The Executive Leadership Council’s Guide to Effective Mentoring RelationshipsA publication of The Institute for Leadership Development & Research

OFFICERSChair

BRIDGETTE P. HELLERJohnson & Johnson

Vice ChairCURT “CT” TOMLINMicrosoft Corporation

SecretaryCHALLIS LOWEDollar General Corporation

TreasurerCURT “CT” TOMLINMicrosoft Corporation

DirectorsCARL BROOKSThe Executive Leadership Council

TODD C. BROWNShore Bank

JOSEPH R. CLEVELANDLockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems

LAVERNE H. COUNCILDell

ARTHUR H. HARPERNexGen Capital Partners

JAMES R. JONESJimmy Jones & Associates

JAMES KAISERAvenir Partners

JESSICA ISAACSAmerican International Group

LAYSHA WARDTarget

RONALD PARKERPepsiCo

CLARENCE OTISDarden Restaurants

LUCIA RIDDLEThe Principal Financial Group

WESTINA MATTHEWS SHATTEENMerrill Lynch

ALFREAD W. ZOLLARIBM

Ex OfficioGERALD ADOLPHBooz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.Immediate Past Chair

SERGIO SOTOLONGOStudent Funding Group, LLCTreasurer, The Executive Leadership Foundation

Support for this guide was provided by

The Executive Leadership Council Board of Directors

About The Institute

The Executive Leadership

Council’s mission is to build the

inclusive business leadership

pipeline, developing African

American corporate leaders, one

student and one executive at a

time. The Council does this

through a variety of initiatives

and programs created by The

Executive Leadership Council

members and supported by

contributors to the Executive

Leadership Foundation.

The Institute is one such

initiative focused on providing

executive seminars, mentoring,

leadership development, and

diversity education to help senior

executives and high potential

African-American leaders

achieve breakthrough

performance. Participants

learn from the foremost

academic scholars, business

leaders, and consultants in the

field of leadership development.

The Institute also offers cutting

edge research in the interest of

understanding issues affecting

African-American leadership

development and performance.

The Executive Leadership Council Advisory Board

Paula BanksThe Executive Leadership Council

Carl BrooksPresident & CEO

The Executive Leadership CouncilThe Executive Leadership Foundation

Emily DeakinsBP

Bridgette HellerChair, The Executive Leadership Council

Sekou KaalundThe Next Gen Network

Dr. Sebetha JenkinsJarvis Christian College

Marc MorialThe National Urban League

Dr. Jim RenickNorth Carolina A&T

Dr. Andre SaylesWest Point

Dr. Beverly Daniel TatumSpelman College

Stephen WilliamsBP

Carl BrooksPresident & CEO(202) 298-8230

Dennis Dowdell, Jr.Executive Director

(202) 298-8291

Faye MotonExecutive Assistant

(202) 298-7183

Julia ScrivensProgram Manager

(202) 298-6344

1010 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 520

Washington, DC 20007

Main Ph: (202) 298-8226

Fax: (202) 298-6451

CONTACT USThe Institute for LeadershipDevelopment & Research

THE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL’SGUIDE TO EFFECTIVE

MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

INSTITUTE FOR LEADERSHIPDEVELOPMENT & RESEARCH

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

MENTORING DEFINED—MOVING BEYOND THE “MYTH” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

A LOOK AT FORMAL VERSUS INFORMAL MENTORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

FORMAL MENTORING PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

A REVIEW OF BEST PRACTICES IN FORMAL MENTORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

ABOUT THE AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1

ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

The Executive Leadership Council is a unique, national membership organization

representing senior-level African American corporate men and women who

bring unparalleled insight to a variety of issues that affect global businesses.

We have been working for nearly two decades to provide African American

executives with a network and leadership forum that adds perspective

and direction to the achievement of excellence in business, economic

and public policies for the African American community, their corporations

and the community at large.

The goal of The Council is to enhance the professional effectiveness of

the membership and the work of their corporations, and to ensure business

opportunities for future generations of aspiring African American corporate

executives and entrepreneurs.

The Council represents more than 350 African American senior corporate

executives from Fortune 500 companies focused on developing and

maintaining a strong pipeline of senior African American corporate leaders

through a wide cadre of initiatives as diagrammed below.

2

INTRODUCTION

Mentoring has gained increasing attention and popularity as a powerful tool to enable the

careers of those advancing through the ranks in organizations. The practitioner and

research-based literatures are both full of anecdotal and factual research documenting the

importance of mentoring in the career development of professionals.i Yet the role of this

important developmental relationship may be particularly critical for African-American

executives. In his research on the career progression of minorities in U.S. corporations,

Harvard Business School Professor David Thomas (2001:99) notes “… people of color

who advance the furthest all share one characteristic—a strong network of mentors and

corporate sponsors who nurture their professional development.”ii

There are also several contextual factors that highlight the need to better understand the

mentoring experiences of African-American executives. A number of workforce trends and

changes, including increasing workforce diversity, a battle to retain diverse talent and the

persistent presence of a glass ceiling, suggest that in order to better prepare African-

American executives for advancement in organizations, we should pay some attention to

their access to mentoring relationships.

Why Mentoring, Why Now?

