Upload
hathuan
View
219
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Title: Developing Across Boundaries – mentor and mentee perceptions and experiences of cross-organisational mentoring.
Authors: Irene Mains, HRM/HRD Lecturer, Programme Leader for International Business and HRM, [email protected] MacLean, Senior Lecturer, HRM, [email protected]
Stream: 7: Leadership, Management and Talent Development
Type: Working Paper
1
Abstract:
Purpose: The research aim was to explore factors influencing the operation of a cross
organisational mentoring initiative which was created to support leadership development
thereby providing participant views on the perceived success of the initiative.
Design/methodology/approach: The research is inductive in nature and uses an exploratory
approach via a 2 stage qualitative analysis. The qualitative data was gathered via interviews
with the founding partners and questionnaires distributed to all managers involved in the
initiative – mentors and mentees - at the outset of the initiative and one year later. Emergent
implications were then drawn upon to inform organisational practice and the future design
and operation of further cross organisational mentoring programmes.
Findings: Emergent themes revealed that criterion based matching informed by the specific
knowledge of organisational leads was deemed effective while support from senior
management was paramount at all stages. Clear personal and professional objective setting
was vital at the outset of the mentoring relationship to help frame initial discussion; however
a degree of fluidity occurred as the mentoring relationship went on. It was also found that
cross organisational mentoring may provide more of a holistic opportunity for self- reflection
and exploration outside the organisational parameters set. Findings indicated that adequate
time to develop awareness of different policies, practices and cultures across the partner
organisations, was required. Developing a comfortable and trusting environment for the
relationship was viewed as vital for success; and guidance, training and a meeting framework
was helpful to assist this. Indeed, participants noted that a mechanism for wider cohort
communication, reflection and feedback at intervals in the process would have been useful
also.
2
Research limitations/implications: It is recognised that wider generalisations are limited;
the initiative would require replication with a number of different participants to increase
validity. However as the research is exploratory in nature there is value in the initial research
and provides potential for replication within other organisations.
Practical implications: The research provides a number of useful themes which
practitioners could use to explore the creation of a cross-organisational mentoring scheme
and provides benchmarking indicators.
Originality/value: That this is an innovative approach to leadership development can be seen
in the limited literature and theory related to cross organisational mentoring as a leadership
development tool that the design team, a partnership of HR academics and HRD
professionals, were able to access.
Keywords: Mentoring; Cross-organisational; leadership development; HRD
3
Introduction
This paper discusses the findings from exploratory research into an innovative HRD
programme providing cross organisational formal mentoring. This programme involved
middle managers from two public sector organisations, a local authority and a health board,
and a private sector organisation, a high street bank; being matched with one another as
mentors and mentees depending on development needs. The organisations already had well
established in-house mentoring programmes but were keen to offer an alternative/ addition to
this leadership development strategy.
The paper firstly discusses the rationale for this programme, in particular exploring why
employers may engage in this particular form of leadership development and learning. The
methodology utilised is then discussed. Through a two stage analysis of the stakeholder
perceptions, using qualitative enquiry, four key themes are explored, starting with analysis of
planning, preparation and maintenance of the initiative, including the matching process,
mentor characteristics, content of the first mentoring meeting and consideration of which
party drives the mentoring partnership. Organisational support factors are then considered;
followed by analysis of the mentoring relationship in relation to the length, which factors
assisted in the development of the relationship and the challenges experienced. Next, the
outcomes of the Cross Organisational Mentoring Initiative (COMI) are discussed including
mentor and mentee perceptions of the benefits achieved individually and for their
organisation as a whole. Finally we conclude with lessons for the HRD profession on how to
develop such programmes, recognising the importance of thorough planning, a robust
matching exercise, expectation setting and levels of commitment. Consideration of future
research direction is also provided.
4
The Research Problem
There is considerable research on mentoring with organisations increasingly utilising
mentoring to “address the cognitive, interpersonal and technological needs of employees”
(Homitz and Berge, 2008:327). The business organisational case for mentoring has been
made with benefits such as increased staff commitment, job satisfaction and retention being
found (Allen, Eby, Poteet et al, 2004; Payne and Huffman, 2005). Furthermore, three key
stakeholders benefit from mentoring. Firstly, mentees develop their knowledge and skills,
develop networks and build confidence, all of which contribute to their career development;
secondly, mentors benefit from the satisfaction of passing on their knowledge and expertise;
and, the organisation benefits because of the impact on commitment and engagement
(Clutterbuck, 2004).
Formal mentoring programmes include one to one- to-one mentoring, peer mentoring, or
group mentoring (Day 2001, McCauley and Douglas 2004). With hierarchical mentoring
“when junior colleagues inform senior colleagues of their needs and experiences” (Thomas,
Willis and Davis 2007: 178) being the most common form. However, Higgins and Kram
(2001) present a developmental network perspective that suggests that protégés may gather
career and psychosocial support from several interconnected individuals, that is “the set of
people a protégé names as taking an active interest in and action to advance his career by
providing developmental assistance” (Higgins and Kram 2001: 568). This approach presents
a viable alternative to the traditional one of a single focal mentor. Indeed Higgins and Kram
(2001) and Higgins and Thomas (2001) emphasise that such multiple mentoring relationships
can cross organisational hierarchies and indeed extend beyond the boundaries of the
organisation itself. Dobrow and Higgins (2005) state that such developmental networks can
particularly help individuals to construct their own professional identities as a result of the
mutual trust, interdependence and reciprocity within the network and exposure to a range of
5
role models. This multiple model of mentoring complements the increasing mobility of
individuals, with the job-for-life career an increasing rarity.
