Purpose, practicalities and people have emerged as key themes guiding mentoring programme management, reports Judie Gannon
In a previous Research Matters column last year (https://bit.ly/3k3WnXZ), Rhianon Washington and myself introduced the interim results from the study on mentoring programme management (MPM).
We subsequently published a report (Gannon and Washington, 2019) and ran a workshop for mentoring programme coordinators in the autumn of 2019. The report offers the first real insights on mentoring programme management across the UK, capturing data from more than 150 respondents across diverse settings: education, the arts, professional associations, entrepreneurship, youth work, social care and justice, healthcare and disability and the business community.
Analysis of the survey data led to a focus on three areas, which we identified as the 3 Ps of MPM: Purpose, Practicalities and People. In this article we explore how these three themes guide programme management and ultimately, shape successful mentoring relationships.
Purpose
Purpose was the driving force behind all mentoring programmes. While responses captured the diversity of initiatives, from those supporting professional development to those remedying social disadvantage in a variety of settings, the purpose of programmes shapes all programme features, such as size, safeguarding, funding, reliance on volunteers and programme sustainability.
Practicalities
The second P, Practicalities reflects all the operational features of MPM, ranging from how schemes were organised, how mentoring was delivered, the recruitment, training and matching of participants, as well as monitoring and supporting relationships, administration, certification and evaluation.
Our evidence indicates mentoring programmes range from highly structured and formulated, to those with more limited infrastructure and guidance. Several respondents emphasised the importance of managing expectations through recruitment materials, briefing documentation and training, where programmes had limited resources.
Others highlighted investments made in recruitment, training and matching to ‘professionalise’ their programmes and enhance reputations. To ensure sustained engagement in mentoring relationships, many respondents emphasised the significant amount of time devoted to communication with programme participants and other stakeholders.
Several respondents now invest in holding programme events for mentors and mentees together, beyond their mentoring pairs, to facilitate ‘communities of practice’. These developments imply moves towards Murphy and Kram’s (2014) argument for an evolution of mentoring into developmental networks.
Another interesting aspect of the Practicalities theme was the limited level of awareness across respondents of mentoring programme standards, guidance and resources for mentoring programmes, such as Investors in People, and the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC). While good practice was a concern in delivering effective mentoring programmes, respondents used other programmes, their own research, qualifications and expertise from elsewhere, to help them design, operate and improve their programmes. We received many requests for further support and opportunities to learn from other programmes as part of the open responses to the survey.
The programme administration options reported reflect the diversity of programme size, with technology used primarily to manage participants’ data, matches and monitoring of relationships. Several respondents admitted to considering mentoring administration systems but voiced concerns over the real benefits versus the investment required.
Evaluation was a crucial aspect of the operational activities of mentoring programmes in our research. Emphasis was placed primarily on measuring the success of mentoring relationships, and the goals of programme, while less attention was given to judging the effectiveness of programme management or wider broader organisational or social goals.
Respondents also expressed frustrations over balancing quantitative versus qualitative aspects of programme evaluation activities, noting that different stakeholders, funders and participants preferred different evaluation insights.
The governance of mentoring programmes also features as key element of the Practicalities theme, with nearly half of the respondents using a steering committee and/or a high profile mentoring programme champion to support them. For many schemes, these champions were used as sounding boards and publicists for the mentoring programme. However, several respondents noted they were the champion for their own programme, within their own organisation.
People
The final P refers to the People who manage mentoring programmes, or as Clutterbuck (2006) identified the “unsung heroes of mentoring”. Our study offers detailed empirical insights into the roles, experience and concerns of mentoring programme coordinators and managers. These are typically highly qualified, dedicated professionals managing complex issues from scheme design, strategic issues about scheme direction and funding, networking and recruiting participants, dealing with challenging personal issues between partners and nurturing relationships where they face difficulties.
While the variety of activities associated with MPM roles was seen as fulfilling, many respondents also mentioned feelings of isolation and loneliness (Abbott et al, 2010). Other frustrations of respondents included that while they report to, or have access to senior executives, their influence is often lost where limited resources and time are diverted to nurturing their programmes.
Conclusions
Since producing the report we have presented the findings to the European Centre for Evidence-Based Mentoring and the Scottish Mentoring Network, organisations which offer support and resources to mentoring programmes. The EMCC also recognised the work undertaken through a Global Mentoring Award in spring 2020. Overall, the study highlights the value of mentoring in and across organisations, our communities and wider society, reinforcing the importance of the MPM.
Sadly, other dissemination opportunities were curtailed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, though key findings in the report became more evident in lockdown. Several respondents contacted us during this time and reflected on the increasing challenges facing mentoring programmes due to the shift from face-to-face to remote mentoring, safeguarding issues in relation to social distancing and the concern that vulnerable mentees may face further hardship without ongoing mentoring support.
We hope to be able to capture some of the learning in sustaining mentoring through these difficult times in our next investigation.
- Dr Judie Gannon is senior lecturer, International Centre for Coaching & Mentoring Studies, Oxford Brookes Business School, Oxford Brookes University
References
- P Abbott, X Goosen and J Coetzee, ‘Developing and supporting coordinators of structured mentoring schemes in South Africa’, in SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(1), 2010
- D Clutterbuck, ‘Organising mentoring programmes: how to be a great programme coordinator,’ in Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 20(3), 16-17, 2006
- J M Gannon and R Washington, Many Things to Many People: Formal Mentoring Schemes and their Management – a report, Oxford Brookes University, 2019.
http://bit.ly/31IktgO - W Murphy and K E Kram, Strategic Relationships at Work: Creating Your Circle of Mentors, Sponsors, and Peers for Success in Business and Life. NY: McGraw-Hill, 2014