 There are processes to remind participants of responsib-ilities at key points in the relationship (e.g. initial “are we suited?” review; winding up)

(a) Is there a schedule of communications to support participants and “nudge” them into good practice?

(b) Are there opportunities for mentors to share concerns, experiences and learning with each other?

(c) Are there opportunities for mentees to share concerns, experiences and learning with each other?

Documentation:— administrative records— e-mail/other

correspondence— group meeting

attendees/agendas/actions




Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

6.15 There is a practical and accessible support resource for participants to seek advice on the conduct of their relationship

(a) Do they know who to go to for advice about the relationship?

(b) Do they feel comfortable about using this resource?

(c) Have the persons taking on this referral role been trained appropriately?


(hard copy; website)— training agendas/content— e-mail/other

correspondence— evaluation questionnaire

items and outputs— training records— referral network listing


Appendices E, M, N refer

48


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

6.18 There is a clear and accessible process to assist participants in dealing with issues, which fall outside the remit of the relationship (e.g. an Employee Assistance Program-me)

(a) Do participants feel the boundaries are clear?

(b) Do they know where to go to for help in dealing with issues such as stress management, or financial counselling?

(c) Is there written guidance on this topic?

Documentation:— published information (hard

copy; website)— training agendas/content— e-mail/other

correspondence— evaluation questionnaire

items and outputs— referral network listing— internal company

information e.g. stress help line


HR

Appendices E, M, N refer


Questions Ready?Y/N

Evidence

6.21 There is a docu-mented quality control process

(a) Is there a process chart for the overall mentoring programme?

(b) Does the steering group (if there is one) regularly review performance of the programme with a view to making process improvements?

Documentation:— process/project

management plan— meeting attendees,

agendas, notes— e-mail/other

correspondence


sponsor/steering grp.

Appendix L refers

49

General notes

Presentation of Information

Applicants and assessors find it helpful to use a spreadsheet for tracking the type of evidence provided for each sub-clause of a standard.

It is helpful to mark up particular pages of large documents according to the Standard/sub-clause being referred to.

Ensure you adhere to local data privacy and other confidentiality conventions applicable in the country in which the programme operates.

Sample Sizes for Participants in the Formal Assessment

Wherever possible samples should be equal numbers of mentors and mentees, preferably matched pairs.

As a general guideline:o programmes with under 10 pairs, 50% of participants will be

interviewedo programmes with 11-20 pairs, 30% o programmes with 21-40 pairs, 20% o programmes with 41 -100, 10%o programmes with 100+ pairs, 10% for the first 100 and 2% for

each further 50.

50

Appendices

The following pages give some suggestions for what you might consider/include in various aspects of your mentoring programme:

A Suggested areas for inclusion in a Code of Conduct/Policy H Content for educating/briefing

third parties

B Elements for possible inclusion in mentoring training J Contents for a learning log

C Contents for a mentoring contract K Questions to ask a trainer/consultant

D Examples of scheme purposes and objectives L Suggested processes and

procedures

E Contents for a mentoring information guide/website M Headings for an administrative

databaseF Reading N Areas for evaluation

G Contents for a matching/application form O Examples of diagnostic tools

51

APPENDIX A

Suggested Areas for Inclusion in Codes of Conduct/Operating Principles/Policies

A Code of Conduct/Practice sets out general statements about how the Values established for a mentoring programme will be demonstrated in practice.

ORGANISATIONAL PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR / MANAGER

Provision of a statement of purpose Project managementDiversity Responsibilities to participantsConfidentiality (and breaches of) Confidentiality of informationContext (particularly regarding performance management)

Participant feedback

Expectation of feedback Establishment of clear roles/responsibilities for participants

Support to be provided Provision of resourcesRole of the line manager Provision of supportProvision of mentors MeasurementVoluntary participation Smooth runningAbility to choose mentors Administrative processes (including

financial)Ability to decline/withdraw Flow of information to

sponsor/support groupsQuality assurance Quality processContinuous improvement Continuous improvement

RELATIONSHIP LINE MANAGERSConfidentiality RoleDuty of care InterferenceRole of mentor and of mentee Supporting the employee/mentoring

programmeSituation regarding third parties (peers, line managers)

Confidentiality

Voluntary nature Abdication of responsibilitiesAbility to decline/withdrawConsideration of mentor’s guidance without obligationExpectations of boundaries NB VALUESFeedback and review process Generally these will reflect

organisational values, particularlyConclusion those referring to people

development and making employeesDependency feel valued.

52

APPENDIX B

Elements for Possible Inclusion in Mentoring Training (alphabetical)

Benefits of mentoringConfidentialityDefinition of mentoring vs other types of learning (e.g. coaching, supervision)Diagnostic toolsEthical behaviour/dilemmasExpectations of the relationshipHow mentoring worksLearning logsManaging meetingsMatching process and criteriaMentor helping rolesMentor/mentee competenciesMentoring contracts/agreements, boundariesMentoring goals/objectives and processOn-going developmentOrganisational context for mentoringPotential discussion topicsPractice opportunities (skills and/or goal setting)Programme purpose, aims and objectives/goalsProgramme evaluation process (including evaluation of training sessions)Relationship breakdownsRelationship review and feedbackRoles and responsibilities (participants, co-ordinator/programme manager, line manager, support/steering group etc.)Sources of help and supportValues/Code(s) of Conduct

53

APPENDIX C

Possible Contents for a Mentoring Contract

Commitment

Confidentiality

Ethical behaviour

Expectations of the relationship

Meeting process - schedule/timings etc.

Mentor/mentee roles and responsibilities

Mentoring objectives/learning goals

Relationship review and feedback

Reviewing learning goals

Time commitments

Boundaries

54

APPENDIX D

Examples of Scheme Purposes/Objectives

Purpose To encourage a more proactive approach to learning and move further

towards becoming a learning organisation. To enable individuals to be more self-reliant through improved career

and personal/professional development that would encourage them actively to take responsibility for their actions.

To help returners to work to be more self-assured and ready to come back.

To support the new appraisal process. To support the development of people who have the potential and

motivation to progress in the organisation. To provide developmental support to participants on graduate,

executive and senior development programmes. To raise awareness of career progression opportunities. To support the progression of black and minority ethnic and disabled

employees into management roles. To encourage the formation of a community within the organisation that

facilitates skill and personal development. To facilitate the NVQ learning process. To support personal growth and development. To improve employees’ confidence, self reliance and realise their

potential. To contribute to the community and build local relationships. To induce culture change by influencing organisational policies and

practices as well as individual behaviour.

Objectives To be at least three points below the employee turnover rate of our

best competitor. 95% of relationships will be maintained over the lifecycle. Participants from ethnic minorities will be as positive as other

employees about the career opportunities open to them. At least 80% of mentees will wish to become mentors and 90% of

mentors will stay in the scheme for the next cycle. At least 90% of mentees will report significant improvements in

personal performance or relationships with colleagues. At least 50% of any performance improvement can be directly

attributed to participating in the mentoring programme vs a control group.

55

APPENDIX E

Suggested Contents for a Mentoring Information Guide, Handbook and Website

What is Mentoring? Definition, background

What help is available? Programme

Co-ordinator/Manager Steering group Specialist help Learning centre/e-learning

resources References/reading

Why have it? Who is it for? Purpose (linked to business

objectives) Programme objectives, success

criteria Where it fits in with other

development/ performance management

Benefits Target audience

How to be involved Application form Mentor/mentee

characteristics/criteria Timetable Contact details

What gets discussed?

What do I do? – roles and responsibilities Mentor(s) Mentee Line Manager Good practice Boundaries Meeting management guidelines

How it works in this Organisation Top management commitment Values, Code(s) of Conduct Training

56

APPENDIX F

Reading

THE ART OF MENTORING, Mike Pegg, Management Books 2000 Ltd., 1999EVERYONE NEEDS A MENTOR (4th edn), David Clutterbuck, CIPD 2004IMPLEMENTING MENTORING SCHEMES, Klasen & Clutterbuck, Butterworth-Heinemann 2002MANAGING BEST PRACTICE: MENTORING, Patrick Burns & Georgina Tate (eds), Industrial Society 1995THE MANAGER AS COACH AND MENTOR, (2nd edn) Eric Parsloe, CIPD 1999MENTORING AND DIVERSITY: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE, David Clutterbuck & Belle Rose Ragins, Butterworth-Heinemann 2002MENTORING EXECUTIVES & DIRECTORS, Clutterbuck & Megginson, Butterworth-Heinemann 1999MENTORING: A HENLEY REVIEW OF BEST PRACTICE, Jane Cranwell-Ward, Patricia Bossons, Sue Gover, Palgrave Macmillan 2004THE MENTORING POCKETBOOK, Geof Alred, Bob Garvey & Richard Smith, Management Pocketbooks Ltd. 2000MENTORING STUDENTS AND YOUNG PEOPLE, Andrew Miller, Kogan Page 2004MENTORING AT WORK, Kathy Kram, Addison Wesley 1985TECHNIQUES FOR COACHING AND MENTORING, Megginson & Clutterbuck, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann 2005.