In recognising the accepted value of mentoring as a developmental tool the organisations
wished to explore a wider application of mentoring through a cross organisational approach.
The key business aim of this COMI partnership initiative was to create organisational
benefits, through building hard and soft knowledge and confidence in skills, utilising an
innovative and cost-effective approach to leadership development. The initiative would allow
participants to benchmark and network across other organisations and sectors. Furthermore it
would encourage increased cultural and business awareness of partner organisations, and the
exploration of different perspectives; as well as providing a catalyst for both mentors and
mentees to develop deeper organisational and individual self-exploration and reflection.
The research aim was to explore factors influencing the development and operation of cross
organisational mentoring, identify any challenges faced, and evaluate the success and
limitations of cross organisational mentoring to inform organisational practice and further
cross organisational mentoring programmes.
Methodology
The aim was to critically evaluate the cross-organisational mentoring programme from a
range of stakeholder perspectives. Using an action research (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill,
2009) methodology, the authors adopted an interpretivist approach (Creswell, 1998) as they
wished to gain an insight into the feelings and thoughts of the programme’s participants.
Whilst primarily qualitative, the researchers also required baseline and demographic data, to
build future empirical research as well as enhance future iterations of the programme
development. Data was collected from key informants; the organisational leads (all were
OD/HRD practitioners), as well as mentors and mentees from the three participant
6
organisations. The data collection explored their perceptions on the creation and execution of
the initiative thus providing views on its perceived success and personal impact.
Questionnaires were issued at two stages across a calendar year, gaining a more longitudinal
perspective of the initiative (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). At the outset of the
initiative, questionnaires were distributed by Survey Monkey, to all mentor and mentee
participants to determine initial reactions to the matching and first meeting of the mentee and
mentor; and then again, one year later to ascertain specific views on the mentoring
relationship; perceptions on how the relationship developed, any challenges encountered as
well as consideration of key outcomes of the COMI. Interviews were also held with the
organisational leads; however this paper focuses only on mentor and mentee views. All 25
mentees and 25 mentors were invited to complete both the initial and the subsequent
questionnaire online via Survey Monkey. For the initial questionnaire response rates were
high with 76% of mentors and 52% of mentees responding, while the second questionnaire
yielded equal responses from both mentors and mentees at 60% for both groups. Utilising an
interpretative-qualitative approach (Maxwell, 2013) four key themes were identified from the
questionnaire response choices and associated open question narratives of the participants.
The four themes are: planning, preparation and maintenance; organisational support;
relationships; and outcomes. Each of these are discussed below.
7
Analysis and discussion of findings
Theme 1: Planning, preparation and maintenance
Many authors recognise formal mentoring programmes as a strategic HRD tool to support a
variety of activities from attraction to career development (See Allen, Eby and Lentz, 2006,
Blake-Beard, 2001; Sosik, Lee and Bouquillon, 2005). However, there is still concern
regarding the operation and subsequent impact of such structured interventions (Eby and
Lockwood, 2005). Indeed Morrison, Piip and Short (2013) argue that mentoring programmes
can be placed on a continuum starting with limited, indeed lacking, organisational support to
more formalised and structured programmes. Furthermore, Zachary (2005) stresses the need
for executive commitment. Whilst Boags (2004) identifies four phases to formal programmes
including secure support, start up, implementation and monitoring/ evaluation. With Blake-
Beard, O’Neill and McGowan (2008) Eby and Lockwood (2005) highlight the challenging
role of matching mentors and mentees, with the latter noting that aspects such as dyad
mismatch, personality clashes or misunderstanding related to perceived expertise and
seniority are often seen to be pivotal in mentoring relationship success or failure.
In this study respondents reported that key aspects of planning and preparation (the first two
stages of Boags’ (2004) approach) were important including the matching process, the
mentor characteristics, the initial meeting and expectations and views on who should drive
the process.
The Matching Process
The matching process was a key feature within the initiative and was recognised as a key
element in the process. All three organisational leads were keen to ensure that a structured
approach was adopted for the matching process; thus echoing the perspective of Chao (2007)
8
who argued that formal programmes place more emphasis on relationship formation. That
matching is an essential element is recognised by Dominguez and Hager (2013) who note that
changes to the power dynamics of mentoring since the early research of Levinson (1978) and
Kram (1983) mean it is essential to ensure an appropriate fit between the two parties. A view
reinforced by P-Sontag, Vappie and Wanberg (2008) and Blake-Beard et al (2008) who note
the matching of mentor and mentee is a pivotal stage in the process. Matching in the
participating organisations was ‘administrator’ focussed (Blake-Beard et al, 2008), that is
driven by an organisational representative, utilising variables such as mentees’ developmental
needs against mentors previous experience in similar areas/ situations; mentees’ learning
goals, both participants’ learning styles and personality (based on knowledge of organisation
leads), as well as more pragmatic aspects such as geography and internal mentoring load of
the mentor partner.
