weLEAD Online Magazine

leadingtoday.org

Investing In Others: The Role of Mentors In Today’s Workforce

Part 2

By Stefanie Siebold

In addition to better productivity, organizations that emphasize employee development make a lasting impression and earn lasting loyalty. Eric Rolfe Greenberg, AMA director of management states, "Investing in employees' future is more important than immediate compensation. Programs that improve work skills and future career development are seen as particularly effective."

Incentive Power (2002) conducted a report estimating that in “groups requiring significant training, it can take as many as six months to get an individual's productivity to the point that he is contributing more to the group than he costs. It can take up to two years to get him as productive as the person he replaced”.

In this report it identifies that typical turnover figures range from 8% to 33%, with the average employment period from 1 to 36 months based on the following:

· It costs between 1.5 and 2 months salary to hire an new employee (human relations costs)

· It takes at least 3 months before employees can be considered productive; before that they actually consume extra resources.

· That equals 4.5-5 months of cost, or 20% of their salary for the average 24-month stint just to get an employee to the point of being productive. It can take up to two full years to get that employee as productive as the one he or she replaces. In 1999, it was calculated that this came to $150,000 to replace a single trained high-tech worker (www.incentivepower.com).

As shown through numerous studies and first hand accounts, mentoring can be a very beneficial and powerful tool for individuals and corporations alike, but as with anything, where there are benefits, there are costs. Ninety percent of mentoring research has looked at the successful mentoring relationships, leaving only a handful of researchers studying the unsuccessful mentor programs and repercussions that follow. Kram (1985) was the first to acknowledge that although a mentor relationship starts out successful, it has the ability over time to become “dissatisfying and destructive as individual needs and organizational circumstances change” (Kram, 1985). She defined this relationship between the protégé and mentor as “destructive.”

Since mentor relationships are based around the communication of two individuals, the relationship has the opportunity to become very intense. Conflict is inevitable, but can also be seen as a valuable learning tool for the protégé. Conflict is part of a corporation’s daily life. The protégés would be smart to be aware of the conflicts that arise within the mentor relationship and learn how to analyze and manage them so that when they occur between other staff or customers the protégé will be better able to handle themselves professionally. When this conflict is not managed properly, then the mentor relationship becomes dysfunctional which, in turn, will have serious consequences for both individuals and the organization.

Mentors must learn to overcome the challenges that are faced when working with their protégé. Mentor relationships are unique and specific to the individuals involved. Although there is no one best way or specific model to use in order to achieve a successful mentoring program, there are features within an organization that can either create or interfere with conditions that support a successful mentor relationship. In order to create an environment that fosters more positive relationships they need to look at such organizational features as reward systems, work design, the culture of the corporation and an individual’s skills and values (Kram, 1985).

Individuals are as unique as the corporations that they represent. In researching the different mentoring programs, I found that the most successful are the programs developed to meet the needs of the individual and the company. I believe this individualized process is the key to successful mentoring programs. In the development of the mentoring program it is important to integrate the company’s reward system throughout the process. Organizations need to focus their reward structures not only to recognizing one’s performance, but also the benefits received from one’s social relationships. Monetary bottom-line rewards set a tone that forming relationships between individuals (as in mentoring) is important. Higher-level workers, who see becoming a mentor as time consuming and a waste of time if no recognition is to come out of it, are likely not to support mentoring. Only when individuals find opportunities for personal growth and are rewarded for their skills will they support the company’s mentoring program.

As with reward systems, a corporation’s culture impacts the tone for whether or not an individual will engage in forming mentor relationships. Organizations do this by defining what behaviors and attitudes are valued within the company. A corporation that rewards employees for helping each other learn new skills and leaders who have been mentored in their past jobs are more likely to engage in successful mentor programs.

