“I need a mentor.”
“My problem is I didn’t have a mentor.”
“My success in large part is due to my mentor.”
“We need a mentoring program at this company.”
“Mentoring programs are just window dressing.”
These comments permeate the workplace as all kinds of employees seek guidance climbing a corporate, governmental or nonprofit ladder.
The term mentor is seductive. To many, it is assumed that having a mentor is the key to career success.
The word mentor conveys the image of a teacher, an adviser, a confidant, a sponsor or a coach. However, rarely is the ability to perform all these functions found in one person.
A teacher could be anyone with desired specific knowledge or skill.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, a teacher need not be a person at a higher level in one’s company. A teacher of computer skills might be an adult child, a student intern, a computer assistant or a secretary. Someone who can teach effective interpersonal skills might be a friend, a gym partner or a subordinate who works well with difficult people.
An adviser is one who helps with a well-defined or short-term problem.
This could be a colleague or peer who has been successful meeting identified challenges, or adept at staying calm during crises. Or it may be someone who can provide advice leading meetings or making professional presentations.
A confidant is one who can be trusted with comments about people or issues that require confidence.
Often well-connected and/or powerful people in one’s company may not be the best ones in whom to confide about fellow employees. However, a confidant could be a close friend, a lawyer, a physician or anyone you know can keep a secret.
A sponsor is usually an upper level person with the power, interest and authority to help promote.
Most think of mentors as sponsors,i.e. those who can ensure that one’s career goals are achieved. Clearly a sponsor needs to be working in, or knowledgeable about, the organization in which the person being helped works. Those fortunate to find a sponsor are an elite group, for true sponsors are scarce, and this kind of mentoring is reserved for the “special” few.
Programs where people are assigned “sponsors” don’t always work. Male/female relationships often generate concerns about office romance and special-favor talk. Also, cross-cultural relationships often result in misunderstandings. On the other hand, many people feel most comfortable with one mentor who they perceive as their sponsor.
A coach is someone (perhaps a hired outsider) who has both a personal and professional relationship with the person being mentored,in a sense, a “career shrink.”
While not able to perform all the functions described above, a coach is a “go to” person,a traffic cop who signals where to stop and start, shows the safest way to proceed, and makes valuable connections. Chief executives and other top-level executives increasingly hire coaches who have doctorates in psychology or have been successful executives themselves.
Because mentoring is a two-way street, it’s important to understand the pros and cons of being a mentor or seeking one.
The benefits to the person being mentored are obvious,they are getting help, and there are few costs unless the mentor leaves the firm, can’t deliver or the relationship sours.
For the mentor, however, the costs of the relationship are often perceived to outnumber the benefits.
The costs are the time commitment and the often-excessive expectations of the person being mentored.
On the other hand, being a mentor communicates a willingness to help improve an organization’s human capital,good for the mentor’s career. As important, mentors often learn of concerns that provide a “heads up” about potential in-house problems. In addition, there is the inherent pleasure that comes with helping others or “giving back.”
The questions may be asked, “What’s an individual who wants career guidance or mentoring to do?” and “What can an organization do to improve effective mentoring opportunities for its employees?”
For individuals, the answer is simple.
View all kinds of people as potential mentors depending on the type of guidance you feel you need at any given time. In essence, think of mentoring as developing an informal “personal board of directors.”
For organizations, it’s not always simple.
The best answer is to replace formal or informal mentoring programs (based on a one-to-one match where the mentor is expected to perform all the functions described above) to offering multi-faceted mentoring opportunities (to all employees) which are function-specific.
Intel is a company that has done this.
Instead of hitching individuals to a “star,” or matching people by job title, years of service or “potential,” Intel employees are asked to identify, and post on the company’s Internet, functions they wish to perform, or want performed to help them advance their careers. Employees then link up via e-mail.
This process maximizes the ability of employees to determine mentor “fit” since different kinds of mentors are needed at different times to perform different functions. It also allows for relationships across states and internationally.
Most important, this model eliminates the structural demands associated with most company programs (required regular meetings, mentor training and assessment reports).
This mentoring model is relatively easy to institute and maintain. However, changing the perception that a mentoring relationship needs to be a one-to-one isn’t easy to change.
So what are the answers to the mentoring questions posed above?
First, change the perception that one mentor, or a formalized mentoring program, will necessarily guarantee career success, although clearly, either might.
Second, think of mentoring as a guidance system with a multiplicity of personal and professional signposts.
Finally, remember: “Success is never a destination, it’s a journey,” and “The road to success is always under construction.”
Rosener, Ph.D., is a professor in University of California, Irvine’s Paul Merage School of Business and a noted author and speaker.