One contextual change is the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce.iii In 1987,

Johnston and Packeriv predicted that minorities were going to be an increasing percentage

of the workforce. In fact, their forecasts have been realized; organizations are more diverse

today than two decades ago and are now grappling with how to support/enable relation-

ships among people who are engaged in some common enterprise but “who do not share

a common history or culture” (Caproni, 2004:269).v Our work with the Executive Leadership

Council (ELC)vi suggests that both formal and informal mentoring may be necessary tools

to facilitate positive interactions among the increasingly diverse members of today’s

organizations.

3

A second contextual change is an increased focus on the retention and development of

talent in organizations, particularly women and people of color. Futurists predict that one

of the biggest challenges organizations will face is the war to retain their human talent—their

knowledge workers.vii According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are

facing an impending shortage of skilled workers; by 2010, there will be 10.3 million more jobs

in the American workforce than skilled workers to fill them. In light of the predicted labor

shortage, organizations cannot afford to continue operating with a revolving door—hiring

the best talent only to see them leave in frustration over challenges and barriers engendered

by cultures that are not conducive to effective recruitment and retention. Mentoring has

been suggested as a tool to increase the retention of diverse talent. For an example, we

can turn to Proctor and Gamble (P&G).viii Through an employee survey, P&G found that

the company was losing a significant number of promising young female managers. They

developed a “reverse mentoring” program to help senior managers better understand issues

facing junior women, as well as factors related to retaining this particular pool of employees.

Other firms (e.g., PepsiCo, Deloitte Consulting, Pitney Bowes) have conducted similar

analyses and now use formal mentoring programs as a way to recruit and retain diverse

talent within the organization.

Finally, there is a third contextual factor that has worked as a catalyst for change in how

organizations use mentoring. In spite of the increased number of people of color entering

organizations and the acknowledged need to retain diverse talent, we still see a glass ceiling

that effectively keeps the top levels of Corporate America devoid of the same diversity that

exists throughout the middle and lower levels. This glass ceiling has been recast as a

concrete ceiling—an impermeable barrier that keeps people of color effectively locked

out of the corridors of power in organizations across industries and professions.ix Mentoring

has been posed as a catalyst to shift the dynamics of power that keep people of color from

attaining those executive level positions within organizations in substantive numbers.

We argue that mentoring is one way to “break into the country club.” We believe that

mentoring is a particularly effective and timely tool companies should use to support

African-American executives and their successful career progression. In this guide, we

provide information on the concept of mentoring and share lessons learned about effective

mentoring relationships. In the second part of this guide, we draw some important

distinctions between informal versus formal mentoring efforts in terms of the benefits and

4

limitations for individuals and organizations. We further describe formal mentoring by

sharing the steps used in effectively delivering a formal mentoring program based on an

innovative program launched by the ELC in 2004. Based on the knowledge of a wide variety

of organizations and the lessons learned from the ELC efforts, we conclude with suggestions

for formal mentoring best practices and recommendations.

MENTORING DEFINED – MOVING BEYOND THE “MYTH”The original concept of a “mentor” is based on a character from Greek mythology, namely

Homer’s story of the Odyssey. Within this story, a goddess appears in different forms to

help guide, protect and support the journey of the main character within the story. This all-

knowing and powerful figure that Homer describes as “Mentor” has shaped our modern-day

expectations and perceptions of what a mentor does – or more importantly what a mentor

should do. However, it is helpful to have a realistic understanding of what is meant when the

term “mentoring” is being used in today’s organizations. Mentoring can be described as:

A reciprocal and collaborative learning relationship between two (or more)

individuals who share mutual responsibility and accountability for helping

a mentee work toward the achievement of clear and mutually defined

learning goals.”x

An important role of the mentor is to advise mentees about organizational and professional

do’s and don’ts; this inside advice allows mentees to avoid costly errors and to proceed in

a more effectively directed career journey.xi Mentors offer support to mentees through

several key critical behaviors; we typically see guidance offered through the provision of

three types of activities or functions: 1) instrumental help; 2) psychosocial support; and 3)

role modeling.xii

Instrumental help consists of activities such as sponsoring, coaching, and protecting the other

person. Mentors also provide instrumental help by giving mentees exposure, visibility and

challenging work assignments. Psychosocial support increases mentees’ sense of competence

and effectiveness and may include counseling and friendship. Mentees may also receive

acceptance and confirmation from psychosocial support. Finally, a mentor may also provide

support to her mentee by acting as an exemplar or role model, sharing her decision making

at critical career junctures and demonstrating appropriate behavior in different situations.

5

Clearly the activities of a mentor are diverse and can benefit both individuals involved in

this important developmental relationship.

Mentoring relationships take time to develop; career, psychosocial and role model functions

do not emerge in a vacuum. Informal mentoring relationships evolve through four phases—

initiation, cultivation, separation and redefinition.xiii In the initiation phase, mentors and

mentees are getting to know one another, testing their understanding of one another through

their interactions in this early phase. Once both parties have established trust and committed

to the relationship, they enter the cultivation phase of that relationship. In cultivation, the

maximum amount of psychosocial, career and role modeling functions emerge. Throughout

the time a relationship is being cultivated, a variety of different mentoring functions may be

demonstrated depending on the needs of the relationship, the skill of the mentor, and the

level of trust between the partners. As the relationship evolves, some change occurs that

pushes the relationship into the separation phase. The catalyst may be a physical shift (one

of the mentoring partners moves to a new location) or a psychological change (a promotion

for one of the mentoring partners). As a result, mentoring partners have to restructure

or rethink their relationship through the redefinition phase. Redefinition may involve

renewing commitment to the relationship by determining ways to make it work in light

of the recent changes from separation. Redefinition may also mean severing the relationship

if one or both of the mentoring partners determines that the relationship has run its course

or has become a negative one. These phases underscore the dynamic nature of mentoring

relationships—they are not static interactions.