The list above is by no means exhaustive, but represents a good cross-section of approaches and information about mentoring schemes.Where this document refers to Appendix F in the ‘Evidence’ column, the matrix below cross-references a sample of specific books in which you can find further information on the subject.

Standard Content Book 1

Book 2

Book 3

Book 5

Book 8

Book 12

1.1 Purpose/objectives x x1.9 Benefits of mentoring x x x2.2 Conceptual framework for

mentoringx x x

2.3 Distinction between mentoring and other learning

x x x x

2.4 Mentor/mentee characteristics

x x x x x

3.1 Mentor/mentee competencies

x x x x x x

3.3 Matching process x x x3.8 Experience/hierarchy gap x

57

APPENDIX G

Possible Contents for Application/Matching Forms

MENTORS

Name Job Role Location Address Telephone/mobile E-mail Normal working hours / work

travel patterns Gender Ethnicity

MENTEES

Name Job Role Location Address Telephone/mobile E-mail Normal working hours / work

travel patterns Gender Ethnicity

Work experience and background

Tenure in current role Education/qualifications Prior experience of mentoring What I could offer to a colleague:

personal skills, abilities, style … Significant learning experiences Current development focus What I think I could gain by being

a mentor My interests

Work experience and background

Tenure in current role Education/qualifications Learning & development

undertaken in past 2 yrs Career aspirations short/long

term What I would like to gain from a

mentoring relationship My interests Any other information which you

feel may be of use in matching, e.g. learning style, MBTI, Belbin team role.

Other information Work travel patterns Learning style, MBTI, Belbin

team role, etc. Any other information which you

feel may be of use in matching

Mentee preferences for matching (no guarantees)

Same geographical area Same professional background

Same gender Same ethnicity

Line Manager signature to support mentee’s participation in the mentoring programme.

58

APPENDIX H

Suggested Topics for ‘Educating’/Briefing Third Parties (alphabetical)

Benefits of mentoring to line manager/third party Confidentiality Definition of mentoring vs other types of learning (e.g. coaching) How mentoring works How to get involved Matching process Mentor helping roles Mentoring contracts/agreements Mentoring purpose and objectives On-going development Organisational context for mentoring Potential discussion items Programme evaluation process Roles and responsibilities (line manager/third party, participants, co-

ordinator, support/steering group etc.) Scheme purpose, aims and objectives Values/Code(s) of Conduct

59

APPENDIX J

Contents for a Learning Log

Actions to be undertaken Successes Challenges Situations encountered, actions taken, outcomes Learning achieved through above (re self, others, the organisation,

professional) Unexpected learning Items for further reflection Progress towards career/development goals Progress towards mentoring goals

60

APPENDIX K

Suggested Questioning Areas for Trainers / External Consultants

Experience of: training and development generally running a mentoring programme being a mentor being a mentee diagnostic tools issues that can arise in mentoring relationships

Differentiation between mentoring and coachingRecent developments in the field of mentoringSuggestions for reading/other information sourcesAccreditation/qualificationsCurrent activities in terms of continuing professional development

61

APPENDIX L

Suggested Processes/Procedures (alphabetical)See also Appendix A

Application/recruitment Benchmarking Best practice sharing Breaches of confidentiality Budget/resourcing process Code of Conduct violations Communication (participants, stakeholders, organisation) Continuous improvement of the mentoring programme and its elements Dealing with unsuccessful or unsuitable mentors/mentees Establishing parameters for mentoring (values, codes, purpose,

objectives) Help for mentees – support processes/procedures (e.g. contact names,

helplines, action learning sets, chat rooms etc.) Help for mentors – support processes/procedures (e.g. contact names,

helplines, action learning sets, chat rooms etc.) Matching process Programme management/administration Recognition for mentors Relationship checks Re-matching process Reporting programme progress and outcomes Review and evaluation Training and development (e.g. mandatory initial training, on-going

development, sharing best practice, focus groups etc.)

62

APPENDIX M

Headings for an Administrative Database

A database should be maintained in accordance with local data privacy and any other confidentiality conventions.

Participants Training BudgetMentor or Mentee Date Research/benchmarkingSurname Type of Training (initial, on-going) Marketing/publicityFirst name Attendees Briefings/open daysRole Trainer/Facilitator MeetingsLocation Duration Survey/Diagnostic ToolsAddress Venue IT – systems developmentTel Costs (venue, equipment, manuals, WebsiteE-mail accommodation, refreshments) Training venues/equipment/

refreshmentsFax Trainer/facilitatorMobile Review/evaluationLine Manager Travel/accommodationLM Contact details Salary equivalentTenure in role/in company Premises/overheadsProfessional qualificationsGender Sponsor/Steering Group Communications

Schedule - DatesCulture/Ethnicity Name(s) Group/Cycle NoCurrent mentor/mentee? Role TrainingDate offered/date agreed Contact details Matching processStart date e-mail Pairs offeredPlanned end date Meeting dates First meetingActual end date Circulation list Initial relationship checkFirst meeting completed (date)

Attendance on training Goals established/expectations discussed

Initial training date Evaluation Hints and tips (1)Mentoring goals/expectations established

Mid-point review/focus group sessions

On-going development review

Hints and Tips (2)

Relationship review checks (dates)

Cycle ending

Prior mentors/mentees & duration

Evaluation process

Code breaches Outcomes circulatedNotes Newsletter/blog /website

updated.

63

APPENDIX N

Suggested areas for evaluating a mentoring programme

Wherever possible incorporate a mix of quantitative and qualitative questioning

Programme processes(e.g. meeting durations/frequencies; confidentiality; successful relationships; application/registration; training and on-going development; matching; communication/information flows; support/help lines)

Programme outcomesi.e. related to original objectives and organisational goals – for example: % satisfaction, employee recruitment and retention, % women in management, size of mentor pool, etc.)

Relationship processes(e.g. openness, expectation setting, roles/responsibilities, goal and agenda setting, boundaries, commitment to actions, relationship feedback reviews, learning reviews, achievements)

Relationship outcomese.g. promotion achieved, PDP goals achieved, maintenance of relationship beyond end, confidence levels increased, etc.)

Line manager/third party perceptions(mentoring briefing/other information, employee’s motivation, relationships with self/team, perceived meeting frequency, performance improvements, value of mentoring programme)

Programme management/administration(budget, support, benefits, outcomes, quality assurance, continuous improvement, systems, etc.)

64

APPENDIX O

Examples of diagnostic tools

Belbin® Team Roles Development Climate Survey (Clutterbuck Associates) Emotional Intelligence questionnaires Learning Styles Inventory (Honey & Mumford) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®

Strengths Deployment Inventory Team Management Profile (Margerison McCann)

65

Appendix 4: Choosing a mentor: interview guidelines

Interviewing someone more senior can be a very daunting prospect, especially when you both know that you may select someone else! What should you tell them about you? What should you ask them about themselves? How will you evaluate them? How will you tell those, who you don’t choose? These are all realistic questions to consider before you arrange to meet with the first of your potential mentors.

PreparationBefore arranging the first meeting, you should have a relatively clear idea of what sort of person will be most helpful for you. Are your looking for someone who will have, for example:

The ability to stretch and challenge your thinking? Wide networks (or very specific networks) relevant to your current work

or future career? A high level of empathy with your position? A high level of technical knowledge in your job area? Other specific experience you would like to tap into? A completely different perspective on the issues that concern you? A good understanding of career opportunities in the company? Substantial experience in assisting behavioural change? Substantial experience in helping people make big jumps in

performance/ personal effectiveness?

It’s also useful, especially in a mentoring programme aimed at supporting diversity objectives, to consider how important it is to you to have someone of:

Similar age or much older Same or different gender Same or different race or culture

Remember – same gender/ same race matches typically tend to provide more empathy and support, while diverse matches typically provide greater learning and more effective networking.

Finally, consider: What learning do I want from this relationship? What sort of person will I learn most from? What sort of person will I find it easiest to work with? What experience would your ideal mentor have, that you could tap

into? What aspects of you and your experience might they find interesting

and useful? What could you offer them in the way of learning or constructive

challenge?