I have had first hand experience in being the product of, and witness to a successful mentoring program. Management and Training Corporation has implemented several styles of mentoring programs within the corporation. Two of the formal programs are called the Management Development Program and Executive Development Program. Both programs operate similarly. For example, the Management Development Program is a 12 month specialized management program for supervisors, managers and directors. The MDP program starts with a weeklong orientation. The participants are involved in a variety of workshops and group activities that focus on a variety of areas; interpersonal skills, communication, roles of supervisors as leaders and teachers, time management, community relations, trend analysis, contracts and proposals, presentation skills, as well as writing skills. After the initial orientation, the participant meets with their individual mentors to review the orientation program, individual roles and responsibilities, “Skillscope” (Jargon?)feedback report, writing skills requirements, and how to begin the year long Training Achievement Record (TAR) plan. The hands-on portion of the training addresses all program areas within the corporation. The MDP program also includes a mid-program conference call with several corporate and regional officers in the Management Training Corporation. This call is to access the overall progress of each individual participant. Once the program is completed, the participants have gained more experience and knowledge of the company’s policies, operating procedures, and expectations.

Many of the participants in the program have felt that their experience has enhanced both their professional and personal growth. I have witnessed several of the participant’s advances within the company due to their involvement in the program.

Management and Training Corporation has also benefited from the mentoring programs as well. Dr. Craig Sudbury, Vice-President of Program Development, Training and Support, is responsible for development and implementation of the programs.

Dr. Sudbury, (2002) states that “since the implementation of the mentoring programs, the company has experienced a growth in retention and promotions among employees working for the corporation. The Management Development Program and Executive Development Programs, along with other training programs in the corporation, gives us a pool of potential employees to draw from. It is with great privilege that we watch as so many individuals grow personally and professionally in the company. Investing in your employees is the key to successful companies.”

Most organizations that start mentoring programs are interested in the successful practices used by others. When creating a mentoring program, it is useful to use the best practices of other organizations and then tailor the program to fit the needs of your company.

There are several successful mentoring programs used among corporations today. Dr. Linda Phillips-Jones, 2001, from The Mentoring Group, has identified several of mentorings best practices:

· Lockheed-Martin Missiles and Fire Control uses innovative joint training activities to prepare mentors and protégé’s. Pairs do various trust-building exercises, including one with blindfolds in which mentors as a group guide the protégé in solving a problem.

· Hewlett-Packard (Roseville, California facility) has a site-wide program that includes approximately 100 pairs at any one time. Mentors and the protégé each attend separate half-day training workshops that use written guides, videotapes and skill practice. Pairs are written and sign partnership contracts with are kept confidential.

· U.S. Army-Air Force Exchange Service has implemented mentoring groups. For six months, three mentors and six to eight protégés meet together every two weeks. Protégé’s focus on career development, including learning the intricacies of how the organization works. Confidentiality is strictly enforced.

· Canadian Center for Management Development (CCMD) has an innovative leadership program for developing Public Service senior executives. Participants gain from a multi-faced approach: mentors, executive advisors, personal coaches, small learning groups, and varied job experiences.

· Technical University of Berlin and the European Academy for Women in Politics and Economics has an innovative program called Preparing Women to Lead. Qualified university graduates take part in internships in Germany, Belgium, Austria, and the Netherlands. For an intense three months, the women are paired with outstanding female mentors who teach them about the mentors’ fields and management styles, organizational structures, processes of decision making, and the day-to-day requirements of management (www.thementoringgroup.com).

Training and support from top management is what seals the commitment to the program. Encouraging more informal and casual styles of mentoring along with formal programs offer a variety of options for the protégé as well as those who wish to become a mentor. Mentoring is influenced at the organizational level primarily by culture and structure. A culture with top-level support will find more employees willing to fill mentoring roles than those without support. Using the examples of other mentoring programs and implementing the different styles and behaviors to meet the needs of your organization are the first steps to creating a successful mentoring program.

Many organizations are turning to mentoring as a way of instructing, retaining and improving all grades of staff and such initiatives have proved an effective alternative to costly training programs. A survey by the UK's Industrial Society in 1999 asked over 300 companies about their attitudes to coaching and mentoring. They found that over 80% reported that coaching and mentoring had improved individual performance targets. Most of those surveyed also planned to increase their commitment to coaching and mentoring programs (Rogers,2002).

