Successful Mentoring:
A Model for the City of Prince George

Dori Alger

Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Business Administration

The University of Northern British Columbia
April2010

© Dori Alger, 2010

UNivERSITy of NORTHERN
BRITISH COLUMBIA
LmRARY
Prince Geoi'Re. B.C.

ABSTRACT
Mentoring has existed in academic literature for over thirty years and has been a
common form of developmental learning for centuries. The driving force of a formal
mentoring program is built on the needs of an organization because mentoring can
only truly be defined based on the purpose, expectations and context in which the
relationship dwells. Anchored in an organization's culture, a formal mentoring
program is synonymous with a talent management strategy.

This research paper examines the literature regarding the past, present, and future
of mentoring along with the various models, elements, phases, and stages involved
in a mentoring program. The purpose, discussed in the research questions on page
four, is linked to defining a successful mentoring program, contrasting the literature
to the City of Prince George, and formulating a cost benefit analysis of a mentorship
initiative. Since the City of Prince George is subject to a high degree of retirement
risk this topic as it relates to succession planning will be specifically scrutinized.

Mentoring remains important because it is predicted that the most difficult
challenge facing organizations in the future will be the retention of skilled human
capital. This increases the focus on retention and talent development both of which
are enhanced by the presence of a mentoring program.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...................... .......................... ................ ............. ........................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... .............. .......... ..... ......... .............. .................... .................... .... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ..... .. ..... .............. ................... ......... ....... .. ... ................... ...................... iv
INTRODUCTION ................................... .......... ....... ..................... ..................................... 1
Purpose .......... ............ ............................... ................................. ............. .. .. .......... ... ............ 3
Research Questions ..................... ............ .................................. ............................... ........... 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ................. .................. ......................... .. ... ... ............................... 4
Qualities of Ideal Mentors and Proteges .... .. .. .. ........... ............. ....................... .................... 5
Mentoring Roles ..................................... ........................ ... ....... ..................... ..... ............... .. 8
Mentoring Models ................ ................ ...................................... ..... .......... ........ ............... . 13
Formal and Informal Model s ... .. .. .......................... .................... ..................... .......... 15
Relationship Types ...... .... .................................................. .................................. ..... . 16
Relationship Control ............................................. .. .................................................. 18
Program Purpose .............. ......................................................................................... 20
Mentor Form ...... .. .......... ... .... ........................................... .................................. .. ..... 20
Program Format ............................ ..... .................... .... ........ ................... .................... 22
Phases in the Mentoring Relationship ....... ................................ ........ ..................... ........ ... 23
Stages of Career Development. ................................................. ........................................ 27
Benefits of Mentoring ... ... ............................. .. .. ........................ .... .............. ................. ... .. 28
Pitfalls of Mentoring ... ............................. ................................ .................. ..... ........ .......... 33
Components of a Formal Mentoring Program ..... ............ ......... .......... ................. ............. 36
LIMITATION ........................ .................... .. ......................................................... ....... ..... 43
DISCUSSION .................................................................................... .................. ............. 43
RECOMMENDATION .. ....... .... ... ...... ..................................... ....... .......... .......... ..... ......... 51
CONCLUSION ...... .. ................................................... .... .......... ..... ............. .... .................. 53
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... ........... ............................................... .................. .. .. .... 54
Appendix I - Retirement Risk Statistics ................................ .. .... .. ................. ................. 62
City Leadership ................. ....... ........................................ ......................... ................ 63
Development & Operations and Corporate Services ......................... ...... ... .............. 64
Administrative Services and City Manager's Office ....... ....................... .......... ........ 65
Com111unity Services and City Wide Age Distribution .... ......... ................. ....... .. ...... 66
Appendix 2- CPG Organizational Chart .................. .................. ............. ...... .... .............. 67
Appendix 3 - CPG Mentoring Model.. ... .... .................. .. ......... .. ....................... ................ 68
l1l

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 -Different Forms of Mentoring Scholarship and Their Purposes ....................... 1
Figure 2 - Career Development Outcomes ........................ ...... .. ............................ ............. 2
Figure 3- Synthesis of Differing Elements of Mentoring Models .................................. 14
Figure 4- Phases in Formal Mentoring Relationships ............ ..................... ................. ... 24
Figure 5 - Mentoring During Different Career Development Stages ............................... 28
Figure 6- Structure Required in Formal Mentoring ....... .............. ................................... 38
Figure 7- Jack J. Phillips' ROI Model .............................. ...... .... .... ... ......................... .... 50
Figure 8- Table of Estimated Hours Required per Mentoring Program ...................... ... 51

IV

INTRODUCTION
Mentoring is an ancient term originating in Homer's Odyssey where Odysseus'
friend, Mentor, committed to instruct and guide Odysseus' son while Odysseus
fought on the distant battlefields. Thousands of years later the name has been
immortalized by this pervasive form ofintergenerational wisdom-sharing. For the
purpose of this paper, a mentor is defined as an experienced, trusted, wise advisor
who is committed to the development and learning outcomes of the protege.

The antecedent of mentoring originates with the master-apprentice model in which
age and wisdom imparts to inexperienced youth. In this modern era, there are three
main disciplinary silos identified in Figure 1: youth, academic and workplace
mentoring (Eby, Allen, et al. 2008). The emphasis in this paper relates specifically to
reciprocal learning, formal, workplace mentoring relationships.
Figure 1 -Different Forms of Mentoring Scholarship and Their Purposes

-< Workplace
• employee
orientation
• leadership
succession
• knowledge transfer
• employee retention

Youth
• youth development
• risky behaviour
deterrent

• career development
• best practice
implementation

1

I

Academie .
• student orientation
• apprenticship
• student retention

Research revealed that mentored individuals along with their mentors experience a
wide array of positive objective and subjective outcomes (Eby and Lockwood 2005)
(Allen, Lentz and Day 2006) (Underhill 2006) (DiRenzo, et al. 2010) (Weinberg and
Lankau 2010). Mentoring is linked to improved attitude, behaviour, relationships,
motivation, health, and career opportunities (Eby, Allen, et al. 2008).

An analysis of the different mentoring models (formal and informal) along with
their various elements (relationship type, relationship control, program purpose,
mentoring form, and program format) will be addressed as well as the different
types of organizational mentoring outcomes. Of particular interest are the objective
and subjective outcomes associated with career development (see Figure 2)
discussed in the meta-analysis performed by Underhill (2006) and Eby, Allen, Evans,
Ng, and DuBois (2007).
Figure 2- Career Development Outcomes

• job satisfaction
• self esteem
• intent to stay
• advancement
opportunities
• organizational
commitiment
• workstress
• work/family conflict

• income
• tenure
• number of
promotions

2

In the context of a formal mentoring program, the roles and responsibilities of
mentor and protege will also be discussed as well as the program life cycle and
relevant milestones.

Purpose
The City of Prince George has an overall exposure to retirement risk of 35.8%
(Appendix 1). In reference to key leadership positions, 53.1% are at risk of retiring,
many of which have been employed with the City for decades (Appendix 2). If you
include Fire Chiefs and Captains in the leadership mix, the percent of retirement risk
jumps to 69.8%.

These individuals possess an abundance of wisdom, knowledge and experiences
that are invaluable to the organization. Their insight would benefit high potential
neophytes as well as more experienced professionals who have recently advanced
to more auspicious roles. Erudition along with the comprehension of the essential
cultural attributes of the organization would be captured and retained in the
organization if conveyed through a mentoring relationship.

Therefore, the purpose of this project will be the provision of a framework for a
formal mentoring program for the City of Prince George. Issues addressed include:
union involvement, garnering participants, and collaboration with other public

3

organizations. A plan for measurement will be established and tied into the bottom
line in regards to savings and hard/soft costs.

Research Questions
The research questions addressed are:
1. What are the key elements in a successful, sustainable mentoring program?
2. Are there significant differences between formal mentoring programs
discussed in the literature and the City of Prince George? In other words,
does the City of Prince George have an existing formal mentoring program
and does the literature apply to municipalities?
3. What would the cost benefit analysis be if the City of Prince George
implemented a formal mentoring program?

LITERATURE REVIEW
I encountered an excessively broad ocean of information in response to searches
based on the keywords: mentor; protege, organizational mentoring and mentoring
programs. The wide array of literature consistently conveys that mentoring delivers
positive results to individuals and organizations and it is an intuitive societal belief
that mentoring works.

Mentoring has permeated virtually every profession. Renowned mentoring
partnerships exist in science, literature, politics, arts, athletics, and entertainment.
4

Famous examples include; Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, Sigmund Freud and Carl
Jung as well as Hayden and Beethoven to name a few. Although the term is common
in modern vernacular, the definition of mentoring has evolved into many differing
forms since Levinson's seminal study on human development in 1978 (Levinson, et
al. 1978). Scholars from a variety of disciplines in an array of settings have managed
to create "definitional and conceptual confusion" about the topic (Eby, Rhodes and
Allen 2007) and over fifteen definitions exist in literature (Jacobi 1991). The
essential principal to comprehend is that the role of mentor relates to contextual
organizational experience not age or power (Conway 1998). The other common
elements present in the numerous definitions are that mentors offer guidance or
instruction to assist in developing the protege and that there is a trusting emotional
bond between dyads.

Qualities of Ideal Mentors and Proteges
A wide range of personality features can be found in great mentors and proteges.

Certain qualities are equally important for both sides of the mentoring partnership.
Catherine Mossop defines these core competencies as requisite for proficiency
(Mossop 2007, 2008).
~

Critical self awareness
•
•
•
•
•

learns by evaluating experiences and situations
comprehends how their personal actions affect others
takes responsibility for one's own actions
constantly self assesses as a springboard to improvement
looks for life lessons when experiencing setbacks

5

~

Conceptual thinking
•
•
•
•
•

~

identifies the underlying issues in multifarious situations
identifies patterns and connections between situations
recognizes both the practical application and implications of various
options
synthesizes
explores scenarios to deconstruct complex situations

Listening/reflecting/responding
•
•
•
•

facilitates the development of insight and knows how and when to
challenge behaviour (mentor)
accepts feedback when behaviour is challenged (protege)
listens appreciatively, without imposing personal judgments (mentor)
listens respectfully (protege)

Character Traits of the Mentor

Mentors maintain strong interpersonal skills. In matters of style and personality,
they exude warmth and are friendly and approachable (Johnson and Ridley 2004).
They have the ability to develop themselves and others taking ownership over
personal career development. They take advantage of and plug into a broad range of
sources to find relevant learning opportunities. Excellent mentors emanate
professional savvy. They develop long-term network resources to be used for
achieving professional goals, identifying opportunities, resolving problems and
input. Mentors are involved in community building, forming relationships
throughout a variety of organizations and building commitment to strategic
objectives that model collective success (Mossop 2007).