You may wish to draw up a scorecard of the key characteristics you are looking for and assign each a five point scale.

66

If possible, send the mentor some background about you and what you are looking for, ahead of the meeting. (You might include your scorecard, too!)

At the meetingThe key thing to remember is that this is an exchange. You are both making a choice here – the mentor can decide s/he doesn’t want to work with you, too!

Key topics for your agenda should include: Who are we? What change do you want to see in you and in your circumstances in

the next 12 months? What experiences of mentoring have you both had before? Why were you attracted to mentoring, as opposed to other forms of

development? What do you feel passionately about in your work/ non-work areas of

your life? What do you both hope to learn from the relationship? How would you work together? What level of commitment is each of you prepared to make to the

relationship? What support does the mentee need/ is the mentor prepared to offer?

It can be very helpful to summarise what you have both learned at the end of the meeting. Be sure to say that you have found the meeting useful and enjoyable, if that is the case.

It often happens that the mentor begins the mentoring process then and there, helping you think through one or more issues. If so, this is a good opportunity to observe and subsequently reflect upon their mentoring style and how well you think that would suit your needs.

After the meetingThis is the point, where you complete your scorecard. Respect your intuition, but challenge it, too. If you found the initial meeting a little uncomfortable, was that because you didn’t like the mentor’s attitude or because s/he made you think?

Some other questions to ask yourself include: Was I able to relax with this person? Did s/he ask me insightful questions? Did I or they do most of the talking? How willing are they to share their experience with me? Did I feel they would enjoy/ benefit from the relationship, too? Will we be able to get into sufficient depth in our discussions? Will they be able to make the commitment of time and mental energy? Do we have similar values about things that matter?

67

Can I see myself still benefiting from meeting with this person in six month’s time?

Telling the mentor(s) you didn’t chooseThis may take courage, but it is a good preparation for the openness and honesty that characterise an effective mentoring relationship. You owe it to them to let them know that you have chosen someone else and why. It’s only an insult, if you are not honest with them. Many mentees find that they are still able to build very good relationships with prospective mentors they turn down, because the mentors respect them for the quality and usefulness of their feedback.

Experience suggests that it’s a lot easier and more effective to hold this conversation face to face. You can be more open and there is less room for misunderstanding than with e-mails.

Some basic guidelines are: Be positive – “I really valued your input/ what I saw as the strong

benefits of a mentoring relationship with you” Be specific – “I chose X for these reasons…” and, if appropriate,

“Where I felt you didn’t meet my criteria sufficiently, was…” Show respect – “I appreciated your time.” Maintain the relationship – “I’d like to be able to use you as an informal

advisor from time to time, if you are willing.”

The mentor you do select is likely to be motivated not only by the fact that you specifically chose him or her, for clearly defined reasons, but in the knowledge that you are willing and able to tackle difficult conversations. It will encourage the mentor to stretch you just that bit further than might otherwise have been the case.

And if you chose wrongly…Remember that every mentor and mentee are expected to review their relationship after two meetings, to ensure that the match is right in practice. If it’s not, then you have the opportunity to change mentor.

Guidelines for mentors in being interviewed by prospective mentees

Selecting a suitable mentor is a difficult task for the mentee, but mentors can make it a lot easier by:

Being available to talk with them at an early date (the longer you make them wait, the more anxious they may be)

Recognising that they may have concerns about interviewing and possibly turning down someone more senior and re-assuring them

Being clear about your own motives for being a mentor and explaining these

Being clear about what you can and can’t offer as a mentor

68

Based on the mentee’s blog (which you should have already read) discussing where your experience is and isn’t relevant

Being prepared to offer some impromptu mentoring as part of the interview

Talking about your own expectations from a mentee

It’s also useful, especially in a mentoring programme aimed at supporting diversity objectives, to consider how important it is to you to have someone of:

Similar age or much younger Same or different gender Same or different race or culture

Remember – same gender/ same race matches typically tend to provide more empathy and support, while diverse matches typically provide greater learning and more effective networking.

Finally, consider: What learning do I want from this relationship? What sort of mentee will I find it most interesting and beneficial to work

with? What aspects of you and your experience might they find most

interesting and useful? Is this a relationship that will have sufficient constructive challenge for

both of you?

You may wish to draw up a scorecard of the key characteristics you are looking for and assign each a five point scale.

If possible, ask the mentee to send you some background about they you are looking for, ahead of the meeting. (You might include your scorecard, too!)

If you already know the mentee, or have heard reports about them from their line manager, try not to place too much emphasis on second-hand knowledge. Be prepared to use the relationship as an opportunity to get to know the real person.

At the meetingThe key thing to remember is that this is an exchange. You are both making a choice here – the mentor can decide s/he doesn’t want to work with you, too!

Key topics for your agenda should include: Who are we? What change does the mentee himself/ herself and in their

circumstances in the next 12 months? What experiences of mentoring have you both had before? Why were they attracted to mentoring, as opposed to other forms of

development?

69

What do both of you feel passionately about in your work/ non-work areas of your life?

What do you both hope to learn from the relationship? How would you work together? What level of commitment is each of you prepared to make to the

relationship? What support does the mentee need/ are you prepared to offer?

It can be very helpful to summarise what you have both learned at the end of the meeting. Be sure to say that you have found the meeting useful and enjoyable, if that is the case.

It you use a mentoring approach during the meeting, to help the mentee think through one or more issues, this is a good opportunity to observe and subsequently reflect upon how they react to your mentoring style.

After the meetingThis is the point, where you complete your scorecard. Respect your intuition, but challenge it, too. If you found the initial meeting a little uncomfortable, was that because you didn’t like the mentee’s attitude or because s/he challenged / stretched you?

Some other questions to ask yourself include: Was I able to relax with this person? Did s/he ask me insightful questions? Did I or they do most of the talking? How willing are they to be open with me? Did I feel they would enjoy/ benefit from the relationship, too? Will we be able to get into sufficient depth in our discussions? Will they be able to make the commitment of time and mental energy? Do we have similar values about things that matter? Can I see this person benefiting from mentoring with me in six month’s

time?

When the choice is madeIf the mentee decides to go with you, spend some time at your first formal meeting exploring what qualities they thought made you the first choice and re-clarify the objectives of the relationship. These may change with greater openness. Make sure you carry out the two meeting review, to check that the relationship really is what they need.

If they decide to go with someone else:

Don’t feel rejected. People’s needs are very individual. As the mentee’s needs change, they may well return to you in the future.If you are prepared to offer ad hoc informal mentoring, ensure they understand this is the case.Use the subsequent conversation with them as an opportunity for constructive feedback. To help them overcome any natural caution about criticising

70

someone more senior, use questions such as: what’s the one thing you’d advise me if you were my mentor?

Experience suggests that it’s a lot easier and more effective to hold this conversation face to face. You can be more open and there is less room for misunderstanding than with e-mails.

71

Appendix 5: Getting the best from international programmes of coaching and mentoring

Global coaching and mentoring programmes are becoming increasingly commonplace, as multinational organisations recognise the need for at least a basic level of consistency in how their locations around the world implement programmes. All too often, however, this is unfamiliar territory and many coaching and mentoring programmes have foundered because they did not take into account international cultural and other differences. Some of the disasters we have observed are explored in brief in the box below:

Failures in international coaching/ mentoring programmes

A cross-border mentoring programme between public sector organisations in Northern and Southern Ireland foundered because of inadequate preparation. People on each side of the border had a much higher level of suspicion about their counterparts than the organisers predicted, so building relationships proved much harder than expected.

A multinational told its subsidiaries around the world to implement coaching and mentoring. They all did so, in their own way. HQ then told them to change their programmes to fit a home-country-culture-specific model, even though many of the subsidiaries’ programmes were achieving better results. Result: collapse of most of the programmes and the company moved on to a new fad.

Another multinational provided guidelines from the start and encouraged subsidiaries to set up programmes. Some did so, relatively successfully, but the culture of the organisation is highly resistant to central direction, so roll-out came to a halt. The centre became frustrated, reduced the support available and the previously successful programmes have mostly run into the ground.

So what should a multinational organisation do to ensure that its coaching and mentoring programmes work? Some of the key steps include:

Engage people from various cultures in the design and roll out One of the features of the most effective international coaching and mentoring programmes is that they are international from an early stage. Three strategies predominate. In one, taken for example by BP with its global upward (or mutual) mentoring programme, a pilot within one country provides experience with the basic concepts and programme management. International contributions then reshape the programme to fit the diversity of need in different countries. It’s important in this model to recognise that it isn’t just cultural issues that need to be taken into account. For a large international charity, such as Oxfam, for example, the structure of head office, the field in the UK and the field overseas are all very different and may need different solutions – not least in managing the complexities of communication. A variation on this strategy is to “light a thousand fires” – provide sufficient

72

support and encouragement for people within the organisation to experiment and gradually select and disseminate what works best.