In contrast to the adopted approach Wanberg, Welsh and Hezlett, (2003) and Allen, Eby and
Lentz (2006) argue that mentees should have a clear input on mentor choice to encourage
mentee acceptance and engagement. However this was not seen to be the case in the primary
research with 60% of mentees and 60% of mentors claiming that they would not have liked to
choose their own partner, noting that; “An independent match meant that neither had
‘chosen’ the other so we were on a level playing field” (Bank Mentor) and thus there was
some equality in the relationship. A second mentor respondent felt that “my view has always
been that such matches should be voluntary but in this case we were independently matched
very well” (NHS Mentor). Whilst a mentee respondent believed that the external matching
process prevented them being influenced by any preconceptions as it “offered a degree of
anonymity to the process” (Council Mentee).
9
The participants seemed to be more interested in the professional background of their mentor
and how this would impact on them with initial concerns regarding sectoral background
being raised; and in practice this provided to be both positive and negative, as seen
respectively from the mentee comments below;
“My mentor does not have the same professional background as I have. Prior to first meeting
I did wonder how this would work. However, it was a perfect relationship” (Council Mentee)
“Whilst on paper we were matched well, when we met up our experiences were very different
and it was difficult to get some common threads” (NHS Mentee)
However in terms of matching effectiveness, 91% of all mentors and mentees rated the
matching positively overall, with one mentee stating “Thanks for finding me a great mentor!”
(Bank Mentee)
In considering how the independent matching had impacted their relationship, the following
key aspects were identified as being positive:
Figure 1: Matching factors that impacted on the relationship
10
Thus the factors used by the OD/HRD Leads to create the matches such as learning styles,
previous mentoring experience, learning objectives and anecdotal knowledge of mentor and
mentee personality were also recognised as matching factors which impacted on the
relationship, as the partners came together.
The findings suggest a reluctance to self-select perhaps because individuals perceived a lack
of knowledge of partners, a feeling that they themselves were not best placed to make such
choices and that it was better for OD/HRD leads to use knowledge of participants for
mapping. Thus the role of the organisational lead was vital in matching – combining
knowledge of mentee and their needs and of mentor experiences and capabilities. This
mirrors the views of Boags (2004) and Hegstad and Wentling (2005) who argue that
programme administrators are well placed to match mentors and mentees as they not only
know the participants but also have insight into organisational goals; this may be of particular
significance given the cross organisational context and the initial worries regarding sectoral
knowledge.
Mentor Characteristics
All respondents were asked to identify the relative importance of key characteristics of the
mentor; results for the whole sample are shown below. Overall, the experience and skill of
the mentor were thought to be more important mentor characteristics, rather than seniority.
11
Figure 2: Rating of mentor characteristics
This challenges some of the seminal literature which refers to the relationship being between
a senior and more experienced member (mentor) for a younger, inexperienced member
(mentee) (Bauer 1999), however this tends to refer to mentoring within rather than across
organisations. That the cross organisational mentoring is seen as more of a developmental
model (Higgins and Kram, 2001), rather than a hierarchical and directive model (Thomas,
Willis and Davis, 2007) may explain these preferences. Further, Poulsen (2006) argues that
having a ‘learning alliance’ focus on the relationship takes focus away from the “who” of the
mentor to the “what” i.e. the experience and how that can be utilised in the relationship;
indeed the cross organisational focus may also have changed views on seniority as the
relationship was not focussed on career progression through sponsorship for example coupled
with the fact that seniority labelling may be difficult to align between the different
organisations. Also, as suggested by Klasen and Clutterbuck (2002) a UK model of
mentoring favours the view that relevant experience is more important. To manage
expectations of the mentees the primary research findings suggest that a consideration of
12
individual perception on preferred mentor characteristics should feature in the pre
relationship work/matching to manage expectations
Other aspects that were explored under planning, preparation and maintenance were the use
of objective setting in the initial meeting and a view on who should drive the relationship,
which is discussed next.
The Initial Meeting
Armstrong, Allinson and Hayes (2002) argue that a focus on the mentees needs leads to
development of methods best suited to the individual rather than having a pre- determined
approach to the relationship.
A number of key issues were identified as being discussed during the first meeting as
outlined in the table below with objective setting recognised by the majority:
Figure 3: Factors discussed at first meeting
Generally participants felt that where there was an initial discussion, focussed on objectives
of both partners, there was a clearer sense of what was important which then underpinned the
partnership, with one mentor noting it “helped to identify what was important for the mentee
13
and rule out some options at an early stage” (NHS Mentor). This view was echoed by
mentees too with one stressing that it “helped set the relationship, provided boundaries and
directions and expectations” (Council Mentee)
In this study, 88% of respondents stated that they discussed both personal and professional
objectives early on in their relationship with participants recognising both positive and
negative impacts of this discussion.
positive impacts negative impacts
helping to identify what was important
help guide discussion and set objectives
helped establish ground rules and career
aspirations
objectives set were far too specific
mentee demotivated by discussion
highlighted the diversity of the match more
Table 1: Impact of initial discussions
Where objectives changed the partners saw this as a natural aspect of mentoring and
recognised that mentoring is an evolving form of learning which facilitates evaluation,
reflection and subsequent action as observed by Bhatta and Washington (2003). Thus while
personal and professional objective setting is important, especially when combined with an
initial discussion of each partners’ expectations, a degree of fluidity is to be expected and
encouraged.
14
Driving the Relationship
McGowan, Stone and Kegan (2007) argue that early stage learners generally benefit from
authoritative guidance however the mentees in this initiative were all in managerial positions
(of varying levels) and as such seemed to be content to retain control.
