Coaching practice
·
8 min read
Key findings
Mentoring programmes fail after matching when pairs have no stated purpose, no agreement on time and confidentiality, and no review.
Sponsorship mentoring and development mentoring need different mentors, so the sponsor chooses which one the programme is buying.
A mentor's manager has to agree the hours, because senior leaders in their peak years can barely find time for one mentee.
A month-six report counts pairs meeting at the agreed frequency and codes each early closure by its reason.
Only one of the six usual reasons that mentoring relationships break down is something matching can influence.
Mentoring programmes fail after the matching stage when pairs have no stated purpose, no agreement on time and confidentiality, and no review.
The practitioner prevents this by agreeing the purpose with the sponsor and securing each mentor's time with their manager.
The first meeting is structured, and a report goes to the sponsor at month six.
Rogers lists six ordinary reasons that relationships in organisational mentoring schemes break down.
Chronic misunderstanding on both sides about obligations and expectations
The relationship is a priority for neither side
The mentee and the mentor do not like or respect each other
The mentee takes part out of obligation, with no wish to learn or change
The mentor is inadequately trained or has little aptitude for the role
The mentor sees the role as passing on the fruits of their experience
Matching bears directly on the third at most, and the other five are matters of design and support.
What Mentoring Is
The Center for Creative Leadership defines mentoring as a developmental relationship in which a more experienced person nurtures the professional and personal life of a less experienced one.
The mentor has usually been in the organisation or profession longer and holds greater authority.
That combination of expertise and position gives a mentor significant impact, and it is also the thing the programme has to manage.
CCL separates mentoring from its closest relative by focus.
Coaching typically concentrates on current job performance, and mentoring concentrates on the career path.
Mentors use coaching skills heavily, and they also sponsor mentees for developmental experiences and watch the organisation for threats and opportunities on the mentee's behalf.
A line manager who coaches a direct report has a different position, which the manager as coach sets out.
Two Kinds Of Mentoring
Rogers distinguishes two forms in practice, and a programme has to decide which one it is running.
Sponsorship mentoring means being a career friend who knows the ropes, is extremely senior and influential, and can act as a patron.
The mentor takes a keen interest in the mentee's career and may influence promotion decisions on the mentee's behalf.
Development mentoring aims at the mentee's confidence and skill.
The mentor may be only a little older or more senior, and may sit outside the organisation.
A programme that does not choose risks asking senior mentors to build skills and junior mentors to open doors.
Neither group would have been selected for the job it is then judged on.
Purpose Set With The Sponsor
The first conversation is with the person who commissioned the programme, and it settles four things in this order.
The business outcome the programme is meant to move, in the sponsor's own terms
The population it serves, named by role and level
The kind of mentoring that fits the outcome, sponsorship or development
The measure the sponsor will look at in twelve months
A programme meant to fill critical roles from below needs sponsorship mentors with influence over assignments and promotions, as succession planning for critical roles describes.
A programme meant to settle first-time managers needs development mentors who have recently done the job.
A sponsor who cannot name the outcome has not yet commissioned a programme, and launching one anyway produces forty introductions and nothing to report.
Matching Rules
CCL states that success does not necessarily come from pairing people by function, by similar background or by the mentor working at the level the mentee wants.
It adds that research and anecdotal reports suggest relationships arranged on logical criteria are less successful than those that establish affinity at the outset.
It lists six fit considerations for a pair to talk through.
Value systems, including views on work-life balance
Aligned aspirations, such as quality and professionalism
Subject matter in common
Attitude and interactional style
Compatibility of work management styles
A time limit, which raises tolerance for a marginal fit
The design consequences are practical.
CCL describes tentative pairings in which the two people get acquainted and decide whether to confirm the match.
It recommends two or three occasions together before the decision, the first in a business setting.
The programme should let either person decline.
CCL advises a mentor who sees a poor fit to say so as a no-fault judgement about the match, with no criticism of the mentee.