6

Effective mentors are well-rounded individuals who possess secondary attributes
such as having the confidence to be willing to release information as well as the
ability to share the credit. Mentors are not afraid of or intimidated by their protege's
success and are therefore willing to openly share information that will catapult the
protege forward. Mentors are able to commit to the partnership and make
themselves available during the commitment period. They are willing to give honest
feedback by communicating clearly, truthfully and honestly. At times, mentors also
serve as a confidant in times of difficulty or personal crisis. Qualifications of
organizational knowledge, exemplary supervisory skills and technical competence
complement a mentor's skill set. Superior mentors possess a willingness to be
responsible for their protege's growth and are outstanding role models.

However, the underpinning trait according to Chip Bell is trust (Bell 2002).
Mentoring relationships rely on this crucial commodity. A mentor who exemplifies
all other qualities without being trustworthy will not be very successful. Conversely,
mentors possessing a high degree of their protege's trust and lack other mentoring
skills can succeed. Trust is an amalgamation of genuineness or authenticity
combined with credibility. The ability to build trust flows from keeping promises,
honouring commitments, and demonstrating consistency between words and deeds
(Tobin and Pettingell 2008).

7

Character Traits of the Protege

Research indicates that mentors prefer to interact with proteges who are proactive
and open minded (Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller and Marchese 2006). Proactive
proteges take responsibility for personal career development. They persistently
search for new opportunities to enhance their knowledge, skills and abilities and are
goal oriented continuously assessing their progress for alignment with goals.
Exceptional proteges are open to exploring a variety of viewpoints when examining
diverse issues. They are capable of recognizing options and identifying trends when
thinking through issues as well as seeing the practical application of the options.
Great proteges actively seek challenging assignments and new responsibilities. Ten
other qualities of exemplary proteges include: Intelligence, ambition, initiative,
energy, trustworthiness, integrity, emotional intelligence, optimism, complementary
skills, and the aspiration and aptitude to accept power and risk (Ensher and Murphy
2005). To elucidate, emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive and understand
others' as well as manage and express one's own emotions. A growing body of
research indicates that emotional intelligence is central to achievement at work and
success in life (Cherniss 2007). It holds greater benefit to upper echelon career
enhancement than cognitive intelligence.

Mentoring Roles
The majority of scholarly text in reference to mentoring roles can be summarized by
the work of Kathy Kram (Kram 1988, Ragins and Kram 2007). Kram separates
8

mentoring into two distinct areas: Career functions and psychosocial functions.
Career functions are comprised of sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching,
protection, and challenging assignments. Psychosocial functions consist of role
modeling, acceptance & confirmation, counseling, and friendship .

Career Functions
Career functions are those areas that augment career advancement and affect
compensation. These functions are possible for the protege because of three
common attributes possessed by mentors; position, experience and organizational
influence. They can serve the career-related goals of both the mentor and the
protege. Protege's career goals are met by assistance in assimilating into the
organizational culture, increased exposure, and possible promotion. Where the
mentor's career-related ends appreciate in value by; building respect for developing
talent, developing support among colleagues and possible reciprocation of support.

Sponsorship, the most common career function in a mentoring relationship, can be
powerfully influenced by mentors. Sponsorship entails endorsement, empowerment
and promotion and is based on the mentor's power to influence. The utility of
sponsorship changes depending on the stage of the protege's organizational career.
During early stages, sponsorship assists in building reputation and obtaining job
opportunities in preparation for future advancement. In the later stages of a career,

9

sponsorship can be crucial in navigating the political process and aiding in the
competition for promotions.

The exposure and visibility function allows the protege to demonstrate their
performance and competence to other key figures in the organization. This function
grooms individuals for a higher degree of responsibility and authority by providing
vital learning experiences and demonstrating potential. The protege's visibility is
enhanced when their "contributions and achievements are highlighted both laterally
and vertically" (Johnson and Ridley 2004, 24) by their mentor promoting a positive
interaction with influential stakeholders.

Along the same lines as an athletic coach, the function of coaching in a mentoring
relationship involves training, guiding, suggesting strategies for success, motivating,
and providing feedback. Training involves direct, explicit instruction as to
vocational roles and functions as well as demonstrating the described skills. Stone
suggests that there are five principles for coaching: Gathering information, listening,
being conscious of the surroundings, instructing, and providing feedback (Stone
1999). Ultimately, coaching is about performance enhancement. It is a critical
competency that provides support to the protege and offers the opportunity to build
new skills. Coaching is a patient, helpful response used to reinforce high quality
performance and improve meager performance (Tobin and Pettingell 2008).

10

Protection is when a mentor intervenes in a situation where the protege is not
equipped to achieve satisfactory performance (tasks that sabotage success) or in
response to an unjust threat or attack. Effective protection can minimize career
threats such as: Bureaucratic entanglements, conflict, and poor decision making. It
reduces unnecessary risks to the protege's reputation and acts as a shield against
criticism.

The central focus of the challenging assignment function is to provide technical
learning opportunities. It is an incremental process where the challenges are
tailored to suit the individual needs of the protege. The purpose of each exercise is
to stretch the protege and stimulate growth. They should be accompanied by both
analytical feedback and reinforcing praise.

Psychosocial Functions

Psychosocial functions assist in supporting the protege's self efficacy and personal
confidence. These functions help to instill a sense of proficiency, identity and
effectiveness for the protege in their position as a professional. In contrast to career
functions, which foster a relationship with the organizations, psychosocial functions
cultivate a relationship with self. They are more dependent on the quality of the
mentoring relationship; affecting individuals on a much more personal level.

11

The most frequent psychosocial function, role modeling, occurs when a mentor
presents a behaviour that should be emulated or acts as an "obvious prototype"
(Bell 2002). Setting a personal example is the most effective teaching technique.
Role models portray values and attitudes worthy of admiration and respect. By
observing how the mentor manages work groups, relates to others, and deals with
tensions the protege learns to do the same. As the protege discovers the mentor's
approaches, attitudes, and values they choose to replicate some and reject others
according to their own self development.

Acceptance and confirmation by a mentor provides support and encouragement to
the protege. A mentor's affirmation infuses the protege with confidence and assists
them in overcoming self doubt. Validation communicates trust in the protege's
judgment and surety in their ability where acceptance acknowledges their intrinsic
worth.

Mentoring intermittently includes an aspect of informal counseling which involves
three factors: Open, direct honest communication, active listening, and probing
questions (Stone 1999). The broad subject matter of counseling topics generally fall
into one of these main themes that detract from productive work: Concerns related
to competence or career satisfaction, apprehension regarding professional
relationships, or anxiety over balancing the variety of work/life roles without
compromise. By acting as a sounding board and sharing insight and personal
experiences, the mentor can convey acceptance, support and empathy facilitating
12

problem solving. Boundaries regarding where the support begins and ends is
important in this context.

As the friendship function emerges, so too does a higher level of comfort and
enjoyable social interaction. It allows the protege to feel more like a peer. The
greater the rapport built in this developmental relationship the more fruitful it will
become. Kinship allows for masks to be lowered and for the protege to take risks in
front of their mentor. This function is shaped through authenticity and
compatibility.

Mentoring Models
Mento ring models in the literature can be separated into two genres, formal and
informal, which are differentiated by relationship initiation and structure. The
scholarly text is exceptionally diverse in addressing the various elements of these
models. Figure 3 attempts to synthesize the assorted components in response to five
questions: What type of relationship is desired?; Who controls the relationship?;
What is the purpose of the program?; Where is the mentor from?; and lastly, What is
the format of the program? The most common configurations of these models and
the optimal mentoring prototype for the City of Prince George will be addressed in
the discussion section of this paper.

13

Developmental learning is the foundation of all organizational mentoring models.
Common platforms include purpose and communication. The fundamental driver of
the process, purpose and product of a mentoring relationship is the learning needs
of the protege and the key to maintaining a formal mentoring program is the ability
to have qualified, experienced mentors willing to participate. The relationship needs
to be upheld with the pillars of honesty and safety with trust at its core. Other
elements include progress review and constructive feedback. Benefits and outcomes
vary depending on the type of model used.
Figure 3- Synthesis of Differing Elements of Mentoring Models
• one to one
• mentoring hub
• mentoring circle
• e-mentoring
• association based
• mentor (directive)
• protege (non-directive)
• organization

• career (task focused)
• psychosocial (supportive)
• combination of both career and psychosocial
• external to the organization
• internal member not in direct line of authority
• line manager or supervisor
• experienced peer

• voluntary or compulsory participation
• partner choice or partner assignment

14

Formal and Informal Models

The general perception in the academic literature purports that informal models of
mentoring are superior to formal models in areas of protege benefits. This is
opposite to practitioner literature which suggests that the added structure of a
formal program is more advantageous. However, academic researchers agree that
not all formal programs are created equal and recognize that some well-constructed
formal programs experience a greater degree of success (Finkelstein and Poteet
2007).

Based on existing empirical research, a formal mentoring model refers to an
organizationally initiated process to match mentors to proteges. Formal programs
are generally built on a series of predetermined guidelines for one or both dyads
regarding; contracted goals, timelines, interaction frequency and content. This
facilitated process takes a systematic approach in developing the talents and
competencies of the protege. Programs vary as to purpose and goals according to
the organization's culture and requirements. The majority of formal models include
an orientation for both mentor and protege as well as training regarding individual
obligations, expectations and process. Some companies also involve a screening

method, either by nomination or job performance, to determine candidates (Eby
and Lockwood 2005).

15

Alternatively, an informal model is a naturally occurring relationship that is
spontaneous and gradual (Johnson 2002). These unsanctioned relationships lack
formal assignment and often last longer than other organizational relationships
because of the relationship chemistry and the close bond that is formed. The
unstructured relationship typically presents more risk and greater commitment as
the promised aid doesn't always materialize (Mullen 2007).

Ref a tionsh ip Types

The most common form of mentoring is the one-to-one relationship. This is the
traditional dyad model where one mentor and one protege are partnered. This type
of mentoring is prevalent in the literature and largely targeted by researchers.

A mentoring hub is defined as a single mentor to many proteges model. In this
model of mentoring the mentor often acts more like a facilitator who guides
dialogue and frames questions for a collective learning opportunity (Harris and
Daley 2006). In this style ofmentoring, proteges often support and help one another
which form stronger working relationships in the peer group.

Mentoring circles are a collection of individuals who meet on a regular basis and can
act as mentor, protege, or both contingent upon the current situation. These groups
are often bound by a charter that clarifies the rules, activities, and expectations for
participation. The purpose of the learning collaborative is to assist people who have

16

a common focus or interest to set and reach developmental goals. This group offers
both leadership and training opportunities for its members as well as networking
and cross-functional learning (Abbott 2008).