Because mentoring is a dynamic exchange between the people involved in the relationship,

mentoring has been shown to provide benefits for mentees, mentors, and organizations.xiv

Those with access to mentoring have been consistently shown to benefit from their involve-

ment in these relationships; mentees report higher salaries, increased promotion rates,

greater career satisfaction, higher organizational commitment, and less intention to leave

the organization, as well as lower levels of turnover.xv

Mentors also benefit from their participation in mentoring relationships, experiencing

satisfaction from helping others grow and succeed.xvi Mentors also gain access to alternative

perspectives and paradigms through their interactions with mentees. They may also learn

6

about what is happening at lower levels of the organization, information that is not as

forthcoming as mentors move higher and higher up the organizational hierarchy. Mentors

also receive loyalty and help from their protégés and recognition from their organizations.

The consensus is that mentors can benefit from the developmental relationships as much

as mentees.

Finally, organizations also gain from the presence of developmental relationships.xvii

Mentoring is a tool for preserving knowledge, encouraging learning, and socializing

employees. Mentoring has been used as a mechanism for succession planning in

organizations—companies build their bench strength through the identification and

strategic development of internal talent. Mentoring has also been used to integrate

distinct cultures after a reorganization or a merger and acquisition. Finally, mentoring is

being used as a catalyst for addressing issues of diversity in organizations.

A LOOK AT FORMAL VERSUS INFORMAL MENTORING

Informal mentoring relationships have received considerable attention, as indicated by the

numerous articles cited in the previous section. The fact that organizations have formalized

these relationships with the hopes of capturing the same positive benefits of informal

mentoring is a further testimony to the power of mentoring for organizations. However,

there are several important differences between formal mentoring and informal mentoring.

Researchers have differentiated these relationships along three dimensions: initiation,

structure, and process.

The initiation of formal mentoring relationships is externally directed; a program coordinator

generally determines the matches between mentors and mentees. In contrast, informal

mentoring relationships are initiated when two people are drawn toward one another

because of common needs, interests or perceived similarity.xviii The similarity and attraction

principle confirms that we connect to and form relationships with people whom we perceive

to be like ourselves.xix On the other hand, mentors and mentees involved in a formal

mentoring relationship may not have the same level of comfort and connection in the early

phases as those in dyads who started their relationships informally.

7

The structure of formal mentoring relationships differs in several ways from that of informal

mentoring relationships.xx Formal mentoring relationships are generally contracted for a

specific amount of time (generally a year); they are also pre-designed, often characterized by

predetermined frequency and locations for meetings between the mentor and the mentee.

In contrast, informal mentoring relationships may have less predetermined structure and can

last a longer period of time – from three to six years, or more, and meetings and activities

occur when desired as opposed to a set schedule. Another difference in the structure of

formal versus informal mentoring is the types of goals used in the relationship. In formal

mentoring relationships, goals are often pre-set at the beginning of the relationship;

additionally, some goals are determined by the organization rather than those inside the

relationship. Goals set in informal mentoring relationships evolve over time as opposed

to being determined at the onset of the relationship, and are shaped by the needs and

interactions that take place between the mentor and mentee.

A final consideration is how interpersonal processes may be affected by the formalization

of the mentoring process. Two important processes to consider are the mentor’s motivation

and the mentor’s ability to act on behalf of the mentee. Because mentors and mentees in

formal mentoring relationships are brought together through external forces, the mentor’s

motivation, desire or willingness to engage in the relationship may not be as strong as that

of informal mentors. This difference suggests that formal mentors may be more driven by

their desire to act as a “good organizational citizen“ who are supporting their organizations

by participating in the mentoring initiative rather than supporting and guiding their assigned

mentees. Another difference is that mentors in formal relationships may be more visible,

and therefore less able to engage in career development behaviors that may be construed

as favoritism by coworkers in the organization.

Do we see differences in outcomes accruing to mentors and mentees involved in formal

versus informal mentoring relationships? While there is only a small amount of research

that addresses this question, the attention that is being focused on metrics of mentoring

outcomes is growing. Some work that investigates the effects of informal versus formal

8

mentoring relationships indicates that informal mentoring relationships provide greater

outcomes for mentees than participation in formal mentoring. For example, one set of

researchers studied mentees involved in 212 informal and 53 formal mentoring relationships.xxi

They found that mentees involved in informal mentorships reported greater career support

and higher salaries than their peers engaged in formal mentoring relationships. Another

study that followed the experiences of 510 informal mentees, 104 formal mentees and 548

non-mentees, found that informal mentees reported that their mentors were more effective

and that they received higher salaries than mentees with formal mentors.xxii

This relatively limited amount of research might lead to the conclusion that mentees in

informal relationships benefit more in terms of outcomes than those in formal mentoring

relationships. In fact, it might lead one to question whether or not formal mentoring

initiatives should be used. If results are better with informal mentoring, why should

organizations support formal mentoring relationships? While informal mentoring relationships

can provide support for a mentee’s career outcomes, those who receive formal mentoring

report better career outcomes than those who are not involved in any mentoring relationship

at all. Formal mentoring relationships provide valuable support to those who may not have

ready access to informal mentoring – particularly those who are left out or have limited access

to the “country club” or exclusionary informal network that exists in most organizations.

