2.1 Mentorship in its Historical and Social Context

On one level, then, mentoring is a long-standing and well-respected management technique that fell out of favour and has now been ‚re-discovered’. Although most of the literature quotes the concept’s Greek origins, the modern currency of the term is derived less from The Odyssey than from Fénelon’s romance of Télémaque, in which the part played by Mentor as a counsellor is given more prominence. For years, the idea of the older, more experienced worker passing on skills and knowledge lay embedded in apprenticeship schemes. The arts, politics and the sporting fields – as well as the world of literature (Frodo and Gandalf in Lord of the rings, anyone?) – are crammed with examples of this special relationship.

Mentorship was really rediscovered by the management gurus in the 1970s. Despite some recognition of its potential in the LIS sector in the eighties (witness Hunt and Michael’s 1984 article, detailed below) it was not until the 1990s that interest – and research – into the applications of mentoring relations became more widespread (see Nankivell & Shoolbred, section 1.4).

Why this upsurge in interest, then, when mentorship is hardly a new concept? A number of facts have led us to rediscover this valuable tool of personal and professional development:

• The changing world of work: with the pace of political/economic/social/ technological change becoming more rapid, organisations have become leaner and flatter with a greater emphasis on flexibility; hierarchies are out and empowerment and support of the individual is in.

• New styles of management: to cope with the changing environment new styles of management have been adopted with increased delegation of responsibility, multi-skilling, new forms of communication supported by new technologies and an emphasis on continuous learning to develop organisations/people that can ‚self-generate’; managers are increasingly having to become facilitators, empowerers and developers of others.

• New approaches to learning: as a consequence of the above, there is now a greater emphasis on Continuing Professional Development and learning in the workplace; the old ‚Peter Principle’ of promotion and the odd training course are not enough to enable managers (and hence their organisations) to survive in this new environment.

Mentoring programmes can be seen as one of a basket of goods (courses; job rotation; project work; committee work; secondment; etc.) available in the new learning environment. This approach is particularly pertinent as it is very much linked with new management styles and offers a (potentially) highly flexible tool that can be called upon (in the most informal schemes) ‚as and when’ to address issues as they arise in the rapidly changing workplace.

Overall, interest has been reborn because of the perceived benefits of mentoring.

2.2 Benefits of Mentoring

2.3 Why NOT – the Arguments against Mentoring

The early literature on mentoring painted it as ‚wholly good’ (see Nankivell and Shoolbred’s literature review). The last few years, though, have seen more questioning of this approach. So what reasons are giving for not adopting mentoring schemes:

• traditionalists may see staff development in terms of group activities led by a trainer and question the long-term time commitment involved in mentoring;

• some potential mentors see limited benefits for them in the whole (timeconsuming) process;

• those who have not experienced the benefits of mentorship may not be willing to put themselves forward as mentors;

• we have not been trained to fulfil, or expect, a mentor role;

• finding an appropriate (informal) mentor depends on many factors (knowledge, respect, a willingness to take part, etc.) making the process far from simple (see 3.2, below);

• mentoring is by its very nature elitist;

• mentoring perpetuates the status quo.

Many of these points are attitudinal. But attitudes are changing. As organisations are increasingly becoming learning organisations views about training in general, and mentorship in particular, are altering.

The most worrying arguments (for me) are the last two. Roma Harris feels that only a ‚handpicked few’ benefit. In truth, everyone in an organisation could/ should benefit from mentoring (an argument for formal programmes institution-wide). She also believes that mentoring can be used as a form of succession planning to ensure the views of out-going leaders are perpetuated by their mentees. It has been argued that there is a gender bias to this, favouring men and leading to what Janice Kirkland has called ‚anti-mentoring’ of women. My own experience of informal schemes have been largely mentee-led (see also Smith and Morgan’s experiences) and I am inclined to agree with Golian and Galbraith’s view that ‚mentors do not view potential mentees as globs of clay awaiting the great master sculptor’. Having said this, anyone initiating a scheme should at least be aware of these criticisms of mentoring and generally guard against using too prescriptive approaches in the relationship.

4.1 Practical Considerations

So how do you actually go about establishing a successful one-to-one mentoring programme? Following their extensive research, the key/overriding principles that Nankivell and Shoolbred felt should always be in place are:

1. The partners must get on well together

2. Mutual respect between partners

3. Commitment of time and energy from both partners

4. It is evolutionary in nature and may continue or develop beyond the original scope and parameters.

Once the appropriate mentor/mentee have been selected it is important to establish guidelines for the relationship. Practical considerations include:

• Objectives for the mentee and the mentor: what do you both hope to get out of the programme? Is the main focus career development, professional growth or more specifically project-related? A personal SWOT analysis by the mentee in the initial session may help to get the programme under way and establish a framework for future meetings.