E-mentoring is defined by Bierema as "a computer mediated, mutually beneficial
relationship between a mentor and a protege which provides learning, advising,
encouraging, promoting, and modeling, that is often boundaryless, egalitarian, and
qualitatively different than traditional face-to-face mentoring" (Bierema and
Merriam 2002). The difference from traditional mentoring occurs in two areas; the
construction (boundaryless) and quality (egalitarian). E-mentoring is boundaryless
in the sense that it offers online exchanges through e-mail, electronic chat and
message boards when a face-to-face relationship would be unfeasible. These
relationships can cross geography, culture, hierarchy, race, gender and age which
sometimes cause a difficult divide in conventional mentoring relationships. This
safe, diversified model can take the form of a one-to-one, peer, or mentoring hub
relationship. Relatively few academic articles exist that discuss the merits of ementoring. However, the literature does indicate the value of e-mentoring especially
to marginalized groups. Since the organizational model of flattening the layers of
hierarchy is becoming more common, the availability of men to ring opportunities is
shrinking, thus limiting mentoring to marginalized groups even further. Ementoring is noted as a cost-effective and timely alternative mentoring method
(DiRenzo, et al. 2010). DiRenzo's study illustrates that a greater degree of selfefficacy with technology results in superior levels of positive outcomes. In this
17

internet age the most appealing benefits of this innovative form of men to ring is the
low barrier to entry, flexibility and minimal time required. The challenge is to
ensure that users on both sides of the dyad have appropriate computer and internet
acuity. MentorN et (www.mentornet.net) is one example of an e-community that
offers a number of web-based services such as one-to-one e-mentoring, e-forums,
and online resources. They have established 26,582 mentor matches since 1998 and
offers to connect people from around the world in areas of engineering and science.

An association based structure is somewhat of a hybrid. It usually is still a one-toone type relationship but it has a governing body such as a professional business
association rather than an individual organization that is the link between pairs.
Although not present in academic literature, a practitioner example is the Human
Resource Management Association (HRMA) who offers mentoring to their members.
In this model the mentors are external to individuals' company yet linked by
vocational community.

Relationship Control

Mentoring relationships are very dynamic. The purpose and roles are influenced by
the context of the relationship and are generally self-directing in nature. But, one of
the partners needs to drive or take control. If the mentor takes the role of expert,
then the relationship is likely to be more instructive for the mentor and less
empowering for the protege. However, if they take the role of facilitator, then the

18

relationship will be prone to mutual learning, creating the perception of equality,
and empowering the protege.

A directive relationship is one in which the mentor is the active initiator and the
mentor functions lean toward sponsorship. The most common contact will revolve
around guiding and coaching where the mentor offers strong advice, directs
discussion, and decides on the content and timing of the interactions. According to
Clutterbuck, sponsorship is the primary focus of American mentoring as opposed to
developmental mentoring espoused to be more European (Clutterbuck 2004,
Klasen and Clutterbuck 2002). In a directive relationship, the mentor is usually
someone senior both in age and hierarchy to the protege and has the ability to exert
power and influence in the organization. A directive relationship is sometimes
characterized by one-way learning and the mentor's biggest role comes in the area
of introductions.

Clutterbuck advocates that the best mentoring model is a non-directive relationship
where the protege is proactive and the mentor is reactive (or passive). This form is a
more developmental mentoring approach which is built on two-way learning
opportunities and leads to stimulate insight. The mentor attempts to inspire selfreliance in the protege and encourages them to draw their own conclusions in areas
of discussion and relationship direction. In the non-directive model, the mentor
could also be a peer or junior that has additional experience.

19

There are rare occasions where the organization is in control of the relationship. In
this case the company would contract an external mentor and direct the outcomes
according to specific requirements.

Program Purpose
The purpose of the mentoring program can focus on the protege's career, their
personal development or a combination of both. A protege looking for the "fast
track" to organizational advancement will desire a more task-focused, careerenhancing purpose. Conversely, a fresh graduate lacking confidence and experience
might prefer a greater degree of the psychosocial support. The literature is
unanimous that context is the underlying principal to defining the program purpose.

Mentor Form
An external mentor most often takes the form of a business coach. The benefits to
this form of men to ring include the fact that the external coach possesses a superior
level of skill and experience in the area they coach. The deficiency of an external
mentor is that they often are accompanied with an expensive price tag and cannot
offer internal networking opportunities or inside-track promotion.

A mentoring model that engages an internal manager as mentor tends to be more
career oriented, for the protege, principally focusing on developing future leaders
and retaining high performers. Supervisor, in this context, is defined as an individual

20

one or two levels higher in the organizational hierarchy and not on direct
accountability lines. This model utilizes diversity goals and manages organizational
knowledge. The power in this model derives from the mentor's ability to admit their
protege to certain parts of the organization that would otherwise be inaccessible.
The internal mentor has intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the
company including the politics and how to navigate through the bureaucracy.

A direct line supervisor as mentor is a relationship where the leader mentors their
subordinate. This model is also known as supervisory career mentoring (SCM). The
SCM focus rest primarily on job performance, development of new skills and
responsibility (Scandura and Williams 2004). To be effectual, the positional power
needs to be reduced or eliminated (Bell 2002). According to Bell, "not all
supervisors are mentors but the most effective supervisors act as mentors." Studies
do exist that imply a direct supervisor (in an informal relationship) rather than an
executive have better mentoring outcomes for their subordinates in the area of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Raabe and Beehr 2003). Some
researches identify a serious flaw in SCM in that protege communication or actions
can be limited by fear of retribution or concern for diminishing rewards. This
research indicates that immediate supervisors are generally not a good match for a
formal program nor is the supervisor's immediate manager because of the potential
conflict of interest.

21

A peer mentoring model is most effective when employed as an employee

orientation strategy. This approach excels at bringing newer employees along faster
and duplicating best practices. Peer mentors generally have short term goals such as
knowledge transfer or development of job skills (Shahani n.d.). Peer mentoring is
also a valuable tool in managing organizational knowledge creation and how that
knowledge is shared. This also enables the benefits of mentoring to occur in those
organizations that were impacted by downsizing and delayering (Bryant 2005).
Other experiential benefits of peer mentoring are the mobilization of tacit
knowledge to explicit knowledge and the enhancement of organizational learning
(Nonaka 1994).

Reverse mentoring, popularized by Jack Welch former CEO of General Electric,
occurs when an older more experienced individual who is lacking a certain skill
(usually technology) is mentored by a younger otherwise less experienced
subordinate (Leh 2005). This allows the knowledge already present in the
organization to be fully utilized.

Program Format

Program format revolves around whether participation in the program is voluntary
or mandatory and if the participants have any say in how they are partnered. An
example of a positive compulsory mentoring format is when an organization
requires new employees to participate in an orientation program. The mandatory

22

involvement aids the novice in navigating through the company. In other
circumstances, literature suggests that voluntary participation is the most
advantageous. However, some companies are faced with a dearth of people willing
or available to participate as mentors. This may cause the organizers to draft
potentials to meet program needs. Compulsory recruitment of mentors can trigger
resistance to the program which, in turn, negatively affects its value (Parise and
Forret 2008).

Research supports the notion that the merits of a mentoring program rests heavily
on the chemistry between the mentoring partners. Problems with mentor-protege
mismatches are commonly noted in literature (Eby and Lockwood 2005) therefore,
some form of input into the matching process is recommended. Lack of input may
cause mentors to have the perception of incompatibility with their partner (Parise
and Forret 2008), potentially causing resentment and ultimately reducing the
relationship benefits. Conversely, input breeds ownership and commitment to the
program (Finkelstein and Poteet 2007).

Phases in the Mentoring Relationship
Kathy Kram describes four "predictable phases" in her seminal work on informal
mentoring: Initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition (Kram 1988).
Although Kram's work is frequently referenced in literature (Chao 1997), the
researchers assume that formal mentoring relationships progress through the same

23

stages as informal relationships. Kram's initiation phase for an informal relationship
is marked by excitement and attraction where as initial interactions of formal pairs
are often described as awkward. Therefore, the majority of practitioners, along with
some academic scholars include the precursor of an orientation or preparation
phase in the formal mentoring program (Bearman, eta!. 2007). Other differences
between Kram's work lies in where the agreements are negotiated and how the
relationship closes. Figure 4 represents a synthesis of the literature and is not
specifically identified by a single author.

Figure 4- Phases in Formal Mentoring Relationships

Zachary lists the phases as; tilling the soil (preparing), planting the seeds
(negotiating), nurturing growth (enabling), and reaping the harvest (coming to
closure) (Zachary 2000). Note that in Zachary's Mentoring text, discussion of the
24

redefinition phase does not exist until her Organizational work in 2005. Other
authors combine separation or closure and redefinition (Partnerships n.d.).
However, in the literature redefinition is addressed enough to be considered a
legitimate phase.

Zachary and the University of Baylor describe the first phase as a prequel, reading
each other's bios and taking orientation classes (Zachary 2000) (Baylor n.d.). The
preparation phase is characterized by self-assessment and reflection in the areas of
readiness and personal motivation. A variety of timelines for each of the stages are
suggested in the literature. Although the timelines are listed as guidelines, they are
so dissimilar in scope it was not possible to synthesize them into a single
recommendation from literature.

The negotiation phase is where the partners become acquainted and find common
ground. It is at this stage where the foundation of the relationship is built and it is
filled with positive expectation. Rapport and trust are developed and interests,
values, goals, and dreams are discussed. Bell relates that rapport is comprised of
four rudiments: Leveling communication, gifting gestures, receptivity for feelings
and reflective responses (Bell 2002). During this kinship phase, sound mentoring
agreements need to be negotiated, developed and executed. The purpose of the
contract (either written or verbal) is to frame how the protege's development will
occur as a result of the mentoring activities and to delineate mutual responsibilities
and boundaries. To focus the agreement the partners should first establish the role

25

of the mentor. Defining the role is completely contextual in nature and should clarify
the mentor's prime responsibility whether they are to act as role model, observer,
guide, coach, or combination of various roles. Then, the protege's draft development
plan and goals are identified along with a general roadmap on how to get there
(Murray 2001). Success measurement, accountability structure and protocols
regarding dealing with difficulties are also addressed. Since planting the seeds is the
process of getting to know each other, partners should experience a level of safety
and comfort in their relationship and also be familiar with each other's background,
current work and personal situation upon conclusion of this phase (Lacey 1999).

The third phase is enabling or cultivation. In this nurturing growth stage, the bulk of
the career development and psychosocial functions occur and it is where most of the
time is spent. Intrinsic growth is cultivated through the construction of the learning
environment and the concepts of mentoring are put to work. Objectives are met;
new challenges are presented and achieved. This main event phase is characterized
by listening, sharing, confiding, supporting, accepting and changing. The
relationship continues to mature and take shape and the processes are monitored
and assessed. Meaningful feedback and reflection take place and any derailment
should be confronted and tackled.

The closure or separation phase occurs both structurally and psychologically and
marks a significant change in the relationship functions (Kram 1988). The protege
becomes more established and autonomous. Separation is another tool for growth

26

in healthy mentoring relationships. It should have an element of celebratory rite of
passage providing a symbol of closure (Bell2002). The ending of the active phase of
mentoring is indicative of success (Johnson and Ridley 2004). To avoid closure
would reduce the value of the mentoriship and stunt the protege's growth.

For some, the last phase, redefinition, is characterized by an equal peer-like
friendship, while for others no interpersonal contact continues. The key is to have
the discussion that defines how the relationship will change once the learning goals
and objectives have been met or the timeline has extinguished (Zachary and Fischler
2009). The partners determine how or if the relationship moves on, say thank you,
celebrate the past and focus on the future.