Formal mentoring also provides a legitimate basis for a mentor to act, intercede, or protect

a mentee that may not be as strong within informal mentoring relationships. Also, formal

mentoring may act as a platform or foundation for partners to build a sustainable relationship

that lives beyond the duration of the formal mentoring initiative. Finally, formal mentoring

relationships provide an opportunity for the organization to shape its culture and transmit

important messages and values through the formal mentoring initiative. So, while formal

mentoring relationships do not take the place of informal mentoring, there are several key

benefits to participation in formal mentoring initiatives.xxiii

9

FORMAL MENTORING PROGRAMS

Formal mentoring programs have become popular and powerful initiatives that are being

increasingly employed by organizations to support organizational change efforts.xxiv These

programs are being used as a way to address a number of issues, including

• leadership development

• succession planning

• employee satisfaction and retention

• recruitment and employee socialization

• blend of cultures as a result of mergers and acquisitions

• connecting geographically dispersed parts of the workforce.

Formal mentoring has also recently been adapted as a strategic human resource intervention

to aid in the retention, recruitment, and advancement of an increasingly diverse workforce.

In fact, 71% of Fortune 500 and private companies use mentoring in their organizations, and

60% of Fortune’s 100 best companies to work for in the U.S. have formal mentoring pro-

grams.xxv And this phenomenon is not limited to American corporations and businesses. A

study of 2000 Canadian firms found that 70 percent of the companies had either an informal

or formal mentoring program in place.xxvi Formal mentoring programs are an international

phenomenon.xxvii Formal mentoring programs typically consist of the following seven steps:

mentoring cultural assessment, selection of mentees and mentors, matching, training,

maintenance, formal conclusion and celebration, and evaluation of mentoring relationships

and program.xxviii

Mentoring Cultural Assessment

Before embarking on a formal mentoring program, organizations should spend some time

considering several issues, including:

✓ Why is a formal mentoring program an appropriate initiative?

✓ How will the formal mentoring program be connected to important organizational outcomes?

10

✓ Who is the organizational sponsor or champion for the program?

✓ Are there sufficient organizational resources to support the program?

✓ How will the culture of the organization be supportive of or challenging to the

implementation of formal mentoring?

Organizational leaders have a number of questions to consider before starting a formal

mentoring program; this decision should not be one that is made haphazardly or without

considerable thought.

Selection of Mentees and Mentors

Potential mentees and mentors are then recruited for the program. Program administrators

should be clear on why the mentoring program is being implemented; this reasoning will

impact who is selected to participate in the mentoring program. A clear message should be

sent that mentees participating in the program have been selected because the organization

is investing in their development. Mentors are typically selected for similar reasons—they are

acknowledged developers of talent in their organizations. Selection of mentors should also

be based on their ability to address the developmental needs of selected mentees.

Matching

One of the most crucial moments in a formal mentoring program centers on matching. While

formal mentoring programs hold a great deal of promise, inadequate attention is often paid

to how mentoring partners are brought together—the match. There are a couple of criteria

that are beneficial to consider as matches between mentors and mentees are being formed.

First, what are the developmental needs of the mentee, and how might the mentor contribute

to the mentee’s growth? From an interpersonal level, is there a match in the developmental

opportunities of the mentee and the developmental strengths of the mentor? Second, how

does the mentor-mentee match fit the organization’s goals for the formal mentoring program?

From an organizational level, is there alignment between the match and the stated goals of

the program?

11

Training

Both mentors and mentees should be brought together to prepare them to enter their formal

mentoring relationships. Mentoring partners need space, time, and guidance to orient

themselves to one another and to gain clear insights into the requirements of and expectations

for the formal relationship. Some programs hold separate mentor and mentee orientation

sessions; other organizations bring mentoring partners together for this training. Topics

that are covered in these initial meetings include development of a mentoring plan that

addresses issues of time commitment, boundary definition through expectation setting, goals

for the relationship, meeting frequency and location, and measures to ensure confidentiality.

Maintenance of Relationships

After the launch of the mentoring program, participants should have additional organizationally-

sponsored opportunities to connect with one another. These meetings should be planned at

regular intervals throughout the program. Many organizations plan a check-in with mentoring

partners midway through the program, to ensure that the relationships are on track and

to have a designated time to address issues if the formal mentoring relationships are not

proceeding well. These maintenance meetings may also be used for skill development—if

there is a particular issue or topic that program administrators want to address. Mentoring

partners may also revisit the goals established in their first meeting.

Formal Conclusion and Celebration

Most formal mentoring programs are generally one year in duration. Program administrators

should plan for a formal ending of the program, with acknowledgement of the effort and

work expended by mentoring participants. The formal closing represents an opportunity for

leadership in the organization to publicly recognize participants and for participants to reflect

on their learning and celebrate goals achieved. This closing also denotes movement of the

formal mentoring relationship into the separation phase. Mentoring partners now have an

opportunity to determine how they will redefine their formal mentoring relationship.