As we have discussed throughout this article, a company’s mentoring program can benefit staff in a number of ways. Mentors can show a person how to carry out a task or activities, create opportunities for employees to learn new skills, and counsel them about the consequences of potential decisions. They should also be able to provide networking contacts for employees if a problem lies beyond their area of expertise. Mentoring has been proven to reduce employee turnover, improve performance and generally make the workplace a more meaningful and better place to be.

Mentoring in the workplace is a comprehensive business strategy that utilizes the skills and expertise of more experienced employees as resources to those who are new to the company or those who are less experienced in certain areas within the company. With this, I am reminded of a story that puts the power mentoring into perspective. My personal mentor and friend, Dr. Craig Sudbury, whom I mentioned previously, told this story to me many years ago. It is about an individual standing at the crossroads, not knowing which road to take. The young man, inexperienced, randomly picks a road only to learn of its hardships and unsuccessful outcomes. Sometime later, another young man finds himself at the same crossroads, he too, inexperienced and uncertain. But this time he is not alone. The one who has experienced the trials and unpredictable changes of this uncertainty and inexperience stands waiting. This self-appointed mentor takes the young man by the hand and leads him down the road to success and fulfillment. The crossroads in this story will never be the same again, there will always be one to act as mentor and guide the inexperienced into experience, reciprocating the process over and over again.

Organizations today are standing at the crossroads, searching for ways to enhance their company’s performance to stay competitive in today’s economy. The answers lie within the corporation in its most valuable asset…its employees. As managers and supervisors, I believe it is our duty to our employees and to the corporations who employ us to act as mentors within the corporation. In turn, corporations need to research and identify successfully run mentoring programs and put them into place within their own organizational needs.

Today’s businesses face incredible challenges: global markets, changing economic conditions, shifts from our traditional ways of managing, staffing, and succession planning as the business world leaders face retirement. Mentoring in the workplace can help prepare companies and their employees to live in the new millennium.

Part 1 of this article was published in the January 2003 issue of weLEAD Online Magazine.

Comments to: editor@leadingtoday.org

BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE

About the author:

Stefanie Siebold has personal experience with mentoring as an employee of the Management Training Corporation (MTC). She is completing her B.S. degree in Management at Bellevue University.

References:

Barton, K., (2002). Ideas about mentoring; mentoring challenges. http://www.mentoringgroup.com. (2002).

Gibb, S., (1994). Evaluating mentoring. Education and Training, 36, (pp 323-339).

Hegstad, C., D. (1999). Human Resource Development Quarterly. San Francisco. http://www.managementor.com (winter 1999).

Hunt, D. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of Management Review 8, 475-485.

Incentive Power (2002). Employee Turnover - Respect your investment http://www.incentivepower.com

Kram, K., (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Levinson, D.J., & Klein, E.B., & Levinson, & M.H., & McKeen. (1978). The Seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf.

Murray M., (1991). Beyond the Myths and Magic of Mentoring : How to Facilitate an Effective Mentoring Program Jossey-Bass Management Series.

Parsloe, E., (1995). Coaching, Mentoring and Assessing : A Practical Guide to Developing Competence

Parsloe, E., (1999). The manager as coach and mentor http://www.coachingnetwork.org (1999).

Poe, A., (February 1, 2002). Establishing positive mentor relationships. HR Magazine. (pp. 13-14).

Phillip-Jones, L. (2001). Mentoring Best Practices. The Mentoring Group. http://www.thementoringgroup.com

Phillip-Jones, L., (2002). Tips for mentors; mentoring is in the details http://www.mentoringgroup.com .

Raneri, C., (2-10-02) Behind the Scenes of mentoring www.geocities.com/rpipsych/mentoring.html

Rogers, A. (2001). Corporate Training. http://www.corporatetraining.ie.com

Russell, J. (1997). The changing nature of mentoring in organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

(pp. 51, 1-14).

Shea, G., (1997). Mentoring, how to develop successful mentor behaviors. USA: Crisp Publications, Inc.

Smith, G., (July 10, 2001). Investing in employees, even in down times, pays a big dividend.

The Journal. (pp. 34-36).

Stokes, S. (1994). Networking with a human face. Information Systems Management, (pp.34-40).