Stages of Career Development
As previously identified, mentoring takes on different forms. There are alternative
model structures as well as different phases in the mentoring relationship. Another
aspect of mentoring is recognizing the various developmental stages of participants.

In general, different requirements of being mentored and mentoring occur at
different stages of an individual's career (see Figure 5). Typically a new employee
would be considered a foundation group protege and would be mentored by a
leader mentor who is most often a mid-level manager or expert in their field. The
leader mentor would normally provide process and skill-based mentoring. As the

27

protege develops into an emerging leader they would next be mentored by an
internal executive-suite mentor who would most often be providing knowledge
transfer. At this stage, the protege is poised to become a leader mentor themselves
or move on to be an executive suite protege. At this level, an executive architect
mentor could provide insight and knowledge from an external perspective to the
Figure 5- Mentoring During Different Career Development Stages

Mentors

Proteges

~

.

\ Architect Mentors

executive protege (Mossop 2007). Reiterating the fact that each mentoring program
differs and contains its own nuances, individual needs and desires remain at the
basis of any mentoring program.

Benefits of Mentoring
It is widely espoused in the literature that mentoring impacts mentors, proteges and
organizations positively. Even program coordinators have indicated positive
outcomes. Mentoring enhances the social capital and relationship network that

28

permeates the entire organization. According to the Mentoring Solutions White
Paper, 76% of the top 25 firms of Fortune magazine's 100 Best Companies to Work
for in America offer men to ring programs. The paper suggests that "mentoring can
be a very effective component of an organization's overall comprehensive
development strategy" (Gray 2005). The top three benefits listed by the White Paper
include:
•

honed my mentoring skills (68.5%)

•

made me explore new ideasjcareer possibilities (58%)

•

made me feel valuable to the organization (52.6%)

Other benefits were: Tested my leadership skills (42.1 %), made me more objective
(42.1 %), tested my management skills (26.3%), made me decide to stay with the
organization (16%), and made me more promotable (10.5%). Both non-respondents
and unsure survey respondents each totaled 9.5%. Only 4. 7% indicated that
mentoring offered little or no value.

It is important to reiterate the fact that not all mentoring programs are created
equal. Therefore, the array of benefits experienced by the stakeholders will vary
according to the culture of the organization, quality of the program, experience of
the mentor, enthusiasm of the protege, and the chemistry of the match.

29

Benefits for the Protege

Results of the meta-analysis performed by Allen, Eby et al illustrated that mentored
individuals receive a greater degree of objective benefits such as promotions and
compensation increases and subjective benefits such as; career satisfaction and job
satisfaction, than their un-mentored counterparts (Allen, Eby and Poteet, et al.
2004). Margaret Heffernan states that "mentoring is the single most valuable
ingredient in a successful career" as it enables proteges to navigate the informal
organizational systems (Heffernan and Saj-Nicole 2005) and increases the speed of
integrating into a new role. Clutterbuck separates protege benefits into three
components: Developmental outcomes, career outcomes, and emotional outcomes.
The tangible developmental outcomes include: knowledge, accelerated learning,
technical competence, and behavioural competence such as better listening skills,
relational skills, and improved attitude. Objective career outcomes encompass
career planning, achievement of career goals, greater compensation, and more
promotions (Horvath, Wasko and Bradley 2008) (Allen, Eby and Poteet, et al. 2004).
Intangible psychosocial (emotional) outcomes involve increased confidence,
increased self-efficacy, greater self awareness, altruistic satisfaction, reflective
space, status, and intellectual challenge (Clutterbuck 2004) (Eby and Lockwood
2005). The protege's work becomes more meaningful and satisfying because they
are more connected to the organization and they have a trusted sounding board in
their mentor (Zachary 2005).

30

Benefits for the Mentor

Studies on mentor benefits in academic literature are not as plentiful as those
relating to protege benefits. However, the literature suggests that mentors benefit in
areas of career revitalization, personal satisfaction, organizational power
(Ramaswami and Dreher 2007), and a loyal base of support (Allen 2007) (Parise
and Forret 2008). Ramaswami and Dreher denote that the bulk of the mentor
benefits fall in the psychosocial functions but career outcomes do exist. On a
psychosocial level, mentors benefit from the intergenerational differences (versus
stagnation), gaining new perspectives, "cognitive rejuvenation," and a host of
energizing emotions such as satisfaction, pride, happiness, contentment and
excitement (Philips-Janes n.d.) (Zey 1993). From a career standpoint, mentor's can
learn the latest trends in their field or fresh skills from their high-potential protege
(Lockwood, Carr Evans and Eby 2007). They can showcase their capability for
leadership and developing talent which leads to a higher degree of respect in the
organization (Ragins and Scandura 1999). Protege success can also lead to greater
credibility and enhanced reputation for the mentor. Mentors can review and
validate their own skills because teaching others helps solidify what they know. As
agents of corporate culture; mentors can improve their own job satisfaction, job
performance, and career advancement. For mentors, being active in a mentoring
program can open doors to job promotion and better salaries. They are able to bask
in the shear appreciation of their proteges and benefit from the value of helping
others.

31

Benefits for the Organization

According to Christina Underhill, research indicates that mentoring assists in the
development of motivated employees who are engaged, empowered and successful
contributors to the organization. It also enhances organizational attractiveness, aids
in effective succession planning, improves organizational communication, and
builds a supportive network creating an amicable environment (Shahani n.d.).

An active mentoring program signals to the employees that the organization cares
about individual development thus making the organization more attractive. In
regards to recruiting, a study by Horvath, Wasko and Bradley surveyed 254
undergrads seeking full time employment. Their results indicated that organizations
with a mentoring program were more attractive to the graduates especially those
with a high degree of learning orientation (Horvath, Wasko and Bradley 2008).
Improved applicant attraction leads to improved organizational human capital
allowing firms to hire individuals with the best skills or those most capable of

succeeding. Building intellectual capital, either grown in-house or bought externally,
ultimately leads to competitive advantage for the organization.

A mentoring program reduces employee turnover by improving organizational
commitment therefore saving on rehiring costs. It enables the workforce to meet
adaptive challenges and facilitates learning, resiliency, and visionary thinking. The

32

increase in organizational learning improves the quality of work and productivity.
The enriched relationships caused by mentoring allow for more collaboration,
humanizing the workplace, and facilitating leadership (Zachary 2005). It also
contributes to the long-term health and stability of the organization (Underhill
2006) by managing knowledge and facilitating communication, which strengthens
the organization and speeds up learning. The spin-offs of organizational mentoring
can also benefit customers, clients, and the community at large.

Benefits for the Program Coordinator

The program coordinator acts as a mentor to the mentors. Growth for the program
coordinator occurs in people, management, technical, research, and organizational
skills. They experience a prolific amount of networking and learn to be more
resourceful and goal-oriented (Gray, Mentorlnk Newsletter 2009).

Pitfalls of Mento ring
Although literature is very clear regarding the benefits of mentoring, numerous
challenges are evident as well. Mento ring will consistently create issues in regards
to trust and confidence. Unclear purpose and goals, misalignment with corporate
strategy, or no anchor in company culture will cause instability. Mentoring will fail if
support and involvement from senior management is lacking (Eby, Lockwood and
Butts 2006) or if there is a deficiency in skills training. Flawed mentoring also
occurs if business outcomes are undefined and untracked or if matching criteria is
33

not established. In the literature, both mentors and proteges identified partnership
mismatch, scheduling challenges, and geographic distance as major defects with
formal mentoring programs (Eby and Lockwood 2005). Lastly, the concern exists
that if the mentoring partner does not succeed or fails in an area such as integrity
that this will reflect badly on the other participant.

When mentoring relationships are diverse ( cross-gendered or involving visible
minorities) a few more difficulties arise. Noe noted that lack of access to information
networks, tokenism, stereotype attribution and socialization practices were barriers
specific to cross-gendered mentorships (Noe 1998). According to Heffernan, men
don't want to be mentored by women because of gossip and innuendo, nor do they
want to appear sexist (Heffernan and Saj-Nicole 2005). However, traditionally an
objective of mentoring seemed targeted at assimilating women into the dominant
masculine corporate culture rather than integrating the best of masculine and
feminine characteristics (McKeen and Bujaki 2007).

Pitfalls for the Protege
Heffernen states that the over-expectation problem is acute for proteges,
particularly in women and minorities (Heffernan and Saj-Nicole 2005). Other
challenges occur when mentors pass on obsolete values especially in times of rapid
change or if they are cynical or, project a bad attitude about the organization.
Serious problems arise if the mentor is not psychologically or positionally secure for

34

the mentorship, viewing their younger enthusiastic protege as a threat. Mentors can
unwittingly provide incomplete, incorrect, or politicized information based on their
personal opinions and beliefs. Mentor neglect (when mentors do not have the time
to adequately build or maintain the relationship), structural separation (when a
mentor gets promoted or takes on other external responsibilities), mentor stifling
(when a mentor suppresses the protege's fresh new ideas), or mentor manipulation
(when a mentor exploits the protege) also cause discord in the relationship and
negative protege experiences.

Pitfalls for the Mentor

Feelings of personal inadequacy or concern over their developmental contribution
to their protege are noted problems in formal mentoring programs. Also, if the
relationship has deteriorated, fear of being backstabbed or exploited by their
protege may exist. Mentors may also deem the cost of involvement as too high,
where the time required is not worth the effort. (Parise and Forret 2008).

One other dilemma, especially for the mentor, is to express unbiased opinions. Most
individual's thoughts and ideas are skewed in relationship to their own world view
and values. A mentor in the role of counselor or coach needs to keep these in check.

35

Pitfalls for the Organization
A poorly drafted formal mentoring program is not sustainable; when it fails all the

costs associated with creating mentoring program will be lost to the organization.
Where mentoring relationships are marginal, they may not cause serious harm, but
they certainly limit benefits. Dysfunctional relationships may cause negative
performance, increased stress, and employee withdrawal in terms of both
absenteeism and turnover. Behaviours such as; bullying, intimidation, overaggressiveness, abuse of power, or over-submissiveness all have negative effects on
the organization and the individuals involved in the program (Scandura and
Pelligrini 2007).

A reduction in staff morale may appear if non-mentored individuals see the mentors

as showing favoritism to their proteges. This jealousy may also have negative
connotations for individuals considering applying to the program.

Components of a Formal Mentoring Program
Researchers agree that a recipe for a successful formal mentoring program is elusive
and although studies of best practices exist, empirically driven answers are rare
(Bearman, et al. 2007). Thankfully a blend of academic and practitioner literature
offers some guidance.

36

As a foundation, all sustainable workplace mentoring programs must (1) align with

organizational strategy, (2) train participants, and (3) monitor and evaluate the
program. To achieve success, organizations need to emphasize their support for the
mentoring program and ensure that the participants perceive that support
(Finkelstein and Poteet 2007) (Eby, Lockwood and Butts 2006).