12

Evaluation of Relationships and Program

There is an old adage—what organizations value, they measure. In order to gain lessons

from the cycle of formal mentoring relationships, program administrators should gather

information through a variety of formats. Evaluation measures should start at the beginning

of the mentoring program; a baseline measure on important factors is helpful in order to

determine the impact of the mentoring program. Effective mentoring programs are typified

by on-going evaluation efforts—data is collected at several critical moments in the program.

At the conclusion of the program, additional data should be collected through varied methods,

including focus groups, interviews, surveys, and web-based questionnaires. Program adminis-

trators should also pay attention to collecting data at several levels. Evaluation of the formal

mentoring relationships is as important as evaluation of the formal mentoring program.

Information collected can be used in several important ways—to document the process and

impact of the program, to offer support and testimony for the program that can be used to

recruit additional participants, and to make changes to the program that build on aspects

that were effective and eliminate or tweak aspects that were less effective.

A REVIEW OF “BEST PRACTICES” IN FORMAL MENTORING

PROGRAMS

While formal mentoring programs are relatively new (organizations have been using these

initiatives for roughly four decades), there is a fair amount of research and literature to

illuminate best practices.xxix In his investigation of successful assigned mentoring relationships,

Noexxx described several critical factors: 1) the goals and purpose of the program are clearly

defined; 2) mentors are selected on the basis of interpersonal skills and interest in developing

employees; 3) mentors are trained; and 4) explicit provisions are made for time to allow the

mentor and mentee to interact with one another. Building on the work of Noe and other

scholars and practitioners who have studied and implemented formal mentoring programs, we

offer suggestions for best practices. We also share common mistakesxxxi to avoid in each of

the seven steps of formal mentoring programs based on our prior research and the work

conducted by the ELC.

13

Mentoring Cultural Assessment

A common mistake made in the initial thinking about instituting formal mentoring programs

is insufficient consideration of the rationale for and logistics of implementing the program.

Currently, mentoring is one of the most popular strategic human resource initiatives; profes-

sionals are increasingly expecting that they will have access to developmental support such as

mentoring. A recent study found that 35 percent of employees who do not receive regular

mentoring planned to look for another job within 12 months, while only 16 percent of those

with good mentors planned to do so.xxxii In the rush to include mentoring in their repertoire,

some organizations do not take the time to answer all of the questions we offered, a potentially

costly mistake. Organizations should not put formal mentoring in place without it being tied

to critical organizational goals.xxxiii A realistic assessment of the organization’s culture,

commitment and resources available for mentoring is critical to the success of the program.

One suggestion we offer to organizations is to start small by running the mentoring program

as a pilot before rolling it out to a larger number of participants. Piloting the program offers

planners an opportunity to work out potential kinks before moving to scale; a pilot may also

generate buzz that heightens interest for future potential participants.

Selection of Mentees and Mentors

Once an organization has decided to implement a formal mentoring program, there is often

a flurry of activity to get the program up and running as quickly as possible. It is particularly

problematic to rush this step in the formal mentoring program process. There are a number of

challenges that may arise with the recruitment of mentors and mentees. One issue occurs

when organizations mandate participation in the program, particularly for the mentors. There

can sometimes be a level of mental arm-twisting to recruit high–level executives to commit

to participate as mentors. When participation is not voluntary, the accompanying cynicism,

concerns about the intentions of the organization, and even suppressed anger can derail the

mentoring program. A second issue arises when the call for participants yields too few

mentors. Mentor shortage is not an uncommon occurrence. While mentees stand to gain

access to valuable face time with executives within their organizations, the benefits to

mentors are not as readily apparent. In addition, by virtue of the structure of leadership

ranks within organizations, there are far fewer people available to act as mentors.

14

One alternative that organizations facing a shortage of mentors opt to implement is a move

from one-to-one mentoring to some form of group mentoring. A final issue regarding

participant selection is related to how the invitation is communicated to mentees and

throughout the organization. There can be a perception that mentees are selected to

participate because they don’t fit the organization or they need additional help to be successful.

The perception that invitations for mentees to participate in the formal mentoring program

are remedial in nature is yet another potential barrier to an effective launch.

Matching

While formal mentoring programs hold a great deal of promise, inadequate attention is

often paid to how mentoring partners are brought together—the match. In far too many

cases, mentor-mentee pairs are formed in unreliable ways: at random, by geography, for

convenience, or because there is a “hunch” that particular people will make a good pair.

Often two strangers are quickly and arbitrarily identified as a ‘mentoring pair’ based on

sparse information, minimal participant input and no particular matching strategies. In fact,

how mentoring partners are selected and placed together is critical. Program planners

should take the time to carefully assess and match program participants. To effectively

match participants, it is helpful to have some developmental assessment of both mentors

and mentees to use in a system of strategic, rather than idiosyncratic, matching. Planners

should also align matching with program goals.

Training

Formal mentoring dyads are being placed together, for the most part, without the benefit

of knowing one another well. Thus, the initial training becomes essential because it gives

mentoring partners an opportunity to get to know one another, to assess the commitment of

their partner, and to determine important guidelines and boundaries to guide the relationship.

“You never get a second chance to make a first impression.” As this adage suggests, how

relationships begin is important. This training is critical because it provides guidance and

support to both mentoring partners as they are making their first impressions with one another.

There are a number of red flags that we typically see in this step. Two in particular stand

out—“Our mentors are too busy to attend training,” and “Our mentors already know how to

15

mentor, there is no need to attend training.” Both of these statements miss the objective

of the initial training, which is to prepare participants to step into the formal mentoring

relationships on which they are about to embark by orienting mentoring partners to one

another and providing structured support for setting up their mentoring agreement and

relationship guidelines and boundaries.