The second strategy is to choose an international group, such as the most senior key account managers (as manufacturing giant IMI has done) or people about to take their first management post overseas. Involving potential participants in the design and review of the pilot provides valuable information for developing larger programmes. Relying on HR’s perceptions of what the programme should look like and how the culture works is not advisable; equally, it’s important to make sure that the employees selected for involvement are broadly representative of the target audiences (both learners and helpers).

One of the outcomes of these initial discussions is a greater sense of collective clarity about what coaching and mentoring involve and the degree of flexibility the programme can accommodate in national interpretations. Is the goal to introduce sponsorship mentoring or developmental mentoring; traditional (feedback-rich) coaching or developmental coaching; or to encourage all of these according to circumstance? Establishing a common language, definitions and understanding of role boundaries helps to avoid subsequent confusion and conflict about coaching v mentoring.

In general, the clearer the core principles, the greater the level of flexibility and local adaptation that can be supported. For example, the International Standards for Mentoring Programmes in Employment can provide a useful foundation, on which programme management and training materials can be localised. Similar standards are being planned for coaching programmes.

Develop an internal training and support capability

From a cost-effectiveness point of view, it typically makes sense to establish regional or national training resources, rather than rely on importing people from the centre or from a specialist training organisation. Unfortunately these can easily go off the boil if they are not used sufficiently, so a balance needs to be struck. Skimping on the trainer training has been a major cause for programme atrophy -- a number of organisations provide certified train the train and train the programme coordinator courses and these should be seen as the minimum requirement.

There is also a greater tendency in international programmes to rely on sheep-dip training – one-off events that launch participants into their roles. All the evidence of successful programmes suggests that continued support and at least two reviews of practice over the first year are essential for both coaches and mentors, and helpful for coachees and mentees. Trainer training should also provide the skills to manage this follow up requirement. Where practical, a core of enthusiastic programme supporters (people who will coach their per coaches, for example) should be encouraged to take a further qualification – ideally at least Practitioner 1 level under the European Mentoring and Coaching Council’s kitemark.

73

The role of the centre in an international programme needs to be one of coordination, support and monitoring quality standards. Trying to do too much from the centre stifles local initiative. Part of the support structure may be an international programme management system, where there are likely to be large numbers of participants. At lest two or three systems are commercially available.

As with all coaching and mentoring programmes, training and supporting both parties in the relationship is essential. A useful addition is to offer programmes that enhance the ability of people to engage in dialogue across the boundaries of diversity.

Match for both difference and similarity

While much coaching will take place directly within the line or in the work team, off-line coaching and mentoring provide much wider options for pairing. Companies, such as airline SAS, deliberately seek to maximise the amount of difference in learning dyads, on the grounds that both parties have more to gain from working with someone, who has different perspectives. On the other hand, the World Bank achieved rapid growth in its numbers of mentoring pairs by encouraging cultural groups – for example, people from sub-Saharan Africa -- to establish their own programmes, because they felt the need for group solidarity. When pairings involve people based in different countries or even different continents, it’s important to take account of these varying needs and to be highly flexible in the matching process.

Measure aggressively

Particularly where participants are scattered around the globe, it’s important to measure at two levels: locally, to check that relationships are working and to provide support as needed; and globally, to provide programme benchmarks. For the latter, take care to design questionnaires so that they mean same thing in each culture. Remember that “being challenged” and “put an issue on the table” can mean the opposite in English and American English, for example! If it’s possible to benchmark against other organisations (and some generic, on-line questionnaires have this facility) this can be helpful in targeting programme improvements.

Share good practice

If the network of trainers and programme coordinators is able to pass on good ideas and experiences, the quality of initiatives in each country will improve and there is more chance of sustaining the impetus. At the minimum this can be done through an e-forum, but it’s preferable in addition to build into the HR calendar at least one physical “share & learn” opportunity for them.

74

Link individual programmes within a strategy of organisational change

It’s still most common for organisations to see their mentoring and coaching programmes as separate activities, often the responsibility of different departments. If programmes are to have the support of senior management champions in each region, there has to be a strong business case, which links both coaching and mentoring to business priorities, to other people systems (such as appraisal, competencies and succession planning) and to broader culture change programmes. It’s also useful to link programmes to each other – for example, by requiring coachees or mentees in a high flyers programme to be a coach or mentor to someone else at the same time. If their coachee/mentee role is local and face-to-face, then they may have much to learn from a coach/mentor role, which is electronic with someone overseas.

Seven key steps

Engage people from various cultures in the design and roll-out Allow for a high level of culture-specific adaptation Develop an internal training and support capability Match for both difference and similarity Measure aggressively Share good practice Link individual programmes and initiatives within a strategy of

organisational change

Some final thoughts and issues

Implementing international programmes of coaching or mentoring requires a lot of preparation and clarity about what the organisation wants to gain from it. It takes time and organisation both to launch and to sustain the programme. The reward, however, can be seen in faster adoption of culture change, more diverse talent pipelines, and higher employee retention.

© David Clutterbuck Partnership, 2005

75

Appendix 6: Why mentoring programmes and relationships fail

By and large, organizations don’t advertise their failures, especially when there is considerable prestige connected with them. So you won’t read much about mentoring programmes that fail to deliver the goods. Even the academic literature has only a handful of studies that examine programmes or relationships that don’t deliver. Yet understanding the causes of other people’s failure is often the key to one’s own success.

Both mentoring programmes and relationships fail from a variety of causes, which can be categorised into contextual, interpersonal or procedural. Let’s look at them in that order.

Contextual problems for schemes relate primarily to issues of clarity of purpose, or to the supportiveness of the organizational environment. For relationships, the key issues are again clarity of purpose, along with expectation by each party of the style of mentoring to be adopted.

The importance of clarity of purpose is illustrated by the case of the US-based multinational, which recently required its operations around the world to set up mentoring relationships between senior executives and hundreds of female employees. Participants knew that it was somehow related to the firm’s equal opportunities drive, but no-one explained how mentoring was to contribute to this goal. Most of the relationships faded away within a few months, as both sides waited for the other to tell them what they should do. Clarity of purpose about the programme – why it is being done, what is expected of participants, what the respective roles and responsibilities of mentor and mentee are, and what the desired outcomes are – is directly correlated with clarity of purpose in the individual relationships.

Mentoring also requires a reasonable level of support from within the organisation. There have been examples where mentors and mentees have effectively been penalised for taking working time out for their meetings, because there is no specific time allowance under “billable hours” procedures. Lack of expressed interest by top management is also likely to undermine the programme.

Clarity of purpose within the relationship is critical for energising the relationship. Most relationships require a clear sense of purpose and a defined transition, which the mentee wishes to achieve. The clearer that transition is, the more focused the discussions and the easier it is to relate day-to-day issues to the larger goal. Even in relationships, where the primary objective is for the mentee simply to have an occasional sounding board, unless that is agreed up front, one or both parties will feel dissatisfied.

It should be obvious that mentoring for, say, disaffected youth requires a different approach to that for a senior executive. The mentees in these two examples will differ in their levels of learning maturity, self-esteem and the

76

alternative resources they can call upon. Equally, different cultures demand different approaches to mentoring. Yet companies often assume that perceptions of mentoring are pretty standard. In reality, there are at least two major schools of mentoring and failure to clarify which is intended can cause confusion, argument and major misalignments of expectation between participants and between the organization and the participants. The two schools can be characterized as the traditional – US originated, involving a considerable level of sponsorship or hands-on help, tapping into the authority or influence of the senior partner, with a focus mostly on career progress and primarily a one-way learning experience; and the developmental – much more of a two-way learning partnership, with the expectation that the mentee will do things for him- or herself, with the focus more on growing the less experienced person’s capability, and owing its origins more to European experience.

Multinational companies, which have attempted to introduce mentoring around the world without taking these differences in mentoring style properly into account, are surprised when they meet resistance. It is a fundamental error to assume that everyone will have the same understanding of what mentoring is and what mentors should and shouldn’t do. We have seen examples of programme failure both from European-based companies attempting to introduce programmes in their US subsidiaries and vice-versa. Even in regions, the understanding of what constitutes mentoring can be radically different – in France, it can be seen as almost entirely sponsorship based; in large parts of Asia-Pacific, a compromise between the two styles may often be required (or even, in one case, two mentors, one in each style!)