Training the participants prior to the onset of a formal mentoring relationship is
also universally endorsed in the literature. Studies show that the quality of training
received had a direct influence on program effectiveness (Allen, Eby and Lentz
2006). In a 2001 survey by CMSI, 96.1 o/o of organizations (that hosted a mentoring
program) polled responded that they considered preparation and training as
important (Klasen and Clutterbuck 2002). In this context, orientation training
entails a combination of; defining mentoring, declaring program objectives,
reviewing roles/responsibilities, clarifying expectations, understanding limitations,
and avoiding typical problems (Finkelstein and Poteet 2007). Additional education
could be provided in the area of; listening and communication skills, ethics, trust
development, coaching techniques, goal setting and learning plan development
(Mossop, Masterful Mentors: Developing the Best 2007).

Monitoring and evaluating the program serves an array of purposes. Primarily,
monitoring assists in identifying dyads in trouble and intervening as necessary.
These check-ups can be performed by the mentoring administrator or by the

37

partners themselves. Evaluation is important to track the success of the program in
regards to achieving objectives and from a cost-benefit approach

In addition to the three cornerstones defined above, practitioner literature includes
two key figureheads as necessary components in the design of a quality mentoring
program; a skilled champion and a credible internal coordinator (Mossop,
Mentoring Needs a Skilled Champion 2007) (Mossop, Mentoring: The Role of
Mentoring Coordinator 2007) (Klasen and Clutterbuck 2002). Scholars also
advocate that formal mentorships also call for program and relationship structure.
Figure 6 summarizes the essential ingredients of these two structures.
Figure 6- Structure Required in Formal Mentoring

Structuring the Program

.

~ •, Structuring t li e

Relationsh ip

\1

Setting Program
Objectives

Setting Expectations

Selecting Program
Participants

Meeting Frequency and
Method

Specifying Guidelines

Defining Duration of
Relationship

Matching Partners
Training and Orienting
Participants

38

··1

Program Structure

The program goals and objectives can be established after the feasibility study that
assesses the organizational readiness (gauging the current attitudes, and
understanding of men to ring concepts) and terms have been defined. The blueprint
of the objectives is contingent upon the organizational needs and would adjust
according to the goals be it knowledge transfer, leadership development, change
management, retention, or diversity, etc.

To select program participants, organizations can call for volunteers or request
nominations. It is fundamentally important that the participants possess some of the
characteristics of ideal mentors and proteges that were listed at the beginning of
this paper. It is particularly beneficial if potential mentors enjoy helping others and
have a high level of knowledge, skills and abilities. They need to be available as well
as be the role model the organization wants proteges to emulate. In terms of protege
selection, a best practice is difficult to identify as choice is determined based on the
program objectives. Survey data found that the top four groups targeted were; "new
hires, anyone in the organization, high-potential employees, and those in
professional and managerial ranks" (Finkelstein and Poteet 2007).

Practitioner authors depict voluntary participation as a guideline for a successful
mentoring experience. Scholars concurred, stating that virtually all organizations
reported voluntary mentor participation (Parise and Forret 2008).

39

The most frequent criticism of a formal mentoring program deals directly with the
matching process. Scholars differ in their opinion in regards to the number of
organizational levels separating the dyads and whether or not they should be from
the same department. Some suggest that mentors should be a minimum of two
levels higher than their protege where others express that mentors only one level
above would provide a more valuable experience. Some propose that direct
supervisors are more relatable although they could cause workgroup inequities. It
appears that the majority of active programs use mentors who were are at least two
ranks higher and outside the lines of reporting (Finkelstein and Poteet 2007).

Further examination regarding matching partners reveals that those one can
identify with generally formulate better partners. The pitfall to this approach is that
primarily white males with a mainstream ethnic or religious affiliation may
consistently be chosen. Participant forms should include questions on positive and
negative preferences, experience, interests, learning styles, communication style
and personality. This would be used as a tool to aid the matching process. Most
scholars agree that mentoring partners should have some input regarding their
match and that random matching is rarely used. The literature is unclear, however,
as to how much say is necessary to add sufficient value to the formal program
(Finkelstein and Poteet 2007).

40

Training and Monitoring

Training and monitoring have specifically been addressed at the beginning of this
section as they are two of the three foundation stones in a formal men to ring
program. However, it is important to note that training for the program would not
only transpire in the orientation stage, but also at mid-cycle and at the conclusion of
the formal relationship (Lacey 1999). Supplemental to the points already discussed,
it is significant to note that all training in a formal mentoring program (whether it
be from the coordinator teaching the participants or the mentor educating their
protege) needs to honour the principles of andragogy. Adult learners are influenced
by situational/individual differences and goals/purposes of learning. Andragogy
differs significantly from pedagogy in that adults need to know; why, what, and how
when it comes to learning. Their motivation to learn is based on context and
problem solving and their life experiences enrich the learning process. Adults also
need to be internally motivated and self-directed. They typically become ready to
learn when they need to perform a task or cope with a life situation (Knowles,
Holton III and Swanson 2005). Andragogy is most successful when it is a flexible
process in which the adult is involved in diagnosing, planning, implementing, and
evaluating their own learning.

Relationship Structure

In the literature, the majority ofmentoring pairs set their expectations and goals
together. In some programs, vision for the relationship is set by the organization.
41

Scholars suggest that mentors be given latitude to address the best way they can
help their proteges. Certain programs require the protege to examine their
developmental needs with their supervisor prior to meeting with their mentor.
Organizational behaviour literature is definitive that positive outcomes result from
setting clearly defined SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timebound) goals.

Time is an extremely valuable commodity. To determine the method and frequency
in which the dyads interact is challenging. Studies show that participants report
greater benefit the more frequently they interact especially during the early stages
of the relationship (Allen, Eby and Lentz 2006). Surveys indicate that a wide range
of timelines exist in regards to meeting frequencey. The majority of programs
recommended monthly meetings (P-Sontage, Vappie and Wanberg 2007). Almost
half of the 41 companies polled by Finkelstein and Poteet advocated that the
partners meet monthly, 15% suggested weekly, 12% advised longer time frames
such as every few months, and some did not specify at all (Finkelstein and Poteet
2007). The consensus is that regular meetings, whether endorsed in policy or not,
provide improved benefits. The method in which the partners met did not have a
bearing on quality if at least some of the interactions were face-to-face.

The duration of the various programs studied for the most part was time-limited
rather that goal-limited. The majority of the programs fell in the range of nine to
twenty-four months, where the most common period was twelve months.
42

LIMITATION
The limitations in the literature expose a "clash in scientific observation and
experience of practitioners" (Clutterbuck 2004) when it comes to whether formal or
informal mentoring programs create the greatest benefit. Practitioners consistently
subscribe to the fact that formal structure outweighs informal attraction where
academics traditionally tend to prefer informal programs. More recent academic
literature discusses the value of formal programs particularly if some partner choice
is given to the participants. Other limitations described by meta-analytical
researchers expressed concern that the majority (60% since the last critical review
in 1983) of the studies available did not include a test group, only descriptive selfreporting with low response rates (Underhill 2006). Another limitation discussed
the fact that mentoring can't "unambiguously" be linked to the positive outcomes as
there may be other causal factors (Eby, Allen, et al. 2008) (Parise and Forret 2008)
(Underhill 2006).

DISCUSSION
Mentoring resembles three developmental learning theories; (1) scaffolding which
assists in career outcomes, (2) intent participation and (3) self-efficacy both of
which are linked to psychosocial outcomes. Scaffolding is stage-appropriate skill
building where the mentor builds a temporary platform in which the protege can
develop their knowledge, skills and abilities, learn conceptual structure, vocabulary,
and common practices. Intent participation is based on "observation in anticipation
43

of engaging in an activity." Lastly, self-efficacy which means the belief in one's
abilities is a predictor of actual ability. Self-efficacy is developed through:
"Graduated mastery (found in scaffolding), vicarious role modeling (present in
intent participation), social persuasion (which is positive feedback and
encouragement), and emotional experience (related to anxiety versus enthusiasm)"
(Bearman, et al. 2007). According to Bearman's research, the reason why mentoring
works is because of the positive effects mentoring creates in the area of self-efficacy.

The need for continuous learning is colossal in today's competitive business
environment. When pooled with a yearning for human relationship, a mentoring
program fosters organizational vigor. For the City of Prince George (CPG) a
mentoring program already aligns with the City's Corporate Plan that states:
"Our employees are:
our most important resource and the
foundation of our organization and
service to the community "

as well as the corporate values of:
honesty and integrity
courageous leadership
innovation
commitment, energy and enthusiasm
and respect

(City of Prince George Corporate Plan 2007). Mentoring has been on the corporate
radar for years as it has been discussed in the Human Resource Department, listed
in the Leadership Development Draft Outline, and acknowledged in the Annual
Report.

44

CPG proteges would profit from courageous leadership, energy, and enthusiasm of
the seasoned leaders infused throughout the organization. Benefits identified in the
literature review such as; greater organizational commitment, improved morale, job
satisfaction, accelerated leadership development, better succession planning,
increased retention, and reduced stress would directly flow into the CPG.

Research Question #1

The key elements in a successful, sustainable mentoring program for the CPG are
best summarized in the works of practitioners Catharine Mossop of Sage Mentors
Inc. and Lois Zachary of Leadership Development Services. Mossop's seven "best
practice" pillars are:
1. Mentoring program goals must link to CPG's strategic direction.

2.
3.
4.
5.

The program design must be structured.
A skilled champion is required.
The program needs a credible internal coordinator.
Training and preparation is provided to the mentors and proteges clarifying
responsibilities and ethical dimensions of the relationship.
6. A mentor for the mentors is available to support the mentorship role and
relationship with proteges.
7. Program evaluation is linked to the goals and strategic direction of the CPG.
As discussed previously, mentorship aligns with the corporate plan however the
specific goals for the program need to be defined. In response to the Succession
Management Guidebook (written by the CPG's Director of Corporate Services) which
highlights the fact that a large number of CPG's workforce is made up of "Baby
Boomers" the initiation of a pilot formal mentoring program is suggested for the
45

purpose of (1) capturing the intellectual property and planning for succession of key
leaders as this is the area that is exposed to the greatest retirement risk, and (2)
retaining and accelerating the development of current high potentials to eventually
fill those crucial positions.

The focal point remains on the senior management team as they are the ones who
direct the entire organization (see Appendix 2). It would be optimal to find the
skilled champion amongst their ranks because to remain sustainable a mentoring
program necessitates "an incumbent, an emerging leader, and a veteran leader
steering the mentoring agenda" (Zachary 2005).

The program design for the formal mentorship pilot will provide structure, policies,
guidelines and assistance in facilitating mentoring relationships. Meeting monthly,
the other desirable elements in the framework for CPG's pilot model include a oneto-one relationship between mentor and protege to allow for a developmental
learning plan tailored to the individual protege. It is recommended to follow
Clutterbuck's guidance that the relationship is non-directive, in that it is the protege
who takes proactive prime responsibility in agenda setting and the mentor's role is
that of an enabling facilitator which adheres to the principles of andragogy. It is
understood that the objective career outcomes along with the subjective emotional
and psychological support are equally important for overall protege development.
Therefore, both career and psychosocial outcomes will be encouraged remaining
dependent on the learning needs of the protege.