Maintenance of Relationships

Another common misperception with formal mentoring programs is that once you have

matched participants, they are fully equipped to navigate their relationships and no longer

need assistance or intervention from the organization. Contrary to these expectations,

mentoring partners need ongoing support and guidance beyond the launch of the program.

We have found that while mentoring partners may express clear goals and expectations for

their relationships, there are times when the best of intentions do not translate into action.

Mentoring relationships can falter through “benign neglect,” simply not making enough

time to connect and work together as a mentoring pair. Or there may be more serious

problems between the mentor and mentee that do require organizational intervention. Even

mentoring partners in relationships that are proceeding smoothly can benefit from a chance

to check-in with one another to celebrate their success and determine if there are additional

ways for them to push the relationship to the next level. For these reasons, and many others,

it is important for formal mentoring programs to have built in opportunities for mentors and

mentees to meet and assess their mentoring relationships and determine if they are on

course for meeting their objectives. Organizations may be tempted to save money by not

allocating funds or scheduling time for this important step in the formal mentoring process,

however, such short-term actions may jeopardize the effectiveness of the program.

Formal Conclusion and Celebration

Another step in the formal mentoring process that is often viewed as an unnecessary

expense is the formal closing and celebration. Organizations that omit this step in the formal

mentoring process miss an important opportunity. The formal closing provides an opportunity

for closure. More importantly, the conclusion signals a small win for the organization.xxxiv

16

Small wins are a framework for understanding and managing large complex social problems; it

is particularly helpful as we use it to understand the power of formal mentoring. Oftentimes,

formal mentoring programs are implemented with the goal of addressing substantive issues,

such as retaining diverse talent or succession planning and leadership development of the next

generation of leadership. Small wins provide a way to break these overwhelming goals into

manageable tasks. Weick (1984: 43) notes: “a small win is a concrete, complete implemented

outcome of moderate importance. By itself, one small win may seem unimportant. A series

of small wins at small but significant tasks reveals a pattern that may attract others, deter

opponents…” Implementing a successful formal mentoring program represents a succession

of small wins, from engaging organizational leadership to recruiting participants to bringing

mentoring partners together to work on their relationships.

Finally, the formal closing and celebration also provide a way to institutionalize the mentoring

program. In early iterations of a formal mentoring initiative, it is often associated with the

organizational champion and planners. If the organizational champion leaves or moves on

to other initiatives before the mentoring program has been institutionalized, the formal

mentoring program may be marginalized and/or dismantled. So every opportunity to

institutionalize the mentoring program, building it into the culture of the organization rather

than tying it to any one person, is invaluable.

Evaluation of Relationships and Program

Common pitfalls that characterize this step of formal mentoring programs are related to

time. One of the problems here is not allowing enough time to evaluate the program.

As organizations seek to rationalize the costs expended for formal mentoring initiatives,

they are often looking for results to support the decision to implement the programs. Yet,

just as it takes time to plan and implement formal mentoring programs, it also takes time to

see results from them. In addition to allowing sufficient time to evaluate the mentoring

program, planners should also ensure that both short-term and long-term metrics are

measured. An inordinate focus on short-term metrics without also providing an appropriate

time horizon to allow for the measurement of long-term outcomes may result in premature

and inaccurate assessment of the program.

17

CONCLUSIONA recent Black Enterprise article (Jenkins, 2005:81) proclaims, “Securing an effective set of

mentors can be challenging for African American professionals, but when successfully executed,

the payoff in career advancement is huge.”xxxv The research and work presented in this guide

confirm Jenkins’ observation.

As leaders are considering the use of formal mentoring initiatives in their organizations,

there are a number of steps that they can take to ensure that the mentoring relationships

are effectively used:

✓ Assess organizational readiness for mentoring

✓ Link formal mentoring efforts to key organizational outcomes

✓ Strategically and proactively select mentors and mentees

✓ Offer structured training and support for mentoring partners

✓ Celebrate the successful completion of mentoring cycle

✓ Conduct evaluations of mentoring program to capture learning for

next roll-out of the program

Interestingly enough, we find that organizations tend to stumble in their efforts to implement

formal mentoring programs when they are either trying to save time or money. In fact,

effective formal mentoring programs are intensive efforts that require a willingness to invest

both financial and human resources as well as a sufficient time horizon. Ironically, cutting too

many corners to save either time or money may actually end up costing the organization more.

We are not suggesting that mentoring efforts should not be economically feasible or efficient

in their use of time. With proactive planning and flexibility, formal mentoring programs can be

powerful catalysts for regeneration, organizational change, and effective career development

of African-American executives. At its best, formal mentoring programs are critical keys that

have the potential to open the doors to the highest echelons of Corporate America.

18

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

STACY BLAKE-BEARD is an Associate Professor of Management at the Simmons School of Management where

she teaches organizational behavior. She is also affiliated faculty in the Center for Gender in Organizations at

Simmons. Prior to joining Simmons, Dr. Blake-Beard was faculty at the Harvard University Graduate School of

Education. She has also worked in sales and marketing at Procter & Gamble and in the corporate human

resources department at Xerox. Dr. Blake-Beard holds a BS in Psychology from the University of Maryland at

College Park and a MA and Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology from the University of Michigan.