Interpersonal problems for programmes arise from the reactions of people, who are not included in the pairings – for example, the mentee’s line manager, in employment, or peers, in programmes directed at helping disaffected youth. Within relationships, the primary issues tend to hinge around incompatibility of personalities and personal values between mentor and mentee.

Failure to engage line managers and promote the benefits to them of the programme is a common omission. It is not surprising that many of them fear being exposed by discussions between their direct reports and other, possibly more senior managers. Involving line managers in the design and overall management of the programme helps, as does briefing them about the advantages to them of having someone, with whom the mentee can discuss in confidence how the mentee manages his or her key working relationships (and especially how he or she manages their boss).

In very informal programmes, or programmes with low clarity of purpose, resentment from people not included is common. So, too, is the gossip, especially with regard to cross-gender pairs. Openness about the programme and why it targets particular groups of people, helps to overcome such problems.

77

Procedural problems arise from the way the programme or the relationship is managed. We often see programmes that are heavily over-managed. In one case – presented by the company concerned as best practice! – mentors and mentees were given discussion sheets to create uniformity in what they talked about. The spontaneity and individual focus of effective mentoring were smothered by this over-attention. In another case, the opposite occurred. An enthusiastic HR function simply told people they were to be mentor and mentee and left them to it. When relationships ran into difficulty, or participants needed advice, there was no provision to support them and the HR professionals were too busy running the next initiative.

At a relationship level, mentors sometimes fail to establish an appropriate balance between being directive and laissez faire. Indeed, a core skill for a mentor is to recognise when to lead and when to enable the mentee to lead discussions. One of the most common complaints by mentees is that the mentor talks at them, rather than engages them in reflective dialogue. Less common, but equally dysfunctional, is the mentor, who never gives advice and is unable to adapt style to the mentee’s needs at the time.

How to avoid the major pitfallsPreparationTime spent thinking through what the programme is meant to achieve and how each aspect of it should be managed, supported and measured will be amply repaid later. Engaging the stakeholder group in the planning identifies barriers to success and occasionally radically changes the nature of the programme. (In one case, feedback from the intended beneficiaries led to turning the programme on its head, so they became the mentors instead!)

SelectionNot everyone makes a good mentor. Some companies have assumed that the qualities of a manager or leader are such that they should automatically be able to perform the mentor’s role. In practice, many managers are unable to escape from the habit of telling and advising. Many also lack the depth of self-awareness that characterises an effective mentor. In general, the more convinced someone is that they are a “natural” mentor, the more lethal they are likely to be.

Good practice avoids any suggestion of “shotgun marriages”. It does not give people completely free choice of mentor, because they tend either not to seek enough challenge in the relationship, or to choose someone, upon whose coat tails they can hang. Typically, a programme coordinator offers a selection of possible mentors, from which the mentee chooses. In this way, the mentee feels some ownership of the relationship and how it is to be managed. Selection by mentors has a dismal record and is best avoided.

78

TrainingThe most successful in-company mentoring programmes train both mentors and mentees and at least provide a detailed face-to-face briefing for line managers. The figures are stark. Without any training at all, less than one in three pairings will deliver significant results for either party. Training mentors alone raises the success rate to around 65%. Training both and educating line managers about the programme pushed the success rate above 90%, with both parties reporting substantial gains.

Process ownershipOne reason for training both parties is so that mentees have the expectation and gradually to acquire the confidence and skills to manage the relationship; and so that mentors know how to help them do so. Developmental mentoring, in particular, demands that the mentee helps the mentor to help them, by understanding the process and contributing to it.

Post-training supportInitial training is rarely enough to give mentors more than a basic level of competence and confidence. Experience of hundreds of programmes in more than three dozen countries shows that they both want and need access to continued expert advice on how to do the role and develop their skills; and that they greatly value the opportunity to share experience with other mentors.

MeasurementEffective, appropriate measurement, especially at key points in the first 12 months, not only helps keep the programme on track, but also stimulates mentor and mentee to good practice -- for example, reviewing the relationship and what each is gaining from it. Many companies are now adopting a “balanced scorecard” approach to measuring their mentoring programmes.

The bottom lineEstimates of what proportion of mentoring programmes fail to deliver significant benefits vary widely, depending on how success or failure is assessed. A good working estimate, however, would be that at least 40% do not meet one or more of the following criteria:

Achieving a clear business purpose (eg improving retention in a target group of mentees by 25% or more)

Achievement of most mentees’ personal development objectives Learning by most of the mentors Willingness of both parties to engage in mentoring (as mentor or

mentee) again…. and many meet none of these.

A positive sign, however, is that more and more HR professionals are becoming knowledgeable about mentoring and recognise the value of anchoring it firmly in priority business needs. In addition, many of those

79

companies, which have experienced initial failure, are now taking a more considered, mature look at the process and resourcing it properly.

© David Clutterbuck Partnership, 2002

80

Appendix 7: Second Wave Mentoring

The first formalized, or supported, mentoring programs emerged in the US 30 years ago. Rapidly adopted and radically changed by European organizations, mentoring quickly split into two schools, or models:

Sponsorship mentoring. Adopted by US corporations, this model largely focuses on one-way learning relationships, in which the authority and influence of the mentor plays an important role and where the junior partner is referred to as a protégé.

Developmental mentoring. The European approach focuses on the quality of the mentee’s thinking and on stimulating self-reliance and mutual learning.

In recent years, as supported mentoring has spread across the globe, numerous hybrids of these two models of mentoring have emerged. These hybrids have gained the moniker “Second Wave Mentoring” and are addressing many of the shortcomings of traditional programs as well as facing challenges of their own.

Understanding the drivers behind Second Wave MentoringOne of the drivers behind this eclectic mix of approaches has been the desire by organizations, which have been relatively early adopters of supported mentoring, to learn from their own and other people’s experiences. At a recent virtual round table by Career Innovation more than two-thirds of HR professionals responsible for mentoring programs indicated they were, to a greater or lesser extent, dissatisfied with either the management of their mentoring program or the outcomes from it. Some of the other drivers behind transformation include:

Reach. Making mentoring available to a wider audience comes with the challenge of lowering costs without sacrificing quality. However, many attempts to do mentoring “on the cheap”—especially by using canned, online solutions—have failed to deliver the quality required. In particular, they have tended to push mentoring towards shallow, transactional skills and knowledge transfer, rather than longer-term deep, personal change.

Alignment. There is a need to link mentoring more closely with talent management and succession planning strategies.

Measurement. Enterprise leaders are increasingly requiring data as to the outcomes of mentoring for participants and for the organization, leading to a need for more effective measurement processes.

Consistency. Mentors in one approach, such as developmental mentoring, may lapse into sponsoring behaviours, causing frustration with mentees.

Push-back. Some groups and communities are averse to traditional programs as they are currently practiced.

81

Program success. There is a disparity between programs in terms of failure rates, leading to re-examination of matching and re-matching processes.

Standards. The International Standards for Mentoring Programs in Employment (ISMPE), for example, has begun to set expectations of what a “good practice” mentoring program looks like, requiring more flexibility in program components.

Expectations. There is a need to bridge the gap between expectations from new graduates to use mentoring as a shortcut to getting a job and a program focus on supporting a reflective approach to understand possibilities and looking at competencies in a broader perspective.

Joining the Second Wave requires HR to commit to creating and marketing a comprehensive mentoring strategy based on evidence of what works and on a systemic perspective of how people learn and grow The good news is that, in contrast to the enormous sums many organizations invested in the first wave, the Second Wave is relatively inexpensive because professionals in the field now have a much better understanding of which hot buttons produce the greatest impact on both individuals and the organization.

Getting a feel for what Second Wave Mentoring looks likeWhile the structure of Second Wave Mentoring programs varies from organization to organization, some key characteristics are common to most programs. Those characteristics include:

Program management. Most programs have a designated mentoring program manager. Increasingly, these individuals have received specialized training for the role. They tend to be responsible for promoting and supporting mentoring in general, rather than just managing a single initiative.

Management engagement. There tends to be a high level of engagement among top management in these programs.

Training. Most programs ensure both mentors and mentees are trained initially and that both are supported over the life of the supported relationship.

Continuous development. Programs support continuous development and improvement as well as supervisory oversight.

Multimedia approaches. Programs value the role of IT platforms in supporting both face-to-face and distance mentoring.

Robust processes. Matching and measurement play a key role in these programs.

Variety. Organizations are increasingly offering a wide array of programs and opportunities to take part in, such as reverse mentoring.