46

This pilot will be voluntary in nature, allowing for some partner assignment choice
for the mentor as they are scarce in the organization. However, the protege will be
allowed to refuse a mentor without negative repercussions. Personality type testing
such as Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) should be offered to the participants
during the preparing phase. The purpose being to help the dyads better understand
their own and their partner's psychological type resulting in identifying differences
that can be a source of misunderstanding and miscommunication (Briggs Myers,
Kirby and Myers 1998). MBTI would not be used as a method to match sameness,
rather as an instrument for cultivating awareness toward normal personality
differences.

The process would start with a cross-functional Implementation Team who would
spear-head the marketing scheme to promote the pilot via intranet, bulletin boards
and internal media release. The team would include the internal coordinator (who
acts as the mentor to the mentors), an HR staff member and other gifted, interested,
enthusiastic individuals. Next, a call for and nomination of participants would occur.
Candidates would complete an Application and Skills Assessment Inventory.
Prospective proteges would be required to review with their supervisor and submit
Section A of the Employee Learning Plan provided by HR in their "Making the Most
of Training- A Guide for Supervisors. All dyads would work through negotiating a
Mentoring Agreement. An example of the Mentoring Model is found in Appendix 3.

47

Research Question #2

The answer to the question of significant differences between the formal mentoring
programs discussed in the literature and that of the CPG is twofold. First, since the
CPG does not currently have an active formal mentoring program than the answer is
obvious that the CPG differs from the literature. However the next step is to view the
question from the perspective of whether or not the literature can be applied to the
CPG. Although some of the studies surveyed federal government employees, none
specifically stated that they interviewed municipal government workers. I do not
see this as a problem in developing a mentoring framework for the CPG as a lot of
the inquiry relates to social learning theory, leader member exchange theory, five
factor model of personality, and organizational behaviour none of which are
industry specific.

Research Question #3

When discussing the cost and benefits of a mentoring program, one must first
identify the costs associated with an external hire. Identified at the International
Mentoring Conference in Las Vegas in April of 2008; the costs of integration and
productivity of a new external hire can be up to three times salary. Therefore,
replacement cost of one top talent is six times annual salary- the cost of one loss
and one replacement. The recruiting fee for one executive is generally $35,000 or
more. Rey Carr's cost estimate on employee replacement is more conservative.
Although Carr does not clarify the level of the employee, he states that the cost is

48

two times salary plus lost productivity (Butyn 2007). Consequently, there are
substantial costs associated with losing and buying talent as opposed to retaining
and growing talent internally. According to Murray, "the acid test of a commitment
to developing people is whether upper-level managers would rather grow
competence than buy it" (Murray 2001).

To provide a proper estimate on the value or benefit of men to ring the Phillips
Method is a credible way to calculate the development return on investment (ROI)
(Phillips 2003). This method works best if it is applied to only one program that can
be linked to a direct payoff so the impact can be isolated. The formula is based on
the following (Mossop 2008):
A. = Raw Value -the attributed annual value of savings or gains before
reductions to achieve a realistic value.
B. = Confidence Factor- assign a confidence value that addresses the question,
"How confident am I that the raw value number is accurate?" and record in a
percent.
C. = Direct Influence Factor- the degree to which the program directly
influenced the savings or gains in a percent (other factors taken into
consideration might include an overall company mandate to change, a change
in business or other processes that may have influenced the outcome).
D. = Attributed Benefits -the sum total of all adjusted and attributed values for
all participants in the program.
E. = Attributed Costs. The total of all attributed costs for the program including;
design, facilitation, hourly rate of participants off the regular work, facilities
etc.
Formula:
(Ax B) x C =D
( L DIE) X 100 = ROI

In other words:
(Raw Value x Confidence factor) x Direct Influence Factor= Attributed Benefits
(Sum of Attributed Benefits I Attributed Costs) x 100 =Return on Investment

49

In a not-for-profit organization such as the CPG this will present a solid business
case for the investment. Following in Figure 7 is a pictorial view of the logical,
systematic process Jack J. Phillips developed in his ROI Model (Phillips 2003, p32).
Figure 7 - jack]. Phillips' ROI Model

~

£ •-.lwtioa
PIM• and

o - lont (Q(a

Other constructive benefits are identified in a U.S. national poll conducted by the
Welfare to Work Partnership in 1999 regarding the impact of mentoring on the
workforce (Gray 2005);
•
•
•
•

75% reported improved work performance,
67% reported higher job retention,
63% reported reduced absenteeism, and
52% reported that mentoring resulted in cost savings for the company.

Since mentoring is tailored to each individual it is 100% applicable to the recipient
whereas most standard formal training programs designed, to meet everyone's
needs, thereby becoming only 15 to 20% relevant to each individual (Gray 2005).

50

The majority of mentor-protege interaction occurs outside of normal working hours.
Therefore, the cost associated with a mentoring program is heavily tied to the time
required for the Mentoring Coordinator to research, train, implement monitor, and
evaluate the program (see Figure 8).
Figure 8- Table of Estimated Hours Required per Mentoring Program

12.5 - 13.8 hours- - - - - 1
10.7-12.7 hours
8.6 - 11.4 hours
12.5- 14.4 hours

Research

12.8 - 13.5 hours

131.1-158.4 hours
(Gray 2005)

To more adequately ascertain the value and costs of a mentoring program for the
CPG, actual participants would need to be identified to prepare the calculations.

RECOMMENDATION
Combining an examination of the men to ring literature with what is known about
the needs and corporate culture at the City of Prince George, a formal mentoring
program is recommended to capture the corporate DNA, enhance succession
51

planning, increase retention rates, assist in diversity, and intensify organizational
attraction.

The five phases of program design and implementation, as identified in the
components of a formal men to ring program section in the literature review are
(Mossop 2007):
•
•
•
•
•

Feasibility- building the business case and laying the foundation,
Blueprint- generating the design, creating the plan, and establishing the
goals for the program,
Construction - marketing, communication, and program launch
Operation - processes that support the program
Close - review, evaluate and improve the program

Succession planning is critical. Appendix 1 indicates that 35.8% of the entire
employee population of the City of Prince George is at risk of retiring.
Departmentally, Development and Operations have the highest exposure of 45.9%
followed closely by Corporate Services at 44.0%, Administrative Services at 43.3%,
City Manager's Office at 30.8%, and finally Community Services at 17.4%. The range
in risk Divisionally is quite large, with Bylaw at the high end with 73.7% and
Aquatics at the low end with 6.9%. Over half (53.1 %) of the key leadership positions
(directors and management) are currently at some level of risk. This risk needs to
be addressed.

Further research is required specifically focusing on organizational cultural
readiness, senior management endorsement and willingness to participate.
Additional areas to pursue are possible mentoring partnerships with other
52

organizations such as the Regional District, Northern Health, First Nations groups,
the College of New Caledonia, the University of Northern British Columbia, and
other municipalities.

The implementation would be a phased process, starting with a small internal pilot
that collaborates with the union and advances toward the broader partnerships.
Sustainability rests in the arms of continuing high level support from senior
organizational officials and an anchoring in the corporate culture, Integrated
Community Sustainability Plan and Corporate Plan.

CONCLUSION
In light of the immense and burgeoning volumes of data on men to ring both in the
forms of scholarly research and practitioner literature, to synthesize the
information proved to be exigent. However, in this changing organizational
environment where a traditional pattern of moving up a "defined organizational
ladder" is not as prevalent and issues of balancing work, family, and community are
more relevant, the requirement of "meta-skills" (creative adaptation to new
experiences, roles or processes) is necessary (Bearman, et al. 2007). Mentoring
assists in developing those meta-skills and is a smart way of doing business that
would benefit any organization. For the City of Prince George, mentoring would also
assist with the corporate succession plan and in a utopian world; everyone would be
a mentored mentor.

53

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott. "Mentoring Circles Toolkit." Healthcare Businesswomen's Association. 2008.
http://www.hbanet.org/getdoc/5ed88b49-e743-4741-9dfl-ecb22990dd35/AbbottMentoring-Circles-Guide.aspx (accessed 03 01 , 201 0).
Allen, Tammy D. "Mentoring Relationships from the Perspective of the Mentor." In The
Handbook of Mento ring at Work: Theory Research and Practice, by Belle Rose
Ragins and Kathy E. Kram, 123-148. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. , 2007.
Allen, Tammy D. , Elizabeth Lentz, and Rachel Day. "Career Success Outcomes
Associated with Mentoring Others: A Comparison of Mentors and Nonmentors."
Journal of Career Development, 2006: 272-285.
Allen, Tammy D., Lillian T. Eby, and Elizabeth Lentz. "Mentorship Behaviors and
Mentorship Quality Associated with Formal Mentoring Programs: Closing the Gap
Between Research and Practice." Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006: 567-578.
Allen, Tammy D., Lillian T. Eby, Mark L. Poteet, Elizabeth Lentz, and Lizzette Lima.
"Career Benefits Associated With Metoring for Proteges: A Meta-Analysis." Journal
of Applied Psychology, 2004: 127-136.
Allen, Tammy D., Lisa M. Finkelstein, and Mark L. Poteet. Designing Workplace
Mento ring Programs: A Evidence Based Approach. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell,
2009.
Baylor, University. Stages of a Mentoring Relationship.
http://www. vamentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_428.pdf (accessed February 22,
2010).
Bearman, Steve, Stacy Blake-Beard, Laurie Hunt, and Faye J. Crosby. "New Directions
in Mentoring." In The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives
Approach, by Tammy D. Allen and Lillian T . Eby, 375-395. Malden: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd., 2007.
Bell, Chip R. Managers as Mentors: Building Partnerships for Learning. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc. , 2002.
Bierema, Laura L., and Sharan B. Merriam. "E-Mentoring: Using Computer Mediated
Communication to Enhance the Mentoring Process." Innovative Higher Education,
2002: 211-227.

54

Blass, Fred R., and Gerald R. Ferris. "Leader Reputation: The Role of Mentoring,
Political Skill, Contextual Learning, and Adaptation." Human Resource Management,
2007: 5-19.
Briggs Myers, Isabel, Linda K. Kirby, and Katharine D. Myers. "Introduction to Type: A
Guide to Understanding Your Results on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Sixth
Edition." CPP Inc., 1998.
Bryant, Scott E. "The Impact of Peer Mentoring on Organizational Knowledge Creation
and Sharing: An Empirical Study in a Software Firm." Group and Organizational
Management, 2005: 319-338.

business. com.
http://www.business.com/directory/human_resources/leadership_and_teams/mentorin
gl (accessed June 27, 2009).
Butyn, Suzan. "Mentoring Your Way to Improved Retention." HR Voice, July 05, 2007:
Issue: 27, Vol. 3.
Byrne, John A. "Let a Mentor Lead You - But Beware of the Pitfalls." Business Week,
April 20, 1987: 95.
Carmont, Donald. The Naked Mentor. Belleville: Epic Press, 2005.
Chao, Georgia T. "Mentoring Phases and Outcomes." Journal of Vocational Behavior,
1997: 15-28.
Charney, Cy. The Portable Mentor. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited, 2000.
Cherniss, Cary. "The Role of Emotional Intelligence in the Mentoring Process." In The
Mentoring Handbook at Work: Theory, Research and Practice, by Belle Rose Ragins
and Kathy E. Kram, 427-446. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2007.