Dr. Blake-Beard’s research is on challenges and opportunities offered by mentoring relationships, with a focus on

how these relationships may be changing as a result of increasing workforce diversity. She is particularly interested

in the issues women face as they develop mentoring relationships. She also studies the dynamics of formal

mentoring programs in both corporate and educational settings.

Dr. Blake-Beard sits on the advisory board of a number of organizations, including MentorNet and Jobs for the

Future. Dr. Blake-Beard has been the recipient of numerous grants and fellowships, most recently from the Ford

Foundation. She has given seminars for and consulted with a number of organizations on issues of diversity,

implementing formal mentoring programs and team-building, including JP Morgan Partners, Chase Manhattan

Bank, Swisshotel, PepsiCo, New Leaders for New Schools, Harvard University Graduate School of Education’s

Urban Superintendent’s Program, The PhD Project, The Compact for Faculty Diversity and BBN

Technology/Verizon.

AUDREY J. MURRELL instructs courses in Organizational Behavior, Men and Women at Work, Careers in

Organizations, Business Communication and Workforce Diversity. Professor Murrell has conducted research on

the positive versus negative effects of career mobility and transition with a special emphasis placed on factors

that can impact the careers of women in management including mentoring, breaking the "glass ceiling",

affirmative action and workplace discrimination. This work has been published widely in management and

psychology journals as well as book chapters and special issues. Popular media has also highlighted this work

including the Wall Street Journal, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Pittsburgh Business

Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Black Enterprise, Jet Magazine and Vida Executive (in Brazil).

She is an Associate Professor Business Administration and holds secondary appointments in the Graduate

School of Public and International Affairs, the Women Studies Department, and serves as Director for the

Women in the Workforce Program at the University of Pittsburgh, Center for Social and Urban Studies.

Professor Murrell serves as a consultant in the areas of organizational effectiveness, teamwork, diversity,

leadership development and workplace discrimination. This work involves public, private and governmental

organizations and includes numerous public forum and media appearances. She participated in a congressional

briefing sponsored by Senator Arlen Spector (R-Pa) on the issue of affirmative action. Dr. Murrell is the

author (along with Crosby and Ely) of the book entitled, Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships

within Multicultural Organizations. She was appointed to the Allegheny County Minority, Women and

Disadvantage Business Enterprise Certification Appeals Board. Dr. Murrell is the recent past-chair of the Gender

and Diversity in Organizational Division of the Academy of Management Association.

19

ENDNOTESi Blake-Beard, S. D. (1999). The costs of living as an outsider within: An analysis of the mentoring relationships and careersuccess of black and white women in the corporate sector. Journal of Career Development, 26, 21-36; 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. ; Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relation-ships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 169-194; Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles incross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321-339; Vincent, A., & Seymour, J. (1995). Profileof women mentors: A national survey. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 60, 4-6; Walsh, A .M., & Borkowski, S. C.(1999). Cross-gender mentoring and career development in the health care industry. Health Care Management Review, 24,7-17; Blake-Beard, S.D., Murrell, A.J. & Thomas, D.A. (forthcoming). Unfinished business: The impact of race on understand-ing mentoring relationships. In B.R. Ragins & K.E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.iiThomas, D.A. (2001). The truth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harvard Business Review, April, 98-105.iii Cox, T.H. & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy ofManagement Review, 5(3), 45-57; Thomas, D.A. & Ely, R.J. (2001). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managingdiversity. Harvard Business Review, Sept/Oct, 79-91.iv Johnston, W. & Packer, A. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute.v Caproni, P.J. (2004). Management skills for everyday life: The practical coach. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.vi This guide was developed through the support of The Executive Leadership Council (ELC). The ELC is an independent,non-partisan, non-profit corporation that was founded in 1986 by 19 African-American corporate executive pioneers. Thisoriginal set of founders/members wanted to “change the face of corporate America by creating a support network and pub-lic leadership forum that prepares the next generation of African-American corporate executives, honors business achieve-ments by African Americans; encourages excellence in business; and influences public policy on behalf of AfricanAmericans”.vii Herman, R.E., Olivo, T.G. & Gioia, J.L. (2003). Impending crisis: Too many jobs, too few people. Winchester, VA: OakhillPress; Taylor, C.R. (2004). Retention leadership. T&D, March, 40-45; Gornick, M. (2005). A proactive approach to retaining“wisdom workers.” Benefits & Compensation Digest, March, 42(3), 18.viii Zielinski, D. (2000). Mentoring up. Training October; P&G’s reverse mentoring was also reported in Clutterbuck & Ragins(2002), Mentoring and diversity: An international perspective. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. ix Catalyst. (2001). Women of color executives: Their voices, their journeys. New York, NY: Catalyst; Tomlinson, A. (2001).Concrete ceiling harder than glass to break for women of color. Canadian HR Reporter, Dec. 17, pp 7 & 13.x Zachary, L.J. (2005). Creating a mentoring culture: The organization’s guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.xi Scandura, T. A., Tejeda, M. J., Werther, W. B., & Lankau, M. J. (1996). Perspectives on mentoring. Leadership &Organization Development Journal. 17, 50-56.xii Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608-625; Ensher, E. &Murphy, S. (2005). Power mentoring: How successful mentors and protégés get the most out of their relationships. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey Bass.xiii Kram (1983)xiv Crosby, F. J. (1999). The developing literature on developmental relationships. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely(Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 3-20). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