The operation of the mentoring partnerships was shared by the mentor and mentee, with 66%
% of the respondents stating at the outset that the mentee should be the main driver of the
relationship:
“I think both the mentor and the mentee can benefit from the process but the mentee should
be the key driver, taking responsibility for their own development and ensuring it is relevant
and important to their role.” (Council Mentee)
54% of respondents stated that in practice the drive emanated from the mentee, while 30%
felt the mentor drove the relationship, the remainder felt it was driven by the OD/HRD leads.
“To be fair, I would say that both the mentor and mentee drove the process, not the
respective organisations.” (Bank Mentor)
“I did take the lead but the Mentee was very proactive.” (NHS Mentor)
Thus the majority expected the mentee to lead and this was generally translated into practice
in the results, though to a slightly lesser degree. While expectations and reality of the
“driving partner” can differ this is not necessarily a negative outcome; partners should
consider the nature of the relationship, what they are trying to achieve and openly discuss the
impact of this on the respective roles. The fact that hierarchical relationships were not
prevalent in the initiative may have helped to facilitate openness to the relationship as
advocated by Beech and Brockbank (1999).
15
Theme 2: Organisational support
Whilst it is recognised that mentoring is “highly personal” (Delong et al, 2008:115) and
success is therefore often driven by the relationship between the partners, Hegstad (1999)
notes that other variables such as unsupportive cultures and lack of participants can also
influence success and by association failure. The need to provide senior support, recognition
for the additional effort associated with workplace mentoring, management of work demands
and a positive organisational culture is well documented (Allen, 1997; Ragins and Scandura,
1994).
Support for the initiative was mainly viewed as positive with 84% of respondents stating that
they felt supported by the OD/HRD team within their own organisations and 88%
recognising that had received support from their line manager while undertaking the
initiative.
As suggested by Ragins and Scandura (1994) there was evidence that measures of support
from management had been implemented, for example 92% felt they had been allowed
adequate time for meetings with their mentoring partner and 76% felt they had been given
support and time to reflect and prepare.
Laiho and Brandt (2012) also suggest that formalised programmes be supported by training
and coaching of participants; the individual organisations did provide in-house training as
part of the “sign up” process and facilitated sessions were provided for mentees and mentors
at the launch. Nonetheless, 42% of respondents stated they would have benefitted from a
combined event (similar to the launch) half way through the process, to share experiences and
network further. However the use of I.T. was not an evidently strong desire with only 35%
16
commenting that they would like to see wider use, the majority viewing it as counter-intuitive
to the relationship, which was clearly articulated by one respondent;
“[I] think that IT would move the mentoring away from a physical face to face chat through,
personally I would find it detrimental to the process.”
This is an interesting finding given the drive for greater use of IT, including mobile
technology, in the provision of learning within contemporary organisations (CIPD, 2014).
However a small number did comment that they would like further support and guidance
(20% from OD/HRD and 20% from Line Management, this may suggest that there is still a
degree of uncertainty around the requirements of the mentees and the mentors and additional
guidance is sought. This may suggest that regular “touch points” with both mentors and
mentees to underpin their relationships could be useful –this could also be simply a short
email, note and/or call to ascertain how partners are progressing and if they need any support.
Theme 3: Relationships
The importance of the quality of the relationship between mentor and mentee has been
emphasised by Ragins, Cotton and Miller (2000), who state the presence of a mentor alone
does not automatically lead to positive work outcomes. Indeed, the degree of satisfaction with
a mentoring relationship may “overshadow any other design feature of a formal mentoring
programme” (ibid, pg. 1191). This emphasises the perception that the quality of the
mentoring relationship is more important that it’s type; indeed “the level of satisfaction in a
relationship appears to be the key variable” (ibid, pg. 1187).
Length of relationship
Having determined that formal mentoring relationships are usually contracted to last between
6 months and one year; the frequency of meetings combined with the location are depend on
17
the contract agreed by both parties (Poldre, 1994). With the primary research results from this
evaluation of COMI showed clear variations in the length of the mentoring relationships. A
small majority, lasted 6-9months (25%), with 22% lasting over 1 year while 19% lasted only
3 months. This correlates with the opinion of Bauer (1999), cited in Erdem & Aytemur
(2008:55) who state that the relationship “should go on for as long as is required”.
Figure 4: Length of mentoring relationship
Building the relationship
Hezlett and Gibson (2005) argue that “Gaining a better understanding of the interpersonal
processes involved in mentoring relationships will help clarify the conditions under which
mentoring relationships are maximally supportive and satisfying” (p.446)
A number of factors have been considered as important to aid the quality of the mentoring
relationship. Ting and Hart (2004) consider 3 fundamental aspects of mentoring type
relationships to be rapport, collaboration and commitment. Given that over 90% of managers
stated that they felt engaged in the mentoring relationship; this indicates a high level of
commitment overall.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
3 months
3-6 months
6-9months
12 months
over 12 months
Length of relationship
18
Chidiac (2006) and Ely, Boyce, Nelson et al (2010) develop this by emphasising the
importance of trust, comfortableness and confidentiality; with Chidiac (2006); stating that
“confidentiality is a major corner stone of building a trust relationship” (p.14). Indeed,
comfort levels were viewed as important to the COMI relationships, with 100% of the
mentors and 93% of the mentees stating that their level of comfortableness had increased
following the first meeting with their partner. This highlights the importance of the
recognised phases of mentoring, specifically the first two of initiation and cultivation (Kram,
1983).