City of Prince George Corporate Plan. September 4, 2007.
http://www.city.pg.bc.ca/pages/corpplan/ (accessed June 30, 2009).
Clutterbuck, David. Everyone Needs A Mentor: Fostering Talent in Your OrganizationFourth Edition. London, England: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development,
2004.
Conway, Christopher. Strategies for Mentoring: A Blueprint for successful
Organizational Development. Chichester, England: John Wiley& Sons Ltd., 1998.
Dean, Donna D. Getting the Most out of Your Mentoring Relationship: A Handbook for
Women in STEM. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2009.

dictionary.com. http://dictionary reference.com/browse/Mentor (accessed June 27, 2009).

55

DiRenzo, MarcoS., Frank Linnehan, Ping Shao, and William L. Rosenberg. "A
Moderated Mediation Model ofE-Mentoring." Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2010:
292-305.
Eby, Lillian T., and Angie Lockwood. "Proteges' and Mentors' Reactions to Participating
in Formal Mentoring Programs: A Qualitative Investigation." Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 2005 : 441-458 .
Eby, Lillian T., Angie L. Lockwood, and Marcus Butts. "Perceived Support for
Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach." Journal of Vocational Behavior,
2006: 267-291.
Eby, Lillian T., Jean E. Rhodes, and Tammy D. Allen. "Definition and Evolution of
Mentoring." In The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives
Approach, by Tammy D. Allen and Lillian T. Eby, 7-8. Malden: Blackwell Publishing
Ltd., 2007.
Eby, Lillian T., Tammy D. Allen, Sarah C. Evans, Thomas Ng, and David L. DuBois.
"Does Mentoring Matter? A multidisciplinary Meta-analysis Comparing Mentored and
Non-Mentored Individuals." Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2008: 254-267.
Eikenberry, Kevin. "Things the Best Mentors are Not." Communications Briefings,
January 2010: 5.
Ensher, Ellen A., and Susan E. Murphy. "How to Make Power Mentoring Work for
You." HR Voice, July 2007: Issue: 27, Vol. 3.
Ensher, Ellen, and Susan Murphy. Power Mentoring: How Successful Mentors and
Proteges Get the Most Out of Their Relationships. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &
Sons Inc., 2005.
Finkelstein, Lisa M., and Mark L. Poteet. "Best Practices in Workplace Formal
Mentoring Programs." In Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives
Approach, by Tammy D. Allen and Lillian T. Eby, 345-368. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing, 2007.
Gray, Marilynne M. 2005 Survey of Mentoring Statistics & Research. Mentoring
Solutions White Paper, CMSI Mentoring Solutions, 2005.
- . "Mentorink Newsletter." CMSI Mentoring Solutions. 2000. http://www.mentoringsolutions.com (accessed March 3, 201 0).
- . "Mentorlnk Newsletter." CMSI Mentoring Solutions. January & February 2009.
http://www.mentoring-solutions.com/archives/currentissue.pdf (accessed March 3,
2010).

56

Harris, Pauline, and John Daley. "Mentoring in the Workplace: Creating Collaborative
Learning Cultures." Adult Learning Austrialia 46th Annual National Conference.
Melbourne, 2006. 1-13.
Heery, William J. Corporate Mentoring: Shattering the Glass Ceiling.
http://www.harrisheery.com/mentoring.html (accessed January 3, 22010).
Heffernan, Margaret, and Joni Saj-Nicole. "Of Proteges and Pitfalls." Fast Company,
Issue 97, August 2005: 81-83.
Horowitz, Russel. "Part One: Results Count - Designing a Leadership Development
Strategy That Works." HR Voice, August 2007: Issue: 35, Vol. 3.
Horvath, Michael, Laurie E. Wasko, and Jessica L. Bradley. "The Effect of Formal
Mentoring Program Characteristics on Organizational Attraction." Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 2008: 323-349.
Hyatt, Laura, A. "Mentoring: Passing Down Experiential Knowledge to the Next
Generation of Leaders." Contract Management, 2009: 64-71.
Jacobi, M. "Mentoring and Undergraduate Academic Success. A Literature Review."
Review of Educational Research, 1991: 505-532.
Johnson, W. Brad. "The Intentional Mentor: Strategies and Guidelines for the Practice of
Mentoring." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2002: 88-96.
Johnson, W. Brad, and Charles R. Ridley. The Elements of Mentoring. New York, NY:
Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.
Klasen, Nadine, and David Clutterbuck. Implementing Mentoring Schemes: A Practical
Guide to Successful Programs. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Publications, 2002.
Knowles, Malcolm S., Elwood F. Holton III, and Richard A. Swanson. The Adult
Learner: A Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource DevelopmentSixth Edition. Burlington: Elsevier Inc., 2005.
Kram, Kathy E. Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational
Life. Lanham: University Press of America Inc., 1988.
Lacey, Kathy. Making Mentoring Happen. Warriewood, NSW: Business & Professional
Publishing Ltd., 1999.
Leh, Amy S.C. "Lessons Learned from Service Learning and Reverse Mentoring in
Faculty Development: A Case Study in Technology Training." Journal ofTechnology
and Teacher Education, 2005: 25-41.

57

Leonard, Dorothy, and Walter Swap. Deep Smarts: How to Cultivate the Transfer of
Enduring Business Wisdom. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing
Corporation, 2005.
Levinson, Daniel J., Charlotte N. Darrow, Edward B. Klein, Maria H. Levinson, and
Braxton McKee. The Seasons of a Man's Life. New York: Random House Publishing
Group, 1978.
Lockwood, Angie L., Sarah Carr Evans, and Lillian T . Eby. "Reflections on the Benefits
of Mentoring." In The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives
Approach, by Tammy D. Allen and Lillian T. Eby, 233-236. Malden: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd., 2007.
Megginson, David, David Cutterbuck, Bob Garvey, Paul Stokes, and Ruth Garret-Harris.
Mento ring in Action: A Practical Guide - Second Edition. London, UK: Kogan Page
Limited, 2006.

Mentoring Tips. http://www.Ieadservs.com/mentoring htp (accessed June 27, 2009).
Mossop, Catherine. "Masterful Mentors: Developing the Best." HR Voice, December 13,
2007: Issue 50, Vol. 3.
- . "Masterful Mentors: Finding the Best." HR Voice, November 15,2007: Issue 46, Vol.
3.
- . "Mentoring Needs a Skilled Champion." HR Voice, September 13, 2007: Issue 37,
Vol. 3.
- . "Mentoring Programs: Is This Protege for Me?" HR Voice, April 10,2008: Issue 15,
Vol. 4.
- . "Mentoring: The Role of Mentoring Coordinator." HR Voice, October 11, 2007: Issue
41, Vol. 3.
-."Return on Investment in Mentoring Programs- Myth or Reality (Part II)." HR Voice,
June 26, 2008: Issue: 26, Vol. 4.

- . Masterclassfor Mentors. 2007.
http://www.sagementors.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Ite
mid=36 (accessed June 29, 2009).
Mullen, Carol A. "Naturally Occurring Student-Faculty Mentoring Relationships: A
Literature Review." In The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple
Perspectives Approach, by Tammy D. Allen and Lillian T . Eby, 119-138. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
Murray, Margo. Beyond the Myths and Magic of Mento ring. San Franscisco, CA: JosseyBass Inc., 2001.
58

Murrell, Audrey J., Faye J. Crosby, and Robin J. Ely. Mentoring Dilemmas:
Developmental Relationships Withing Multicultural Organizations. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1999.
Nadler, David A. "Confessions of a Trusted Counselor." Harvard Business Review, 2005:
68-77.
Noe, Raymond A. "Women and Mentoring: A Review and Research Agenda." The
Academy of Management Review, 1998: 65-78.
Nonaka, Ikujiro. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation."
Organizational Science, 1994: 14-37.
Parise, Marc R., and Monica L. Forret. "Formal Mentoring Programs: The Relationship
of Program Design and Support to Mentors' Perceptions of Benefits and Costs."
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2008: 225-240.
Partnerships, Mass Mentoring. Stages in a Mentoring Relationship, Mentoring 101
Training the Trainer. wwww.vamentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_600.doc
(accessed January 30, 2010).
Philips-Jones, Linda. Reasons to be a Mentor.
http://www.mentoringgroup.com/html/archive.html (accessed January 3, 2010).
Phillips, Jack J. Return on Investment in Training and Performance Improvement
Programs. Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003.
P-Sontage, Lynn, Kimberly Vappie, and Connie R. Wanberg. "The Practice of
Mentoring: MENTTIUM Corporation." In The Handbook of Mento ring at Work:
Theory, Research, and Practice, by Belle Rose Ragins and Kathy E. Kram, 593-616.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 2007.
Raabe, Babbette, and Terry A. Beehr. "Formal Mentoring Versus Supervisor and
Coworker Relationships: Differences in Perceptions and Impact." Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 2003: 271-293.
Ragins, Belle Rose, and Kathy E Kram. The Mentoring Handbook at Work: Theory,
Research and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2007.
Ragins, Belle Rose, and Terri A. Scandura. "Burden or Blessing? Expected Costs and
Benefits of Being a Mentor." Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 1999:493-509.
Ramaswami, Aarti, and George F. Dreher. "The Benefits Associated with Workplace
Mentoring Relationships." In The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple
Perspectives Approach, by Tammy D. Allen and Lillian T. Eby, 211-232. Malden:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007.

59

Scandura, Terri A., and Ekin K. Pelligrini. "Workplace Mentoring: Theoretical
Approaches and Methodological Issues." In The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A
Multiple Perspectives Approach, by Tammy D. Allen and Lillian T. Eby, 71-92.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007.
Scandura, Terri A., and Ethlyn A. Williams. "Mentoring and Transformational
Leadership: The Role of Supervisory Career Mentoring." Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 2004: 448-468.
Shahani, Akhil. "Strategic Approach to Corporate Mentoring Programs." MediaPro.com.
http://www.mediapro.com/mentor (accessed January 3, 2010).
Shaul, Mamie S. Student Mentoring Programs: Education's Monitoring and Information
Sharing Could Be Improved. GA0-04-581 , U.S. Federal Government, 2004.
Silkowska-Masior, Benilda, and Gail Yardy. Making Connections: A New Model of
Mento ring for Internationally Trained Professionals. Toronto: St. Michael's Hospital,
2003.
Sinetar, Marsha. The Mentor's Spirit: Life Lessons on Leadership and the Art of
Encouragement. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1998.
Stone, Florence M. Coaching, Counseling & Mentoring: How to Choose & Use the Right
Technique to Boost Employee Performance. New York, NY: AMACOM a division of
American Management Association, 1999.
Thomas, David A. "The Truth About Mentoring Minorities: Race Matters." Harvard
Business Review, 2001: 99-107.
Tobin, Daniel R., and Margaret S. Pettingell. The AMA Guide to Management
Development. New York: AMACOM a division of the American Management
Association, 2008.
Underhill, Christina M. "The Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs in Corporate Settings:
A Meta-analytical Review of the Literature." Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2006:
292-307.
Wanberg, Connie R., John Kammeyer-Mueller, and Marc Marchese. "Mentor and
Protege Predictors and Outcomes of Mentoring in a Formal Mentoring Program."
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 2006: 410-423.
Weinberg, Frankie J., and Melenie J. Lankau. "Formal Mentoring Programs: A Mentorcentric and Longitudinal Analysis." Journal of Management, 2010: 1-31.
Williams, Ethlyn A., Terri A. Scandura, and Mark Gavin. "Understanding Team Level
Career Mentoring by Leaders and its Effects on Individual Team Source Learning:
The Effects oflntra-group Processes." Human Relations, 2009: 1635-1666.