Two further rules come from practice.
Match outside the reporting line, so that the mentor has no say in the mentee's pay or rating.
Hold the matching survey to the six fit considerations above.
The Power Difference
CCL is direct about the factor most programmes leave unmentioned.
A mentee tends to treat the mentor's views as authoritative and to defer to them.
The mentee will also recognise the mentor's influence and may hope it will be used in specific ways.
Other people may expect the mentor to have more influence over the mentee than the mentor actually has.
Anything the mentor does can be interpreted through that difference.
Persuasion and inspirational appeals from a mentor may be perceived as pressure.
The result can be compliance where the mentor hoped for commitment.
Three practices reduce the distortion.
Set clear boundaries about expectations and degrees of freedom for both people
Be candid about the mentor's own agenda, and say why the mentor is doing what they are doing
Agree confidentiality at the start, not when it is first tested
The First Meeting
A first meeting with a structure produces a second meeting more reliably than one without.
Five items are enough, and all five come from the expectations CCL asks a pair to clarify.
What each person wants, stated in specifics, with goals that fit the mentee's aspirations and the organisation's priorities
What is off limits, including anything the mentor cannot discuss because of their position
How often, for how long and who books, with a plan for the meetings that business emergencies will cancel
What stays confidential and what does not
What would tell both people in six months that the time was worth it
CCL is specific about confidentiality.
Threats or intent to harm someone, misrepresenting the organisation, giving away organisational secrets, theft, lying and unethical acts are not protected.
A mentee's misgivings about staying, strong reactions to another person or a policy, and performance input to the mentee's boss or the programme stakeholder are negotiable.
The pair agrees the negotiable items in writing with anyone who holds either of them accountable.
A mentee tends to treat the mentor's views as authoritative and to defer to them.
The Mentor's Manager
Each mentor also has a manager, and most programmes never speak to them.
CCL notes that a mentor's boss may expect progress reports, and it advises clear agreements with anyone who will hold the mentor accountable.
Time is the practical problem.
CCL observes that most leaders in their peak productivity years can barely find the time to mentor one person.
More senior leaders moving to a slower pace may have the experience and the time for three or four.
The consultant therefore agrees the hours with each mentor's manager before the pair is confirmed, and records how the hours count in the mentor's objectives.
The same conversation covers the pitfalls CCL lists, among them a colleague who becomes suspicious or competitive about the effort a mentor gives to one mentee.
When business pressure rises, a mentor whose manager was never asked cancels first, and the pair later appears as one that stopped meeting.
Advocacy And Its Limits
CCL names seven functions of a mentor.
Develop and manage the relationship
Survey the environment for threats and opportunities
Sponsor the mentee's developmental activities
Guide and counsel
Teach
Model effective leadership behaviour
Motivate and inspire
Mentors perform these in different amounts, and none is compulsory.
Sponsoring carries the highest risk, because once a mentor advocates for someone, the mentor's reputation depends on how that person performs.
CCL also lists related pitfalls.
A mentor may face a conflict between what seems best for the organisation and what seems best for the mentee.
A mentee may be perceived as unfairly favoured.
A mentor may be seen as overreaching the tolerance of the organisation for advocacy.
The programme therefore states how much advocacy is allowed, for example recommending a mentee for an assignment and stopping short of a promotion decision.
Personal issues need a similar limit.
CCL treats guiding and counselling as a mentor function, and it advises recommending professional help for drug or alcohol problems, family or marital problems, and anxiety or depression.
Where a mentor is not certified to interpret a personality profile or a 360 report, CCL advises asking the HR function for support.
What HR Supplies
Most programmes supply matching and a launch event, and then withdraw.
Five things are worth more.
A one-page agreement that the pair completes together, covering the five first-meeting items
A briefing for mentors, because Rogers lists an inadequately trained mentor among the causes of breakdown
Three prompts for the first three meetings
A named contact for when a pair is struggling
A scheduled six-month review with both people
The last item gives the programme its data, and it shows which pairs stopped meeting.