Many Second Wave employers are taking a hard look at their mentoring offerings and aligning them with global good practices. For example, The Rank Group wanted in 2010 “to support participants as part of the group talent program, providing opportunities for professional and personal development and encouraging networking across the group.” The key importance to Rank

82

was that their mentoring program would be in line with best practice, measurable, built on internal capability, and would deliver high-impact training for the Executive Committee, as well as a special feature of one-to-one training for the senior team.

Second Wave companies also typically monitor progress towards a mentoring culture. Some seek accreditation under the ISMPE, both as a recognition of quality and also as a means of benchmarking against evolving good practices. Rank validated their mentoring program success recently by being assessed by the ISMPE—the company was awarded the Gold Standard in recognition of their program’s high quality.

Facilitating social change through mentoringMentoring programs are now creating opportunities for women and closing the gaps in social justice in Morocco. AFEM, a Moroccan association for women in business and management, set up a mentoring program to support new initiatives by women. The program was developed in cooperation with two Danish organizations: Kvinfo (a research and development organization) and Danish Trade Union (a trade union for professional employees). These organizations give support and inspiration to women as they meet the challenges of establishing themselves in the business world and deal with associated issues regarding family and society prejudice.

The introduction and training of the mentors and mentees was done through sessions in both Denmark and Morocco. These sessions included awareness of both the possibilities and challenges of participating in a mentoring program. Else Iversen, from the Danish Trade Union, says, “The outcome of the project so far is first of all a much bigger awareness of what mentoring asks from both mentor and mentee. But the biggest achievements lie in the fast growing self-awareness among the mentors and the mentees that the program has managed to give the participants.”

Looking toward the future of mentoringHow will Second Wave mentoring continue to evolve in the future? From interviews by Clutterbuck Associates with discussions with HR professionals around the world and specific events, such as the Career innovation round table mentioned earlier, , a number of themes have emerged. These include:

Greater integration between different mentoring programs in the same organization. For example, cascade mentoring takes the perspective that people who receive mentoring should also become mentors, in a chain of giving. So a number of organizations are exploring programs in which graduate recruits are mentored by junior and middle managers, and in return, they mentor disadvantaged persons from the wider community. One of the benefits of this

83

approach is that it links employee development and corporate social responsibility agendas.

Clarity amongst the different interpretations of mentoring within the same organization. For example, IBM has identified four types of mentoring, each aimed at different audiences and for different purposes. Centralized resources support all of these types of mentoring for big-picture clarity, but interpretation and program management are customized.

Cultural considerations, such as taking greater account of the differences in expectations of mentoring across diverse cultures. Companies have learned that it is important to make these different expectations overt and to enable mentors and mentees to address them at the level of the individual relationship.

Social media hold the potential to radically change how mentoring is delivered. Multinationals, such as Telus, now regularly conduct both one-to-one and group mentoring through social media. However, a key issue now emerging for such companies is the extent to which employees (and particularly talented employees) can be supported in developing dynamic networks of mentors. In these networks, there may be one or two close mentoring relationships focused on medium- to long-term career development, several medium-term relationships focused on development of specific (leadership) competencies, and ad hoc short-term relationships focused on transfer of skills or knowledge. Intrinsic in these mentor networks is that the traditional senior to junior hierarchy of relationships is often irrelevant—it is the learning exchange that is important, and peer and reverse mentoring will play an increased role.

The bottom line of all these changing perceptions of mentoring is that Second Wave Mentoring both offers and demands a lot more flexibility from organizations and from participants. At the same time, it creates the potential for both organizations and participants to gain a great deal more from their investments in this powerful form of co-learning.

Traditional mentoring programs Second Wave mentoring programs

Focus on numbers Focus on quality and measurable outcomes

Participants may or not be trained, then left to their own devices

Participants supported in making the relationship work

Single media for communications Multi-media communicationsMentoring seen as an initiative on its own

Mentoring integrated with business strategy and priorities; mentoring programmes integrated with each other

Program management ad hoc Trained, professional program managers

Programs designed for participants Programs designed with participantsTop management may be program sponsors

Top management both sponsors and participants/ role models of being both mentor and mentee

84

Benefits of Second Wave mentoring Clearer and more significant impact on both business priorities and the

client group’s careers Fewer relationships fail to deliver (ISMPE compliant programs

generally have 90% relationships with high learning by both parties) More flexible and adaptable to different needs Higher level of two-way learning between mentors and mentees Lower costs and higher return on investment

© David Clutterbuck Partnership

85

Appendix 8: Making the most of informal mentoring

One of the goals of many formal mentoring programmes is to bring the organisation to the point, where the majority of mentoring is carried out informally, without the need for substantial, structured support for Human Resources and elsewhere. The problem, in most cases, is that completely informal mentoring – where people come together without guidance and without clarity about the mentoring role – is a hit and miss affair. Not only is the quality of the relationships highly variable, but the pairings tend to exclude people who don’t fit the mould, by virtue of their gender, race, culture or some other differentiating factor.

86

The good news is that, in general, organisations, which have a strong and extensive formal mentoring process, seem also to develop many thriving, healthy and inclusive informal mentoring relationships. The key appears to be that people, who have experienced effective mentoring (as mentor or mentee) and who have been well-trained in the respective roles, are open to a wide range of developmental alliances., In particular, they appreciate the value of difference and stretch in a learning relationship and seek out challenging partnerships.

This is, it has to be admitted, an area, in which there has been no significant research, so the evidence is largely anecdotal. The nearest to a detailed study of the issue is work by the US academic Belle Rose Ragins, who concludes that relationship quality is the critical ingredient in both formal and informal mentoring.

So how can we ensure that informal mentoring relationships are high quality relationships? The very absence of structure, measurement and control makes it difficult to exert any influence on them. Our discussions with informal mentoring pairs and with HR professionals, who have experience of both formal and informal mentoring is that the key lies in creating an environment, where effective mentoring can flourish. Such an environment would contain some elements of structure, in the form of support available, but require no third party intervention in pairings. Rather, it would allow market forces to drive both the matching process and the quality control of the mentoring provided.

I am not aware of an organisation that has proactively developed such an environment, but the possibility of doing so is of manifest interest to a number of multinational companies – particularly those, which have employees scattered in small numbers in lots of locations. These organisations often find it difficult to arrange matches and control relationship quality within a formal programme.

The essential elements in establishing a positive climate for informal mentoring seem to include:

An on-line registration and matching system, where people can seek and make their own pairings. The system needs to have very good guidance as to how to go about selecting an appropriate partner and, ideally, a resource, which prospective mentees can go to for personal advice.

Sufficient, visible role models of good mentoring practice to demonstrate what quality mentoring looks and feels like and to provide a voluntary, informal advisory resource for mentors. If top management can be among those role models, it provides a very strong message to the organisation.

A mixture of voluntary training resources. These might include a regular open training programme, run in-house or externally with a consortium of other organisations; an e-learning package (our own 12 module resource, The Effective Mentor will be available in early 2004)

87

to run on PC or on-line; and a library of wider reading materials on mentoring and related disciplines. It may also be useful to provide an option for people, who have a strong interest in developing their mentoring skills, to take a certificate or degree course through one of the several providers now available.

An understanding that the quality of mentoring rests to a considerable extent on the amount and relevance of the training both parties have received. While an informal process can’t insist that mentors and mentees are trained, the desire to have an effective relationship should drive both parties away from matching with someone, who is not sufficiently committed to be trained in the role.

An opportunity for mentors (or developers in general) to meet informally as a mutual support and learning group through an on-line chat room and/ or self-organised gatherings. In this scenario, mentors may request some help from HR in arranging venues and perhaps finding external speakers on specific learning topics, but the impetus has to come from them. Some organisations already run “lunch and learn” events – in one case monthly – along these lines.

Good practice “snippets”, sent monthly to all managers (or indeed all employees), on developmental behaviours, from both the learner and the developer perspectives. This is perhaps the closest to a formal arrangement the organisation may go. These short advisory bulletins (no more than a few hundred words each time) would be generated by HR, with the aim of stimulating awareness, discussion and incremental improvements in people’s behaviour to mentor and be mentored, coach and be coached and so on.

It should be obvious by now that all of these elements may also be useful in helping a formal mentoring programme to deliver results for both participants and the organisation. Our thinking increasingly is that the mentoring “package” that will give organisations greatest value is one that integrates both formal and informal mentoring, so that they become mutually supportive. Given the lack of experience of combined formal and informal approaches, there is some exciting learning to happen!