Allen and Poteet (1999) state that to make the most from the mentoring relationship, the three
key aspects are trust, open communication, and setting standards and expectations and in this
study these aspects were considered by the mentoring partners as important in building the
relationship overall. This aligns with the core areas identified by respondents as key aspects
utilised in the mentoring relationship to increase levels of comfort – namely Developing trust
(DT) Developing Understanding (DU) and process elements (P).
In developing trust (DT), 45% of respondents stated that they perceived a confidential and
safe environment (DT1) during their first meeting; along with the use of open and honest
communication, which is a relatively standard requirement for many types of developmental
relationships. Indeed, CIPD (2014) state that it is vital “to establish guidelines on
confidentiality and information flow early on to develop trust between the individuals”.
Given that mentoring often fulfil needs beyond immediate job boundaries (Hunt and
Michael, 1983; Phillips-Jones, 1982; both cited in Allen and Poteet, 1999), the greater the
degree of open communication within the relationship, the better the opportunity to share
private, personal information that may be helpful in meeting the mentee’s wider goals (Allen
and Poteet, 1999). Indeed, 15% of COMI respondents stated that getting to know their partner
personally (DT2) aided the relationship trust overall.
19
In relation to developing understanding, 15% of COMI respondents stated that setting
standards and expectations (DU1) aided the relationship overall. Other key factors identified
in building the relationship and developing understanding included setting goals and ground
rules (DU2) at the start (15%); which echoes the perception of Gay (1994), who considers
agreed purpose and relationship ground rules as a fundamental requirement in mentoring
relationships. Factors which are perhaps exclusive to the cross organisational nature of the
building the mentoring relationship were the absence of traditional organisational hierarchy
or politics (DT3), outlined by 20% of managers as a key factor in trust. Indeed, this is
considered by Gold, Thorpe and Mumford (2010) as a good base to develop an environment
for support as well as challenge, by eliminating the notions of power, salary and status.
However, as indicated by Clutterbuck and Abbott (2005), internal organisational mentoring
based on developmental models may also attempt to reduce internal power differences, and
therefore benefit from this factor.
Another factor which 15% of respondents felt aided develop their mutual understanding and
thus impacted positively on their relationship, was gaining insight into their partner’s
organisational culture (DU3). Megginson (2000) indicates that culture and the effects of
national, organisational and/or scheme organisers' approaches to mentoring can be
problematic when different expectations are held. Therefore, understanding more about your
partner’s culture is an important premise for the relationship overall, as well as providing
insight into other organisations thus contributing to management learning overall.
Process related aspects (P) which were felt, both by 20% of the COMI managers to build the
relationship overall, included providing adequate time for meetings (P1) and keeping in
regular contact (P2). Both of these elements link to the notion of commitment, highlighted by
Ely et al, (2010; 587) to “reflect the dedication…to perform the work associated with the
20
developmental experience”. A final factor considered here also by 20% of respondents was
utilisation of a neutral venue (P3), away from either partner’s place of work.
Figure 5: Key factors for building the mentoring relationship
Potential and actual challenges of COMI relationship
At the start of the mentoring relationships, respondents were asked what potential challenges
they felt lay ahead. The main concern was the lack of awareness of the other organisation
(44%); which Gold Thorpe and Mumford (2010) consider as a potential paradox in using
external mentors in that while internal partners will inevitably know more about the realities
of the organisation, the potential problem of confidentiality and openness with an internal
individual once again arises. In reality, 59% of respondents perceived this lack of awareness
of the other organisation, to be a real challenge during their mentoring relationship.
Cultural mismatch was considered as another potential challenge by 34% of managers. With
McCauley and Guthrie (2008) acknowledging that organizational systems and cultures can
impact the acceptance and effectiveness of relationships for learning; and Hegstad (1999)
21
proposing that a key barrier to effective mentoring is an unknown culture; this would appear
to be a valid concern. However, in reality, 67% stated this did not pose a threat to their
mentoring relationship, with 33% perceiving this to impact “to an extent” only. Linked to this
was the potential concern from 34% that partners would not be able to relate to each other
experiences across organisations. This translated into 74% stating there was no issue here
during their mentoring relationship, but 26% considering this to be an issue ‘to an extent’.
A final possible challenge was highlighted in the access to the mentoring partners, with 15%
showing initial concern here. However, 30% of respondents found this an actual challenge for
the relationship highlighting a real barrier. This aligns with research by Knights and
Poppleton (2008, cited in Gold, Thorpe and Mumford, 2010) that availability is of key
importance in a coaching or mentoring type relationship, and may impact on the context and
fit of the partnership overall.
Figure 6: Potential and actual challenges in the mentoring relationship
22
Theme 4: Outcomes of the COMI and a critical analysis
Desired and actual benefits for those involved in COMI
Kram (1985, cited in Allen, Eby, Poteet et al, 2004) distinguishes between two fundamental
functions of mentoring, namely career related support and psychosocial support. Both of
these functions were evidenced in the COMI research in relation to desired and actual
outcomes.
Across all organisations, the core reasons for getting involved in COMI were similar and
related mainly to develop particular skills/knowledge ( 56%), more normally linked with
coaching, however this can be part of mentoring (but not vice versa); gaining fresh
perspectives (75%); to increase their awareness of other organisations (41%); and sharing
knowledge, expertise/experience (62.5%), which is identified by Mullen (1994) as a key
mechanism of mentoring (knowledge acquisition and information exchange); and links to a
wider interpretation of social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, cited in Allen, Eby, Poteet et
al, 2004). Enhancing career opportunities was considered a factor for involvement by 31% of
managers; and widen professional network by 47% overall.