xv Catalyst, (1996). Women in corporate leadership: progress and prospects. New York: Catalyst; Dreher & Ash, 1990;Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment and the establish-ment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297-308; Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advan-tage: Perceived career/job experiences of protegés versus non-protegés. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309-320;Lankau, M., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents,and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 779-790; Perrewe, P. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2004). Gender andcareer success: The facilitative role of political skill. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 366-378; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990;Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,169-174; Stallworth, L. H. (2003). Mentoring, organizational commitment, and intentions to leave public accounting.Managerial Auditing Journal, 18, 405-418; Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1991). Relationship of career men-toring and socioeconomic origin to managers’ and professionals’ early career progress. Academy of Management Journal,34, 331-351.xvi Allen, T.D., Poteet, M. L. & Burroughs, S. M., (1997). The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future researchagenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 70-89; Ragins, B. R. & Scandura, T. A. (1994). Gender differences in expectedoutcomes of mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 957-971; Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A. &McKenna, C. (1994). Benefits of mentoring in organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(3), 23-32; Mullen, E. J. &

20

Noe, R.A. (1999). The mentoring information exchange: When do mentors seek information from their proteges? Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 20(2), 233-242.xvii Gregg, C. (1999). Someone to look up to. Journal of Accountancy, November, 89-93; Messmer, M. (1998). Mentoring:Building your company’s intellectual capital. HR Focus, 75(9), S11-S12; Jossi, F. (1997). Mentoring in changing times.Training, 34(8), 50-54; Wilson, J. A. & Elman, N. S. (1990). Organizational benefits of mentoring. Academy of ManagementExecutive, 4 (4), 88-94; Ragins, B. R. (1999). Where do we go from here, and how do we get there? Methodological issues inconducting research on diversity and mentoring relationships. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby & R. J. Ely (Eds.), MentoringDilemmas: Development Relationships Within Multicultural Organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;Thomas, D. A. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relationships (mentoring and sponsor-ship): An intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 479-491; Wellington, S. & Catalyst, (2001). Be

your own mentor. New York, NY: Random House.xviii Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press; Tsui, A. S. & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond sim-ple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy ofManagement Journal, 32(2), 402-423.xviv Kalbfleisch, P. J. (2000). Similarity and attraction in business and academic environments: Same and cross-sex mentoringrelationships. Review of Business, 21(1/2), 58-61; Tsui, A. S., Porter, L. W. & Egan, T. D. (2000). When both similarities anddissimilarities matter: Extending the concept of relational demography. Human Relations, 55(8), 899-929.xx Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal andinformal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529-550.; Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M. & Gardner, P. D.(1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counter-parts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619-636; Douglas, C. A. (1997). Formal Mentoring Programs in Organizations: AnAnnotated Bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.xxi Chao, Walz & Gardner (1992)xxii Ragins and Cotton (1999)xxiii Chao, Walz & Gardner (1992)xxiv Catalyst. (1993). Mentoring: A Guide to Corporate Programs and Practices. New York, NY: Catalyst; Coley, 1996;Douglas, 1997; Gray, J. D. (1994). Consultant offers tips to start a formal mentor program. The Mentoring Connection: ANewsletter Promoting the Concept of Mentoring, Summer, 1; Heery, W. (1994). Corporate mentoring can break the glassceiling. HRFocus, May, 17-18; Lawlor, J. (1997). Mentoring meets networking in formal programs. The New York Times,November 30; Lyons & Oppler, (2004). The effects of structural attributes and demographic characteristics on protege satis-faction in mentoring programs. Journal of Career Development, 30(3), 215-229; Noe, R. A. (1988). Women and mentoring:A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 65-78.xxv Branch, S. (1999). The 100 best companies to work for in America. Fortune, 139(1), 118-130.xxvi Butyn, S. (2003). Mentoring your way to improved retention. Canadian HR Reporter, 16(2), 13-14.xxvii Murray, M. with Owen, M.A. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: How to facilitate an effective mentor-ing program. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.xxviii For guidance on developing and implementing formal mentoring programs, see Murray and Owen (1991), Zachary, L.J.(2000). The mentor’s guide: Facilitating effective learning relationships. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.xxix We have both popular press books (Murray, Zachary, Douglass) as well as empirical research (Murrell, Crosby, & Ely;Ensher & Murphy; Chao, Gardener & Walz; Ragin, Cotton & MIller; Blake-Beard, Murrell & Thomas).xxx Noe, R. A. (1988)xxxi The mistakes that we note in this section are not an all-inclusive list. At each step of a formal mentoring program, thereare many predictable challenges and missteps that can be avoided. Working with a consultant (internal or external) who hasextensive experience implementing formal mentoring initiatives can save the organization. There are also unexpected chal-lenges and barriers that may arise; so a measure of flexibility is also needed as formal mentoring initiatives are being imple-mented.xxxii O’Reilly, D. (2001). The mentoring of employees: Is your organization taking advantage of this pofessional developmenttool. Ohio CPA Journal, 60(3), 51-55.xxxiii Hegsted, C. D. & Wentling, R. (2004). The development and maintenance of exemplary formal mentoring programs inFortune 500 companies. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(4), 421-448.xxxiv Weick, K.E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39, 40-49.xxxv Jenkins, M. (2005). Why you NEED a mentor. Black Enterprise, March, 80-85.