© David Clutterbuck Partnership, November 2003

88

Appendix 9: The effective mentor for small businesses

Background

One of the main reasons small and medium-sized enterprises fail to achieve their potential is that the entrepreneur becomes so focused on growing the business that they forget about the parallel need to grow themselves. Effective small business mentors help the entrepreneur with the quality and scope of their thinking. They ask pertinent, penetrating and timely questions that help the business owner focus on what is important, identify personal learning needs and recognise issues, which they may consciously or unconsciously have been avoiding. Where appropriate, they may also offer advice, from their own experience, but the emphasis of the relationship is always about helping the business owner access their own strengths, create their own strategies and develop their own business values.

The mentor provides a confidential, trusted resource, where the entrepreneur can explore ideas and concerns as they arise. The mentor is also a valuable source of challenge – it’s very difficult for people inside the business to provide the quality of challenge that a dispassionate and informed outsider can. It’s important that the mentor has significant business experience of their own; but it doesn’t have to be in the same sector. Indeed, the more knowledge the mentor has of the specific sector, the more difficult it is to be truly objective.

It’s also important not to confuse mentoring with other helping roles for small businesses. Whereas a non-executive director is there to look after the interests of key financial stakeholders in a business (shareholders, lenders and so on) and a consultant is there to advise the business in part or whole, the mentor is there for the benefit of the entrepreneur. The personal focus of the mentor provides the entrepreneur with support, encouragement, occasional feedback and a sounding board for difficult decisions.

This programme has been designed to facilitate the development of coach-mentors, who are competent, safe and effective in supporting small business owners through the many transitions and challenges they encounter.

The programme

The programme involves a minimum of 120 hours of study, composed of:Classroom hours: 56 (seven days)Practical sessions with clients 14Reading 30 Reflection (learning log) and essays 20

Group supervision is included in the classroom days.

89

The seven classroom days cover the following topics:

Day 1: The core principles of coaching and mentoring in general and in the small business context specifically. The critical transitions and issues for small businesses and entrepreneurs: what is the helping role of the coach-mentor?Day 2: Key skills of the coach-mentor: active listening/ mindfulness, powerful questions, disclosure, guiding, challenging, managing boundariesDay 3: Coaching the top teamDay 4: Ethical issues in coach-mentoring. Recognising and managing conflicts of interest. The psychology of projection and counter-projection. Recognising burnout and helping clients deal with it. How leaders fail. Working with emotional intelligence.Day 5: Helping the entrepreneur create and work to a personal development plan. How to help the entrepreneur better understand themselves and how they contribute and get in the way of the business’ success. Day 6: Building your business as a coach-mentor. Practical business planning for your own business. Using virtual media. Systemic coaching.Day 7: An extended supervision day, with each issue brought to the table becoming the basis for introducing and experimenting with advanced techniques.

Participants will receive:

A generic guide to coach-mentoring An e-book of powerful questions Handouts and slides to support each topic covered

They will be required to maintain a learning log, detailing what they have learned from the sessions and from their practice coaching-mentoring assignments. They are expected to have a minimum of three sessions of 90 minutes with three clients from different organizations and to provide a 2,000 word reflective essay, detailing their approach and how it has been informed by theory from the course, and their learning from applying theory and technique.

90

Appendix 10: A longitudinal study of the effectiveness of developmental mentoring

Introduction

Mentoring is a dynamic phenomenon, in which each learning relationship is unique. The literature on mentoring is predominantly focused on informal relationships and on what may be described as sponsorship mentoring – a relationship, which involves mainly one-way learning and relies upon the power and connections of the mentor. Yet in Europe, particularly, the dominant model of mentoring (called developmental mentoring) is very different – it emphasises two-way learning, in which power is “parked” and the role of the mentor is to help the mentee with the quality of their thinking. The terms protégé and mentee illustrate the difference in perspective and philosophy (mens = mind, look after v mens = think).Whether these two models are in fact different constructs or aspects of the same construct has not previously been investigated.The literature on mentoring is very thin on what happens within the “black box” of the relationship. With few exceptions, studies of mentoring efficacy are limited by examining only one perspective (mentor or mentee); and by lack of longitudinal research methodology. There are also significant problems with instrumentation – the most common measure of relationship outcome is Noe’s (1988) adaptation of Kram’s (1985) functions of a mentor. However, the majority of these functions are not true outcome measures at all, but enablers. Additionally, many quantitative studies are contaminated by basic problems of sample size and conflation of line manager and off-line relationships; or conflation of formal and informal relationships. (Ragins, 1999)This is the first substantive study of developmental mentoring and the first to demonstrate that developmental and sponsorship mentoring are separate constructs. It takes a longitudinal approach, sampling at three key points in the first 12 months of relationships; and it explores the relationship dynamics simultaneously from the perspective of both mentor and mentee – in terms of their observations of both self and their dyadic partner.It is structured according to McGrath’s (1994) input-process-output model and involves two halves: development and validation of instrumentation and application to matched dyads in a sample of 8 European organisations.The study therefore plugs a number of gaps in the mentoring literature: the need for a study specifically of developmental mentoring in structured programmes, for investigation of the variables between inputs and outputs within a longitudinal structure; and the creation of instrumentation more robust and relevant than hitherto.

Research Design and/or Methodology The research design is primarily quantitative, with some qualitative. It takes a broadly positivist stance, moderated by qualitative input in design of instrumentation and interpretation of results.

91

It is built around a process model of the mentoring process as shown in Figure 1 below and derived from a mixture of fieldwork (consultancy in mentoring programme design and participant training) and interpretation of the mentoring and related literature.

Figure 1: A cause – process – effect model of developmental mentoring

Behaviour Directive/ Non-directive Quality Developmental Goal achievement Challenging/ Nurturing Satisfaction Career

Commitment EnablingEmotional

Five complex hypotheses emerged from the model:

1. The higher the perception by mentor and mentee of the level of organisational support for mentoring, the more positive will be their attitudes towards goals within the relationship, their satisfaction with the experience of the relationship, and their perception of positive outcomes

2. Expectation of positive developmental behaviours by mentor and mentee towards each other and for themselves will correlate with perception of positive developmental behaviours, with perception of a positive relationship experience, and with positive outcomes for both parties.

Expectations Behaviours Relationship Outcomes experience

Mentor behaviours

Mentor Mentor

Mentee

Mentee behaviours

92

3. A high level of positive attitudes towards goals by the mentee will mediate mentor and mentee perception of actual positive developmental behaviours and positive outcomes for both parties.

4. Perception by mentor and mentee of actual positive developmental behaviours will correlate with positive relationship experience and positive outcomes for mentor and mentee

5. Positive relationship experience will correlate with positive outcomes for mentor and mentee

Part one - scale developmentPart one of the research involved the development of instrumentation, where none existed, or where existing instrumentation was inappropriate for the developmental mentoring construct. Noe’s instrument, for example, not only has problems -- “over a third of the items failed to significantly load on either the career development or psychosocial factor” (Ragins and McFarlin, 1990) but includes many items irrelevant to a developmental mentoring approach.

The instruments I developed were:

A scale of organizational supportiveness for mentoring. This emerged from a wider range of items selected to address a variety of issues, relating to organizational context, which may be posited to influence mentoring relationship effectiveness.

Three scales relating to aspects of goal orientation: goal clarity, goal commitment and goal alignment (a common sense of purpose within the dyad, plus a perception of the organisation’s purpose)

Two sets of scales relating to behaviours by mentors and two parallel scales relating to behaviour by mentees. One relates to stretching / nurturing behaviours; the other to directive / non-directive behaviours. Items were selected to represent both sponsorship and developmental mentoring assumptions. The language of these scales was adjusted for perspective: mentor on self and mentee; mentee on self and mentor; behaviours expected (time one, the beginning of the relationship) and behaviours experienced (time two, after six months). The scales that emerged related to mentee self-development/ mentor support for mentee self-development; mentee self-reliance / mentor support for self-reliance; and mentee openness to counselling / mentor provision of counselling-type behaviours.

Three scales relating to aspects of relationship experience: relationship quality, relationship satisfaction and relationship commitment. These were used for measurements at times two and three

Four scales relating to relationship outcomes for both mentor and mentee, used at time three only.o Developmental (learning)o Career (personal advancement)o Enabling (e.g. having a career plan)o Emotional (e.g. greater self-confidence)

93

The research method involved an extensive literature search, both within mentoring and in other related areas of study – coaching, counselling, organizational development, power, social exchange and so on. It also involved gathering potential items through fieldwork in the training and subsequent support of mentors and mentees in European organisations.

These items were developed into questionnaires, which were distributed to current participants in developmental mentoring programmes, at three points in their relationships: beginning, after 6 months and after 12 months. Points two and three were chosen as a reasonable compromise between time enough for the relationship to mature and the likelihood of relationship dissolution. A total of 71 mentors and 68 mentees responded to the questionnaire at time 1; 62 and 64 at time 2; 64 and 55 respectively.