Reporting At Month Six
The sponsor asks at month six how the programme is going, and the honest answer comes from structural measures.
The share of pairs meeting at the agreed frequency
The pairs that closed early, each coded by reason
Mentees who have moved role or taken on a planned assignment
Mentors who say they would give the time again
Coding early closures by reason is the useful step.
Rogers's six causes of breakdown can serve as the coding frame, together with a seventh category for a mentor's manager who withdrew the time.
A report that says eleven of forty pairs are meeting monthly, and that most of the closures trace to unclear obligations, tells the sponsor what to change.
That example is an illustration and not a result from any programme.
Satisfaction scores collected after the launch event say little about whether pairs are meeting.
The mentors' measure is the retention measure for the programme, since mentors who found the time a poor use of it will not volunteer again.
Ending A Mentoring Pair
Mentoring relationships left to fade teach everyone that the commitment was soft.
CCL suggests that mentors ask themselves how they feel about continuing for another three, six or twelve months, and put the same question to the mentee.
Its review questions are whether the pair is on track and on schedule toward the original goals, whether circumstances have changed, and whether the goals need redefining.
Two endings are honest.
A scheduled close at the agreed point, with a final conversation about what changed
An early close by either person, recorded as a normal outcome and coded by reason
Naming both endings at the start turns a quiet lapse into a recorded decision.
Mentors who finish well can be asked to take part again, and building an internal coaching pool covers how an organisation keeps such people.
Where The Tools Sit
Trusted Talent Advisor covers the conversation with a sponsor about purpose in its stakeholder conversation toolkit.
Its evidence and impact component covers choosing a measure and recording a baseline before a programme starts.
Sources
1. Hart, E. W. Seven Keys to Successful Mentoring. Center for Creative Leadership.
2. Rogers, J. Coaching Skills: A Handbook. Open University Press.
From the system
Trusted Talent Advisor sets out the full method: seven components, 51 tools, The Talent Template Pack and The Prompt Library.
See the system
Questions this answers
Why do mentoring programmes fail?
Rogers lists six causes: unclear obligations, low priority, mutual dislike, a reluctant mentee, an untrained mentor, and a mentor who only passes on experience. Most are design and support faults that appear after matching.
What makes a mentoring programme successful?
A purpose the sponsor can name, a mentor's manager who has agreed the hours, a structured first meeting, stated limits on advocacy and confidentiality, and a six-month review that reports structural measures to the sponsor.
How do you match mentors and mentees?
Start from fit between the two people. CCL finds that function, background and level matter less, so arrange two or three meetings before confirming the pair, let either person decline without fault, and match outside the reporting line.
How do you measure the success of a mentoring programme?
Count the pairs meeting at the agreed frequency, code each early closure by reason, track mentee moves and planned assignments, and ask mentors whether they would give the time again. Add the measure the sponsor named at the start.
How long should a formal mentoring relationship last?
Set a fixed term and review it. CCL suggests asking at intervals whether both people want to continue for another three, six or twelve months, which treats the term as something renewed in short steps and not as open-ended.
What should mentors and mentees talk about?
Goals the mentee has stated in specifics, the mentee's career path, the experiences the mentor can offer, and the boundaries on confidentiality. CCL says mentors share their own experiences and failures only when it serves a purpose for the mentee.
Keep reading
Measuring HR impact
Internal Mobility Metrics Without A Platform
Seven measures an HR adviser can build from existing records, each with a stated definition, a base and a way to read it.
7 min read
Workforce and future skills
Job Rotation As A Talent Gap Strategy
A job rotation programme closes a talent gap when the role, the person, the cover and the evidence are agreed with both managers before it starts.
8 min read
Talent reviews and succession
Seeing Talent Below The Top Team
Visibility of leadership potential drops below the top team. A cross-unit forum, run on one page per unit and a written evidence standard, is the method for seeing it.
8 min read