Everyone Needs a Mentor
Overview
One of the clear conclusions from the experiences of hundreds of mentoring schemes is that attention to doing it well pays dividends. Failure (see Chapter 12) is almost always the result of a combination of:
-
inadequate groundwork (preparing the organisation and stakeholders, having clear objectives, and so on)
-
inadequate training (for both mentors and mentees, and ideally also for key third parties, such as the mentees' line managers)
-
insufficient continuing support to sustain the programme.
Conversely, investment in these areas typically ensures that the programme delivers very good value for money and has a significant impact on the learning and careers of the majority of both mentors and mentees.
The need for standards for mentoring schemes is based on four factors:
-
Scheme co-ordinators need some kind of pragmatic benchmark of good practice to use as a guideline in both designing and assessing their mentoring schemes.
-
It is increasingly important to HR professionals to be able to demonstrate that the initiatives they have implemented on behalf of the organisation arewell-designed and well-founded.
-
External endorsement of a scheme, to a recognised standard, gives participants greater confidence that they will receive the quality of support they need to make the most of the mentoring opportunities.
-
They provide a broad basis for measuring improvement in the quality and effectiveness of a mentoring scheme.
Our research into existing scheme standards has identified only three. Some years ago an attempt was made to introduce mentoring standards into schools in California. Schools tended to use the standards for design purposes, but relatively few formal assessments were made, primarily because of budgetary considerations. (The same would probably hold true of schools in the UK. ) The National Mentoring Network, supported by the Active Community Unit at the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills in October 2001 launched the Approved Provider Standard (APS). The APS is a national quality-approved benchmark for one-to-one volunteer mentoring schemes. Advantages of the Standard are cited as including:
-
Organisations which receive approval are put through a rigorous process of competency.
-
Approved organisations will receive recognition for good practice.
-
The Standard will form the basis of a Government-endorsed national database of Approved Providers.
-
Approved Providers will be granted the Award certificate and the use of the Approved Provider logo to help promote their programme.
The International Standards for Mentoring Programmes in Employment, launched in 2003 after extensive consultation with scheme co-ordinators and other observers of good practice, who advisory board I chair, are focused very closely on mentoring in the workplace. They provide a generic platform for the design and assessment of schemes for graduate recruits, diversity programmes, technical qualification programmes, and most other situations with a mixture of career and personal development objectives. They apply in a wide variety of cultures and across the worlds of commerce, manufacturing, higher education and the voluntary sector. They are currently available for assessment in Scandinavia, Australia, southern Africa, Switzerland, the Republic of Ireland, the UK, Canada, Singapore and the United States.
The International Standards have six sections. The first deals with the clarity of purpose of the scheme. Do all the key stakeholders understand what it aims to achieve for the organisation and for the participants? The second covers the quantity and quality of training provided. Is it sufficient to get people started with confidence and an understanding of how to learn the role by doing it? The third area covers selection and matching processes. Do mentors and mentees have a say in how they are matched? Is there an appropriate policy and approach for rematching? The fourth deals with measurement and review. Do the measures selected establish how effective the programme has been at the levels of both organisation and individual pair? The fifth explores the existence and application of ethical codes. Finally, the sixth covers programme administration and how well participants are supported beyond the initial training and matching.
The International Standards are supported by experienced mentoring programme designers who have qualified as assessors. In organisations with large numbers of mentoring programmes, in-house HR professionals can train to be assessors of schemes they do not personally manage. All assessments are reviewed and monitored by a second assessor, to assure consistent quality.
A sample section of the International Standards is given on the next page.
Stakeholder Training and Briefing
Participants and stakeholders understand the concept of mentoring and their respective roles.
Participants are aware of the skills and behaviours they need to apply in their roles as mentors and mentees, and have an opportunity to identify skills gaps.
Learning support is available throughout the first 12 months of their involvement in the programme.
| Performance criteria | Questions | Suggested evidence |
| 2.1 Participation in a process to learn the basics of mentoring is a non-negotiable condition of taking part in the mentoring programme, for both mentors and mentees | Is there a policy to require all mentors and mentees to attend training? Is this policy rigorously enforced (ie are there some matches made with participants who have not been trained)? | There is a record of at least some time spent learning about mentoring and associated skills by all participants. Documentation, co-ordinator interviews, participant verification |
| 2.2 There is a clear and well-founded conceptual framework to explain mentoring functions and behaviours | Does the training material use and explain a behavioural model? Does it relate mentoring activity to a broader developmental context? Is the level of explanation appropriate for the audience? Do participants understand the model? Are they able to use it as a practical baseline for their role as mentor or mentee? | Training workbook/materials include appropriate models. Documentation, co-ordinator interviews, participant verification |
| 2.3 Participants obtain a clear distinction between mentoring and other forms of help and learning (eg coaching, counselling, tutoring) | Does the training material provide succinct and easily grasped distinctions? Do participants have an opportunity to discuss and internalise those distinctions? Are the boundaries between the different forms of ‘helping to learn' clear? Are the commonalities between the different forms of ‘helping to Learn' clear? | Training workbook/materials clarify the distinction. Documentation, coordinator interviews, participant verification |
| 2.4 There is a clear and well-founded framework of competencies for mentors and mentees, upon which the training is based | Is there a competency base at all? Is it a proper framework, or simply a list of skills? Is it supported by research? Is it clear why these skills/competencies are important for a mentor? Do participants have an opportunity to discuss these? | Training workbook/materials explain competencies. Opportunity to discuss competencies. Documentation, coordinator interviews, participant verification |
Категории