The data was subjected to factor analysis to develop scales, as above. The analyses of behaviours – both expected (time one) and perceived (time two) demonstrated clearly that participants distinguished strongly between those behaviours, belonging to the developmental mentoring construct and those belonging to the sponsorship mentoring construct, with each loading onto separate scales under factor analysis.

Part two – the main studyThis part of the study involved matched pairs of mentors and mentees. To reduce contextual variables, participants came from professional and managerial staff in 8 organisations, and all these programmes were broadly compliant with the International Standards for Mentoring Programmes in Employment. The ISMPE standards cover communication of programme purpose, training and support for participants, matching and administrative processes.

Obtaining three point data from individual participants is hard enough, but from both parties in a dyad the task was substantially more difficult. A total of 62 matched pairs was obtained at time ones and two and 28 at time 3 (the same number as in Kram’s seminal study in 1985). T-tests established that there were no significant differences between the respondents, who answered all three questionnaires and those, who answered only the first two.

The data were subjected to omni-directional analysis, using correlation analysis and regression analysis as appropriate.

Results and Findings

The analyses did not show a complete chain of cause-process and effect. Table 1 below shows the pattern of support for the five hypotheses.

94

Table 6.46 Percentage of each hypothesis (proportion of sub-hypotheses) supported by correlations / regressions

Cross-sectional Longitudinal No. measures measures dependent

variables

Hypothesis Self + Others ++

Self Others

1. Organisational support compared with: Mentor and mentee attitudes towards

goals (clarity, alignment, commitment) Mentor and mentee relationship

satisfaction, quality and commitment Mentor and mentee outcomes

17%

--

--

38

--

--

--

17%

38%

--

17%

0%

12

24

162. Expectation of own and other parties’ behaviours compared with:

Perceived actual behaviours by mentor and mentee

Mentor and mentee relationship satisfaction, quality and commitment

Mentor and mentee outcomes

--

----

--

----

83%

47%

33%

42%

33%--

18

72

243. Goal clarity, alignment and commitment compared with:

Perceived actual behaviours by mentor and mentee

Mentor and mentee outcomes

----

----

28%

6%

----

36

244. Perceived actual behaviours by mentor and mentee compared with:

Mentor relationship satisfaction, quality and commitment

Mentee relationship satisfaction, quality and commitment

Mentee outcomes Mentor outcomes

--------

--------

28%

89%

100%0%

53%

78%

43%0%

{54

{54

2424

5. Mentor and mentee relationship satisfaction, quality and commitment compared with:

Mentor outcomes* Mentee outcomes*

----

----

50%100%

29%71%

5454

includes cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons+ individual reporting on own behaviours, goals, relationship satisfaction etc++ individual reporting on their perception of the other person’s behaviours etc

Hypothesis one is not proven. Neither longitudinal nor cross-sectional measures showed any significant levels of correlation between organisational supportiveness for mentoring and relationship experience, behaviours or outcomes. It appears that the effective developmental mentoring relationship may be relatively self-contained and immune to external influences. This study explores only one contextual variable – organisational support .It is likely that other variables, such as amount and quality of participant training, will have a measurable impact.

Hypothesis two: The data show moderate support for an association between self-reported expectation of own behaviours and self-report of own actual behaviours. Mentee expectations of mentor behaviour and vice versa are also closely correlated, but not with perceptions of the dyadic partner’s actual

95

behaviours. There were, however, in addition, interesting associations between mentee and mentor expectations of their dyadic partners’ and their self-report of their own behaviours.

Hypothesis three is not supported in relation to goal clarity and goal commitment being associated with positive behaviours or outcomes, for either party. However, self-report of goal alignment by the mentee correlates with all three elements of relationship experience; and mentor self-report of goal alignment correlates with relationship commitment. None of the goal constructs correlates with outcomes.These results contradict the assumption that specific (SMART) goals at the beginning of the relationship are important to goal achievement. My analysis, supported subsequently by Megginson (2007) suggests that goals in mentoring and coaching are most achievable when emergent and that solidifying goals too early may be dysfunctional.

Hypothesis four was broadly supported. Positive relationship experience is dependent on participants’ perceptions of their own and each other’s behaviours. Mentees’ perceptions of their own behaviours at time 2 are highly correlated with mentee outcomes; as are mentee perceptions of mentor actual behaviours. However, mentor behaviours, as observed by either party, are not closely associated with outcomes for either party. The mechanisms that drive mentor and mentee outcomes appear from my analysis to be different and complex.

Hypothesis five is strongly supported for mentees and moderately supported for mentors. Strong associations between mentor and mentee relationship experience and developmental outcomes confirm studies that emphasise mutual learning as a characteristic of effective mentoring (Allen et al 1999).

Discussion Strengths of the researchThe key strengths of the research include:

The degree of triangulation, with variables examined from both mentor and mentee perspectives with respect to themselves and to each other. (This was particularly useful in preventing false conclusions about scales and correlations – a clear pattern had to be shown across the majority of data sets, before an association could be established.)

The longitudinal nature of the study, which overcomes the problems of post-hoc recollection of experience. (However, I could not ensure that all relationships were at exactly the same point in evolution at the point of measurement and this may have influenced results. This is an issue for further application of the research method.)

The focus on one approach to or model of mentoring, rather than an (unevidenced) assumption that all mentoring approaches are the same.

The creation and testing of new instrumentation, designed specifically to assess the chain of cause-process-effect within mentoring.

96

Limitations of the studyAs with any complex analytical endeavour, the study has limitations. It proved very difficult to obtain matched pair samples in the number required for statistical analysis, to the extent that regression analysis was not possible on those participants, who responded at all three time points.

The complexity of the data meant that some potential variables (for example, job commitment) which could be posited to influence the mentoring process, had to be omitted. This study examined mentoring for a specific audience in a specific cultural context. It may not apply generically to all audiences or all cultural contexts.

Implications for practiceThe implications of this study for practice are substantial. In particular:

It provides a valid and practical method of monitoring the quality of / troubleshooting the mentoring relationship and programme. A range of organisations now track this data online. The system (called MDS on-line – for Mentoring Dynamics Survey) also allows them to benchmark their programme against all others in the database.

It frees up mentors from “goal tyranny” – the confining expectation that they must set and work to specific goals. Goals can now be seen as emergent phenomena.

It enables more effective management of participation expectations of their own and each other’s behaviours, by clarifying the sponsorship/ developmental split

From a research perspective, the study has: Provided a basis for future study of the developmental mentoring

phenomenon, as distinct from sponsorship mentoring Created and validated instrumentation, most of which can be (and is

being) used in further studies of both constructs. The measures of outcomes are especially valuable, as this has been a major gap in the literature on mentoring effectiveness, with previous scales measuring a mixture of outcomes and (assumed) enablers.

Begun the process of understanding the “black box” of mentoring – what happens within the relationship to make it effective. Previous studies have focused on receipt of mentoring functions by the mentee/ protégé and in a few cases on the benefits to mentors. (REFS) However, this is the first substantive attempt to examine in detail how the expectational and behavioural interactions between mentor and mentee determine outcomes of the relationship, for both parties.

Explored a basic cause-process-effect model of developmental mentoring, which can be refined in future studies. In particularly, larger scale studies of specific links in the chain, and examination of additional variables, with two point longitudinal research designs, may develop a deeper understanding of the influences at work in shaping relationship experience and outcomes.

Demonstrated the complexity and individuality of mentoring relationships, which calls into question the positivist emphasis of much

97

of the previous literature. This argues for an emphasis of future studies, building on the framework of this study, to be either qualitative or mixed qualitative and quantitative.

Bibliography

Allen, TD and Poteet, ML(1999) Developing effective mentoring relationships: Strategies from the mentor’s point of view Career Development Quarterly 48 pp59-73McGrath, JE (1964) Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction Holt,Rinehart and Winson, New YorkMegginson, D (2007) An own goal for coaching, Coaching at Work FebNoe, RA (1988) An investigation of the determinants of successfully assigned mentoring relationships Personnel Psychology 41 pp457-479 Ragins, BR and Cotton, JL (1999) Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (4) pp 529-550Ragins, BR and McFarlin, D (1990) Perception of mentor roles in cross-gender relationships Journal of |Vocational Behavior, 37 pp 321-39

Submitted by

Prof David Clutterbuck [email protected] +44 (0)1628 661667

98

Date post:	22-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Coaching and Mentoring International | - Course map · Web viewLarge holding companies sometimes...

Documents