The highest perceived benefit gained by all managers involved were increasing their
knowledge of other organisations (82%); sharing expertise/experiences (77%) and gaining a
new perspective (74%), aligning with the first two aspects above from Mullen (1994). In
relation to developing a particular skill, overall 52% of managers agreed this was a personal
benefit, however in the private sector returns, this only equated to 16%, with the majority of
responses here coming from the public sector organisations. On analysis however, the key
“skill” developed by 70% of respondents, was of an interpersonal nature – namely
“confidence”; identifying the emergence of a relational focus of psychosocial outcomes of
this mentoring initiative.
23
Differences between the public and private sector participants were found relating to desired
benefits around widening professional networks where 47% of managers, stated this as a
desired outcome; aligning more to psychosocial support again, and identified by Dreher and
Ash (1990) as mentoring which allows access to channels not usually available. Indeed, 52%
of respondents stated they had widened their professional network, with the benefit perceived
higher by public sector managers (70%) than private sector (50%).
Enhancing career opportunities, which was a desired output for 31% of managers; was
established as an “important role in the mentoring relationship” (Allen et al, 2004: 127),
which obviously align more with the career related support mentoring function (Kram, 1985,
cited in Allen et al 2004). Towards the end of the mentoring relationship, 37% overall felt
they had enhanced their career opportunities.
Figure 7: Desired v Actual benefits for managers involved in COMI
24
Thus psychosocial outcomes appear more prevalent; perhaps not surprising due to traditional
career development mentoring aligning more to in-house organisational mentoring schemes,
where mentees are considered more as career protégés (Allen, et al, 2004).
Benefits to organisations involved in COMI
The relevance of consideration of this factor, relates to the many general benefits of
mentoring identified by Branch,1999( cited in Allen, Eby, Poteet et al, 2004), who noted that
the opportunity of mentoring was a factor to be considered in relation to “Best Company to
work for” criteria.
Figure 8: Possible v Actual benefits to organisations involved in COMI
Indeed, 56% of respondents stated that professional reputation of the organisation was a
possible key benefit for their organisation becoming involved in COMI. At the end of the
COMI, 15% stated they felt their organisation’s reputation was positively impacted due to the
engagement in the initiative. In addition, 56% of managers expressed that the development of
professional networking across organisation and sectors was another potential organisational
25
benefit, aligning with McKinley (2004) who includes networking opportunities as a core
benefit of mentoring. Overall, 20% of managers felt this development of networking had
indeed been achieved.
At the outset, 75% of managers stated that a key benefit to their organisation may be to offer
an additional leadership development opportunity and provide the managers involved with a
fresh perspective. This aligns with the CIPD learning and development survey (2009), which
stated that over 55% of organisations using coaching/mentoring view it as part of their
Leadership and Management Development strategy; and that it helps to build future leaders
(McKinley, 2004). Indeed, 50% of managers involved in COMI stated that at the end of the
process, the key organisational benefit gained was the development of their skills as well as
confidence as managers, identified as a valid benefit to mentoring overall (McKinley,2004).
It is important to note that 15% of managers felt there was no benefit to their organisation in
becoming involved in COMI; showing a variety of perceptions in this area.
The remaining sections in this paper will draw from the above findings to provide key
conclusions and relevant practical implications to assist organisations considering launching
or partnering in a mentoring partnership with external organisations. Finally, consideration
will be given to the research limitations as well as outlining future research direction.
26
5. Conclusions and Practical implications
As a result of this research, 10 core considerations for practice have been identified for
managers, HRD/OD professionals and organisations who may be considering becoming
involved in a cross organisational mentoring programme.
1. Criterion based matching can be effective, but requires careful consideration of the
matching criteria to be used to meet the needs of the organisations and the overall
purpose of the mentoring relationship; and requires close input from the individual
partner organisation representatives. .
2. Clear personal and professional objective setting is vital at the outset of the mentoring
relationship; however a degree of fluidity in this is expected and to be encouraged.
3. While the mentee should drive the relationship, in reality the mentor may have to take
on this role to “get things started”.
4. Support from senior management is paramount at all stages. Organisational benefits
resulting in involvement in COMI need to be considered to ensure this buy in.
5. A mechanism for group communication, reflection and feedback at intervals in the
process needs to be provided.
6. The length of the mentoring relationship varies. Length is not necessarily an indicator
of success. However, organisations may want to consider a formal timeline for the
official process to avoid overloading mentors and/or a limit on the number of
mentees.
7. At the start of the relationship between the partner organisations and the
mentor/mentees, adequate time and care has to be allowed to develop awareness of
27
different settings, cultures, and understand and define key terms to develop a common
language.
8. A comfortable and trusting environment for mentor/mentees relationship is vital for
success; and guidance, training along with a meeting framework may be required to
be provided to the mentors and mentees to assist this.
9. Where projected outcomes did not match those experienced, there were still tangible
benefits noted; again highlighting the importance of the fluidity of the process.
10. While set individual goals, can help frame the initial discussions, cross organisational
mentoring may provide more of a holistic opportunity for self-reflection and
exploration outside the organisation’s parameters and politics i.e. alignment more to
the psychosocial aspects of mentoring.