60

Williams, Ray. Mentoring the Forgotten Stragegy in a Competitive Recessionary World.
October 11, 2009.
http://network.national post.com/np/bl ogs/fpposted/arc hi ve/2009/ 10/11 /mentoring-theforgotten-strategy-in-a-competitive-recessionary-world.aspx#ixzzOTkFvyRIW
(accessed December 14, 2009).
Wilson, James A., and Nancy S. Elman. "Organizational Benefts of Mentoring." The
Executive, 1990: 88-94.
Young, Angela M., and Pamela L. Perrewe. "The Role of Expectations in the Mentoring
Exchange: An Analysis of Mentor and Protege Expectations in Relation to Perceived
Support." Journal of Managerial Issues, 2004: Vol. 16.
Zachary, Lois J. Creating a Mentoring Culture: The Organization's Guide. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
- . The Mentor's Guide: Facilitating Effective Learning Relationships. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Zachary, Lois J., and Lori A. Fischler. The Mentee's Guide: Making Mentoring Work for
You. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
Zey, Michael G. The Mentor Connection. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993.

61

Appendix 1 - Retirement Risk Statistics
CITYWIDE Retirement Risks

Rule of 90 (Rule of 80 for IAFF) is age +years of pensionable service. At the
age where an employee reaches their threshold they are eligible to receive
their unreduced pension. For example if an employee started at 30 yrs of age
and works non-stop, they would be eligible for an unreduced pension at 60
instead of 65. Firefighters have a mandatory retirement age of 55, so their
·
is calculated
80 instead of 90.

Is or will turn 65 within 3 years
IAFF Mandatory Retirement within 3 years
90 Rule or IAFF 80 Rule within 3 years

14
9
44

Is or will turn 65 within 5 years
IAFF Mandatory Retirement within 3-5 years
90 Rule or IAFF 80 Rule within 3-5 years

8
2
32

Medium Risk
Is or will turn 65 within 5-1 0 years
IAFF Mandatory Retirement within 5-1 0 years
90 Rule or IAFF 80 Rule within 5-10 years

101

Possible Risk
Can retire in 5-10 years w/reduced pension (50-54 yrs)

61
61

Total City Employees
Total Positions at Risk
%of City

758
271

41

19

41

35.8%

CPG Retirement Risks
9%

• Immediate Risk
Iii High Risk
W Medium Risk
Possible Risk
64%

' Not at Risk

62

Appendix 1, continued
City Leadership
CPG Leadershp Retirement Risks

CPG Leadership by Age
as of Jan 1, 2010

3% 3% 3%

Is or will turn 65 within 5 years
90 Rule within 3--5 years

2

Medium Risk

8

0

Is or will turn 65 within ~10 years

16%
31%

7

~

Possible Risk

4
4

t. - ced pellsioll (50-54}

35-39 • 40-44
50-54 liil 55-59 liil 60-65

CPG & IAFF Leadership by Age
as of Jan 1, 2010

Is or will turn 65 within 3 years
IAFF Mandatory Retirement within 3 years
Rule or IAFF 80 Rule within 3 years
Is or will turn 65 within 5 years
IAFF rl andato ry Retirement with in 3--5 years
90 Rule or IAFF 80 Rule within 3--5 years

0
0
6

Medium Risk

10

lsor willturn65 within5-10years
IAFF Mandatory Retirement within 5-10 ye.ars
90 Rule or IAFF 80 Rule within 5-10 ye.ars

1
2
7

Possible Risk

4

· ~10 yeas VI

ced pel1sioll (50-54 y

4

Total CPG & IAFF leadership Employee!
Total Positions at Risk
% of City

~

• <30

37

• 30-34

35-39.40-44
55-59 liil 60- 65

~

Note: Leadership for the purpose of the above statistics is defined as; the City Manager, directors,
managers, and key persons such as the Chief Engineer and the Chief Building Inspector. The distinction
between the two leadership statistics rests on the inclusionjexclusion of International Association of
Fire Fighters (IAFF) chiefs and captains.

63

Appendix 1, continued
Development & Operations and Corporate Services
DEV & CPS Ret irement Risks

DEV & OPS Employees by Age
as of Jan 1, 2010
4%

9%

Is or w ill turn 65 w ithin 5 y ears
IAFF Mandato ry Retirement w ithin 3-5 years
90 Rule or IAFF 8(} Rule w ithin 3--5 y ears

Medium Risk

Is or w illturn 65 w ithin 5-10years
IAFF Mand ato ry Retir·ement w ithin 5-1'0 y e.ars
90 Rule or IAFF &0 Rule w ithin 5-10 y ears

Possible Risk

- > 0 yeas VI

red

~

(50-54)

T otal DEV & OPS Oe pt
Total Pos itions at Risk
% of DEV & OPS Dept

36
17
0
19

18
18

220

<30

10-E
45.9%

• 30-34

35-39

~

55-59 1i1 6 0-65

COR Department Retirement Risks

COR Dept Employees by Age
as of Jan 1, 2010
5%

Is or w ill turn 65 w ithin 3 ye.ars
IAFF l, and ato ry Retirement w ithin 3 y ears
9 (} Rule ,or IAFF 80 Rule w ithin 3years

5

Is or w ill turn 65 w ithin 5 y ears
IAFF ll andato ry Retirement w ithin 3-5 y e.ars
90 Rule ,or IAFF 80 Rule w ithin 3--5 y ears

3
0
6

Medium Risk

20

Is or w ill turn 65 w ithin 5-10 y ears
IAFF l l and ato ry Retirement w ithin 5-10 y e.ars
90 Rule or IAFF 8 0 Rule w ithin 5-10 y ears

Possible Risk

Cal

- >10 yeas

~

Totall COR Dept Empl'o yees
Total' Pos ition s at Ris k
% o fCOR Dept

**

~t

~

{50-54 y

3%

(}

1

13
0
7

9

18 %

9

100
44
44.0%

<30

• 30-34

35-3911 4044

4 5 -49 . 5 0-54 1ii1 55-59

60 -65

Oit fall · o mae tnil'l ooe fisk categG¥¥ ~ ooly ooonted ooce (Ill the frn categay that t ey fall · o) - pl->..ase

refer to caiOII coded dOlta to see additiooil tisk fattas fcx indMdual enll»oyees**

64

Appendix 1, continued
Administrative Services and City Manager's Office
ADM Department Retirement Risks

ADM Dept Employees by Age
as of Ja n 1, 2010
3%

Is or w ill turn 65 w ithin 5 y ears
IAFF Mandatory Retirement w ithin l-5 y ears
90 Rule or IAFF 30. Rule w ithin l-5 y ears

2
2
5

Medium Risk

37

Possible Risk

18

Tota Empt.oyees in Departme nt
Tota Pos ition s at Ris k
% of A DM Departme nt

208

Is or w ill turn 65 w ithin 5-10 y ears
IAFF II andato ry Retirement w ith in 5-10 y ears
90 Rule or IAFF 30 Rule w ithin 5-10 y ears

~

14%

8
19
10

18

II <30

90

• 30-34

35-3911 4044

43.3%

CMO Department Retirement Risks

CMO Dept Employees by Age
as of Jan, 1, 20 10

Is or w ill turn 65 w ithin 3 y ears
IAFF ll a.ndato ry Retirement w ithin 3 y ears
Rule or IAFF 80 Rule w ithin 3 y ears

0
0

Is or w ill turn 65 w ithin 5 y ears
IAFF l l andatory Retirement w ithin 3-5 y ears
90 Rule ·Dr IAFF 30 Rule w ithin :>-5 y ears

0
0
0

Medium Risk

3

Is or w ill turn 65 w ithin 5-10 y ears
IAFF Mandato ry Retirement w ithin 5-10 y ears
90 Rule or IAFF 30 Rule w ithin 5-10 y ears

Possible Risk

Cal -

. ~10 yea'S VI

ced pansial (50-54}

Total CMO De pt Emptoyees
Total Positi.o n s at Ris k
% of CMOOe pt

0

15 %

0
3

18
0

15 %

t3
4
30.8%

** Emp.loyees that fall into mae t ill e tisJr Citeg!liY are ooly counted awe (Ill the tht
~ t ot they fall into) - pJease
refer to e<»w- ~ dota to see awJifooal tisJr faaOtS for ilidiWdual empJOyees**

65

Appendix 1, continued
Community Services and City Wide Age Distribution
COM Department Retirement Risks

COM Dept Employees by Age
as of Jan 1, 2010

Is or w ill turn 65 w ith in 5 y ears
lAFF fl anda.tory Retirement w ith in 3-5 y e.ars
90 Ru le ·or lAFF 80 Ru le w ith in 3-5ye.ars

Medium Risk

ls ·or will turn 65 w ith in 5-1(}ye.ars
lAFF Manda.tory Retirement w ith in 5-10 y ears
90 Rule or lAFF 80 Rule w ith in 5-10 y ears

Possible Risk

- 5- 0 years VI

41%

13%

oed perlsion {50-54 y

COM Dept Employees
Positions at Risk
of COM Dept

9
0
2

13

207
39
'17.4%.

<30

• 30-34 111 35 -39

4()-44

CPG Employees by Age
as of Jan 1, 2010

4%

<30
• 30-34
7%

35-39

4()44
4 5 -49
5 0-54
12;6

1111 55-59
W6C-65

16 %

66

Appendix 2 - CPG Organizational Chart
As of March 30, 2010

Mayor and Counc1

Manager Social
Development

Manager
Legi slative Serv1ces

Manager Policy
lnit1at1ves

Manager
Communications &
C1t1zen Engagement

'

Manager
Sustamab11ity

Project Manager

67

Appendix 3 - CPG Mentoring Model

Mentor
Candid lites
Identified

f---. Mentors Screened

+
Joint Orientation
& Training

Protege
Candid lites
Identified

f---.

Dyads
Matclled

f

Proteges
Screened

Agreements
Negotiated

I

l

Development Plan
Documented &
Executed

Developmenta l
Plan Concluded

~

Mentor
Training

~
Protege
Training

Exit Interviews

~
Feedback &
Measurement

Evaluation &
Recommendations

This diagram is based on the Trinity College Men taring Program but it is a hybrid that contains ideas
from the activity flow for RINA Accountancy Corporation and MMHA 's Facilitated Mentoring
Implementation Flow (Murray 2001 p76, 87, &92.)

68