Making the most of informal mentoring
by , Copyright Clutterbuck Associates November 2003
If you have any comments to add to this topic or would like to be in communication with other people exploring this field then please
One of the goals of many formal mentoring programmes is to bring the
organisation to the point, where the majority of mentoring is carried out
informally, without the need for substantial, structured support for Human
Resources and elsewhere. The problem, in most cases, is that completely
informal mentoring – where people come together without guidance and without
clarity about the mentoring role – is a hit and miss affair. Not only is the quality of
the relationships highly variable, but the pairings tend to exclude people who
don’t fit the mould, by virtue of their gender, race, culture or some other
differentiating factor.
The good news is that, in general, organisations, which have a strong and
extensive formal mentoring process, seem also to develop many thriving, healthy
and inclusive informal mentoring relationships. The key appears to be that
people, who have experienced effective mentoring (as mentor or mentee) and
who have been well-trained in the respective roles, are open to a wide range of
developmental alliances., In particular, they appreciate the value of difference
and stretch in a learning relationship and seek out challenging partnerships.
This is, it has to be admitted, an area, in which there has been no significant
research, so the evidence is largely anecdotal. The nearest to a detailed study of
the issue is work by the US academic Belle Rose Ragins, who concludes that
relationship quality is the critical ingredient in both formal and informal mentoring.
So how can we ensure that informal mentoring relationships are high quality
relationships?
The very absence of structure, measurement and control makes it
difficult to exert any influence on them. Our discussions with informal mentoring
pairs and with HR professionals, who have experience of both formal and
informal mentoring is that the key lies in creating an environment, where effective
mentoring can flourish. Such an environment would contain some elements of
structure, in the form of support available, but require no third party intervention
in pairings. Rather, it would allow market forces to drive both the matching
process and the quality control of the mentoring provided.
I am not aware of an organisation that has proactively developed such an
environment, but the possibility of doing so is of manifest interest to a number of
multinational companies – particularly those, which have employees scattered in
small numbers in lots of locations. These organisations often find it difficult to
arrange matches and control relationship quality within a formal programme.
The essential elements in establishing a positive climate for informal mentoring
seem to include:
- An on-line registration and matching system, where people can seek and
make their own pairings. The system needs to have very good guidance
as to how to go about selecting an appropriate partner and, ideally, a
resource, which prospective mentees can go to for personal advice.
- Sufficient, visible role models of good mentoring practice to demonstrate
what quality mentoring looks and feels like and to provide a voluntary,
informal advisory resource for mentors. If top management can be among
those role models, it provides a very strong message to the organisation.
- A mixture of voluntary training resources. These might include a regular
open training programme, run in-house or externally with a consortium of
other organisations; an e-learning package to run on PC or online;
and a library of wider reading materials on mentoring and related
disciplines. It may also be useful to provide an option for people, who have
a strong interest in developing their mentoring skills, to take a certificate or
degree course through one of the several providers now available.
- An understanding that the quality of mentoring rests to a considerable
extent on the amount and relevance of the training both parties have
received. While an informal process can’t insist that mentors and mentees
are trained, the desire to have an effective relationship should drive both
parties away from matching with someone, who is not sufficiently
committed to be trained in the role.
- An opportunity for mentors (or developers in general) to meet informally as
a mutual support and learning group through an on-line chat room and/ or
self-organised gatherings. In this scenario, mentors may request some
help from HR in arranging venues and perhaps finding external speakers
on specific learning topics, but the impetus has to come from them. Some
organisations already run “lunch and learn” events – in one case monthly
– along these lines.
- Good practice “snippets”, sent monthly to all managers (or indeed all
employees), on developmental behaviours, from both the learner and the
developer perspectives. This is perhaps the closest to a formal
arrangement the organisation may go. These short advisory bulletins (no
more than a few hundred words each time) would be generated by HR,
with the aim of stimulating awareness, discussion and incremental
improvements in people’s behaviour to mentor and be mentored, coach
and be coached and so on.
It should be obvious by now that all of these elements may also be useful in
helping a formal mentoring programme to deliver results for both participants and
the organisation. Our thinking increasingly is that the mentoring 'package' that
will give organisations greatest value is one that integrates both formal and
informal mentoring, so that they become mutually supportive. Given the lack of
experience of combined formal and informal approaches, there is some exciting
learning to happen!
David Clutterbuck is a an acclaimed author on mentoring and organisational learning, a member of the European Mentoring & Coaching Council and head of Clutterbuck Associates. He can be contacted on 01628 661667 or via david@clutterbuckassociates.co.uk
|
|