Research limitations/future research considerations
It is recognised that wider generalisations within this research are limited; the initiative would
require replication with a number of different participants to increase validity. In addition,
specific analysis of the data from individual participating groups would be beneficial i.e.
mentor v mentees; public sector v private sector managers. However as the research is
exploratory in nature there is value in this initial research and analysis that provides potential
for replication within other organisations. Research relating to analysis of perceived
advantages and disadvantages of a COMI compared to an internal organisational mentoring
programme will be provided in the near future. A third layer of research has also been
considered in returning to the managers involved in the COMI (in particular the mentees);
and analysing the perception of the longer term outcomes and benefits of engagement with
28
the COMI. Finally, as a new group of managers from the original three partnering
organisations have recently commenced their mentoring partnerships; replication of the
research previously undertaken would be useful to provide comparative analysis across the
two groups, as well as testing the validity of the findings from the initial research, and thus
provide a greater evidence base for this innovative HRD initiative.
29
References:
Allen, T. (2007), ‘Mentoring relationships from the perspective of the mentor’, in B.R.
Ragins, B.R. and K.E. Kram,. (Eds), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA
Allen T. D., Eby L. T. and Lentz E. (2006) ‘The relationship between formal mentoring
program characteristics and perceived program effectiveness’. Personnel Psychology 59 125–
153
Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L, Lentz, E., Lima, L. (2004) ‘Career Benefits Associated
With Mentoring for Protégé’s: A Meta-Analysis’. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 89,
No. 1, 127–136
Allen, T. D. and Poteet, M.L. (1999) ‘Developing effective mentoring relationships:
Strategies from the mentor's viewpoint’. The Career Development Quarterly, 48.1, pp 59-73.
Armstrong, S.J., Allinson, C.W. and Hayes, J. (2002), ‘Formal mentoring systems: an
examination of the effects of mentor/protégé cognitive styles on the mentoring process’,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 1111-1137.
Bandura, A. L. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bauer, T. T. (1999). ‘Perceived mentoring fairness: relationships with gender, mentoring
type, mentoring experience, and mentoring needs’. Sex Roles, 40(3/4), 211-225.
Beech, N. and Brockbank, A. (1999), “Power/knowledge and psychosocial dynamics in
mentoring”, Management Learning, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Bhatta, G. & Washington, S. (2003). ‘Hands up: Mentoring in the New Zealand Public
Service’. Public Personnel Management, 32, pp. 211-227
30
Blake-Beard, S. D. (2001) ‘Taking a hard look at formal mentoring programs: A
consideration of potential challenges facing women’. Journal of Management Development,
20 pp. 331–345
Blake-Beard, S, O'Neill, R, and McGowan, E. (2008), ‘Blind dates?: The importance of
matching in successful formal mentoring relationships’, in BR Ragins, and KE Kram
(eds), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice, SAGE
Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 617-33,
Boags, R. S. (2004). Implementing a best practices mentoring initiative [Online]. Last
accessed 1/5/15 at http://www.mentoringanalysis.com/cgTour.htm
Branch, S. (1999, January 11). The 100 best companies to work for in America. Fortune, 139,
118–130
Chao, G. (2007), “Mentoring and organizational socialization: networks for work
adjustment”, in Ragins, B. and Kram, K. (Eds), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 179-196.
Chidiac, M (2006) ‘Getting the best out of executive coaching: a guide to setting up a
coaching process’, Development and Learning in Organizations 20.3 13-15.
CIPD, (2009). Learning and Development Annual Survey. London CIPD
CIPD (2014), Factsheet: Coaching and Mentoring. CIPD [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/coaching-mentoring.aspx Accessed 10/3/15
Clutterbuck, D and Abbott, P. (2005), ‘Mentoring as an empowerment tool’. People
Dynamics [Online] Available at:
31
http://clutterbuckassociates.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Mentoring-as-an-
Empowerment-Tool.pdf Accessed 10/3/15
Creswell, J.W. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions, Sage Publications, London.
Delong, T.J., Gabarro, J.J. and Lees, R.J. (2008), ‘Why mentoring matters in a
hypercompetitive world’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 115-21.
Dreher, G.F., & Ash, R. A. 1990. A comparative study of mentoring among men and women
in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 539-
546
Dobrow, S., and Higgins, M.C. (2005). ‘Developmental networks and professional identity:
A longitudinal study’. [Special Issue on Mentoring]. Career Development International 10
(6/7), pp. 567-587
Dominguez, N and Hager, N (2013) Mentoring frameworks: synthesis and critique.
International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education Vol. 2 No. 3, 2013 pp. 171-
188
Eby L. T. and Lockwood A. (2005) ‘Protégés' and mentors' reactions to participating in
formal mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation’. Journal of Vocational Behavior 67
pp 441–458
Ely, K., Boyce, L.A., Nelson, J.K., Zacarro, S.J., Hernez-Broome, G. and Whymand, W.
(2010) ‘Evaluating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework’. The
Leadership Quarterly, 21, pp585–599
32
Erdem, F., and Aytemur, J. O. (2008). ‘Mentoring—A relationship based on trust: Qualitative
research’. Public Personnel Management, 37(1), pp. 55–65.
Gay, Brian (1994) ‘What is Mentoring’ Education and Training, 36(5) pp4-7
Gold, J., Thorpe, R and Mumford, A. (eds) (2010) Handbook of Leadership and Management
Development. Aldershot: Gower.