• Boundaries to discussion/areas not to be included: will the focus primarily be on work-related or professional issues? What if personal problems are affecting performance: are these open to discussion?

• Forms of communication: what is the preferred form of communication: face-to-face meetings, telephone, email? Can the primary form of communications (say, meetings) be augmented with other communication? Is the mentor, for example, happy to be phoned at any time outside the meeting structure?

• Frequency of meetings: will these be regular, on demand or by arrangement? Are they more likely to happen if a whole programme is booked in the diary for six months or a year in advance?

• Length of meetings: should you establish at the outset how long you expect meetings to last? Time-management techniques, such as scheduling meetings for the end of the day, may help you to keep on course.

• Location of meetings: will they be in the workplace or outside work? Will they be in one person’s office or do you both have areas where personal issues can be discussed in confidence? If geographically separated, will location be shared (at the mentor’s place of work for one meeting, the mentee’s for the next) to evenly distribute the burden of travel costs and time?

• Paperwork: do you want formal paperwork? Will there be agendas/papers for discussion? Who will organise these? What sort of minutes will be kept?

• Evaluation mechanisms: how will the programme be reviewed? Will it relate to original objectives?

• Ending the relationship: what are the arrangements for terminating the relationship? Is it a fixed-term scheme or will regular review dates be set to offer either party the opportunity to end the relationship if they feel it is no longer valid?

These considerations should inform both informal and formal schemes. For more details descriptions of how individuals and organisations have structured their programmes, see the case studies quoted in sections 5.2 and 5.3 below.

As with any ‚project’, it is important to employ a planning cycle approach to the whole mentoring process. Much of the literature (see, for example, Stokes) focuses on the planning – the steps to be taken up to the first meeting – or the running of the programme. It is essential, though, that we also review programmes. After an allotted time (say, six months or a year) it is essential for both parties to consider what they are getting out of the relationship, what problems they are encountering and if they feel it is still a valid use of their time. We must also recognise that people and relationships change and – difficult as this may be – accept it when a mentoring relationship has run its course.

4.2 Pitfalls

As with any staff development programme, there will always be potential pitfalls that should be guarded against. Clear aims, an agreed structure, open communication (not just between the mentor and mentee but between those involved in the scheme and those outside the scheme, such as line managers) plus constant evaluation and review of the programme should help avert most problems. Having said that, it is always wise to be aware of the most common potential difficulties:

• conflict, apprehension, uncertainty or suspicion about the roles and relationships between the mentor, the mentee and the line manager

• inability to keep to plans (watch out for frequent cancellations of meetings!)

• the mentee becoming too dependent on the mentor for all decisions/moves

• development of inappropriate emotional feelings as a result of the close nature of the relationship

• accusations of favouritism/professional jealousy from colleagues.

4.3 A Short-cut to Success!

Despite these potential dangers, a mentoring programme can prove a highly effective and highly enjoyable developmental tool for the mentee and mentor alike. Parsloe and Wray offer ‚Seven Golden Rules of Simplicity’ to ensure your scheme will remain a success:

1 Success comes most surely from doing simple things consistently – do not make your mentoring programme too elaborate or too hidebound by rules or hampered by unattainable expectations.

2 Make sure you meet – busy mentors do not always find the time to meet their mentees; if this is important you must find time … and guard it with your diary! (The key to a successful programme, in my opinion.)

3 Keep it brief – generally, meetings should be between 30 and 75 minutes long (making exceptions only when really necessary).

4 Stick to the basic process – follow basic meeting rules (come prepared; manage the time; keep brief notes of discussions and agreed actions) to ensure they remain effective and efficient.

5 Develop the ‚ask, not tell’ habi’ – remember there is still a difference between line management and mentoring, no matter how enlightened a line manager you might be; adopt a 80% asking questions and 20% giving answers rule.

6 Remember, it’s all about learning – mentoring should not be merely directing but encouraging self-growth as part of the learning culture; as a result, it should be a cost-effective form of on-going staff development.

7 Expect to gain yourself – it is not only the mentee who will benefit: it should be a win-win situation and the mentor should acknowledge that.

Good luck with your mentoring programme!

5. OTHER HELP AND RESOURCES

‚There is no shortage of material in general literature concerning mentoring.’
- Lois Kuyper-Rushing

Mentoring really became popular in the management literature in the 1970s. In the LIS sector a few pieces were published in the 1980s (see, for example, Hunt and Michael below) but the real explosion came in the 1990s. Below is a taster from the feast now available.

[NOTE: citations for most of the models/theories quoted above are given below.]