Hegstad, C. D. (1999), ‘Formal mentoring as a strategy for human resource development: A
review of research’. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10: 383–390
Hegstsad C. D. and Wentling R. Organizational antecedents and moderators that impact on
the effectiveness of exemplary formal mentoring programs in Fortune 500 companies in the
United States Human Resource Development International 8 (2005) 467–487
Hezlett, S.A. and Gibson, S.K. (2007), ‘Linking mentoring and social capital: implications
for career and organization development’, Advances in Developing Human Resource, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 384-411.
Higgins, M. C. and Kram, K. E. (2001) ‘Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A
developmental network perspective’. Academy of Management Review 26, pp 264–288
Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). ‘Constellations and careers: Toward understanding
the effects of multiple developmental relationships’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,
223–247
Homitz, D.J. and Berge, Z.L. (2008) ‘Using e‐mentoring to sustain distance training and
education’, The Learning Organization, Vol. 15 Iss: 4, pp.326 - 335
Klasen, N. & Clutterbuck, D. (2002). Implementing Mentoring Schemes: A Practical Guide
to Successful Programs. London: Butterworth Heinemann
33
Kram , K. (1983) ‘Phases of the mentor relationship’. Academy of Management Journal, Vol
28, No1,
Kram, K. (1985), Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life,
Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.
Kram, K.E. & Ragins, B. (2008), “The Landscape of Mentoring in the 21st Century” In
Kram, K.E. & Ragins B.R. (eds) Handbook Of Mentoring at Work Theory, Research, And
Practice, Sage Publications
Laiho. M. and Brandt, T. (2012),’Views of HR specialists on formal mentoring: current
situation and prospects for the future’, Career Development International, Vol. 17 Iss 5 pp.
435 - 457
Levinson, D. (1978), The Seasons of a Man’s Life, Random House, New York, NY.
Mason, C., (2005), “Briefing session for Mentors and Mentees. Mentoring – Theory and
Practice” accessed on 1/5/15 at http://www.mentoringgroup.com/html/mentor_41.htm /
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, 3rd, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Megginson, D., (2000), ‘Current issues in mentoring’. Career Development International
5.4/5 pp 256-260.
McCauley, C. D. and Douglas, C. A. (2004). ‘Developmental relationships’ . In C. D.
McCauley, ed. and E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of
leadership development (pp. 85–115). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C.D. and Guthrie, V.A. (2008), ‘Designing Relationships for Learning into
Leader Development Programs’ in Ragins, B.R. and Kram, K.E (eds), The handbook of
34
mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand
Oaks, CA
McGowan, E. M., Stone, E. M., & Kegan, R. (2007). A Constructive-Developmental
Approach to Mentoring Relationships. , in BR Ragins, and KE Kram (eds), The handbook of
mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand
Oaks, CA,
McKinley, M. (2004) ‘Mentoring Matters – Creating, Connecting and Empowering’. AACN
Clinical Issues, Volume 15 Number 2 pp205-214
Morrison, A. Piip, J., and Short, T (2013), ‘Workplace mentoring revisited: formal or just
smart casual?’ in T. Griffin, (ed.), '21st National Vocational Education and Training Research
Conference “No Frills”: refereed papers', NCVER, Adelaide, paper presented at the 21st
National Vocational Education and Training Research Conference, [Online]. Available at:
http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv57137 Accessed 10/03/15
Mullen, E.J. (1994), “Framing the mentoring relationships as an information exchange”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 257-81
Payne, S. C., & Huffman, A. H. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence of
mentoring on organizational commitment and tenure. Academy of Management Journal, 18,
158-169
Poldre, P.A. (1994) ‘Mentoring programs: A question of design’. Interchange, 25(2) pp 183-
193.
Poulsen, K.M. (2013) ‘Mentoring programmes: learning opportunities for mentees, for
mentors, for organisations and for society’. Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol 45 No.
5 pp. 255-263
35
P-Sontag, L, Vappie, K, and Wanberg, C. (2008), ‘The practice of mentoring: Menttium
corporation’, in B.R Ragins and K.E Kram (eds), The handbook of mentoring at work:
Theory, research, and practice, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA,
Ragins. B.B., Cotton, J.L and Miller, J.S. (2000) ‘Marginal Mentoring: The Effects of Type
of Mentor, Quality of Relationship and Program Design on Work and Career Attitudes’. The
Academy of Mng Journal Vol 43, No 6 pp 1177-1194
Ragins, B.R. and Scandura, T.A. (1999), “Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of
being a mentor”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 493-509.
Sosik J. J., Lee D. and Bouquillon E. A. Context and mentoring: Examining formal and
informal relationships in high tech firms and K-12 schools Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies12 (2005) 94–108
Thomas, K.M., Willis, L.A. & Davis, J. 2007, "Mentoring minority graduate students: issues
and strategies for institutions, faculty, and students", Equal Opportunities International, vol.
26, no. 3, pp. 178-192.
Ting, S. and Hart, E. W. (2004). ‘Formal coaching’ in C. D. McCauley, ed. and E. Van
Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. (pp.
116–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wanberg C. R., Welsh E. T. and Hezlett S. A. Mentoring research: A review and dynamic
process model Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management 22 (2003) 39–124
Zachary, L.J. (2005), Creating a Mentoring Culture: The Organization’s Guide, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
36