Behavioural indicators of effective and ineffective mentoring: An empirical study of mentor and protégé behaviour within a UK public sector organisation.
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractMost mentoring research has investigated the antecedents, outcomes and benefits of mentoring and also the characteristics of mentors and mentees, but little attention has been given to the quality of the mentoring process or the effectiveness of mentoring relationships (Fagenon-Eland et al, 1997; Young and Perrewé, 2007). Yet for formal work-based mentoring programmes it is important to identify what differentiates ‘more effective’ from ‘less effective’ mentoring relationships (Ragins et al, 2000, Wanberg et al, 2007), particularly the behaviours of mentors and mentees that contribute to both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ mentoring experiences (Eby et al, 2000; Bozeman and Feeney, 2007). This study investigated the mentoring component of a leadership development programme within a major UK public sector organization in order to identify the behavioural criteria of mentoring effectiveness from both the mentor and mentee perspective. Concrete examples of ‘effective’ and ‘ineffective’ mentor and mentee behaviours as observed respectively by mentees and external mentors were collected using the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan (1954). These were analysed, reduced and classified using content and thematic analytic methods. From 167 usable critical incidents so obtained 187 discrete items of behaviour were identified. Of these 81 related to positive (effective) and 22 to negative (ineffective) mentor behaviour and 68 to positive (effective) and 16 to negative (ineffective) mentee behaviour. These were then grouped and classified into analytic categories which resulted in 11 positive and 4 negative mentor behavioural categories (criteria) and 9 positive and 3 negative mentee behavioural categories (criteria) being identified. The results lend support to Kram’s (1985) ‘two-function’ model of mentoring and to the recent emergent concepts of ‘negative’ and ‘marginal’ mentoring (Eby, et al, 2000; Eby and McManus, 2004). They also provide further empirical insights for HRD practitioners concerned with developing guidelines and interventions to enhance the effectiveness of formal mentoring programmes. This study is an inquiry into organizationally based formal mentoring relationships in which the mentors have been drawn from other organizations (Young and Perrewé, 2000). It has been located in both the ‘mentoring’, ‘coaching’ and ‘human resource development (HRD)’literatures for two main reasons. Firstly, although various writers claim ‘mentoring’ is different from ‘coaching’ (Cranwell-Ward, Bossons and Gover, 2004; Grant, 2001), the terms ‘mentoring’ and ‘coaching’ are often used interchangeably in many organizations with many people unable to make a clear distinction between them (D’Abate, Eddy and Tannenbaum, 2003; Klasen and Clutterbuck, 2002). The second reason is that for several decades coaching, mentoring and other forms of workplace learning have been core roles of HRD professionals (See Davis, Naughton and Rothwell, 2004; Hezlett and Gibson, 2005; Plunkett and Egan, 2004). Furthermore, increasingly, mentoring has been recognized as a powerful HRD intervention that assists employers in career advancement, serves as a form of on-the-job-training, and helps create learning organizations (Hegstad and Wentling , 2005).
CitationIn: Proceedings of the UFHRD Ninth International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice Across Europe: May 21-23, 2008 (Ref. 6.01), Lille, France: IESEG School of Management.
DescriptionFull papers available to UFHRD members online. You can register to access this website.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Mentoring: the knowledge transfer partnership experience in the University of Wolverhampton Business School.Scarff, William; Harris, Robert (University Forum for Human Resource Development (UFHRD), 2008)Knowledge transfer partnerships (ktps), numbering over 100 in the UK, form the background to this paper. Benefits of the partnerships are noted as follows: to the British economy, to the participating company, to the associate or trainee employee and to the University that manages the programmes. Mentoring theory and continuing professional development (cpd) are mentioned, though not extensively. The lead author has developed the unique role of the ktp mentor. The focus is on the mentor’s assistance made available to the associate. Two key strengths, checked with present associates, are identified. The first strength is the utterly confidential nature of the process of mentoring. The second strength is the absence of involvement in the day to day running of any partnership. The mentor is outside the formal management structure, not even taking part in selecting suitable associates. The mentor assists in cpd, in identifying skills, personal strengths and weaknesses, and towards the end of the contract in exploring career options with the associate. At all times the autonomy of the associate is respected. The authors conclude that the mentoring role is valuable well received and that it will continue, building on the key strengths noted above.
Mentoring the mentors: a critical reflection of the process of designing and supporting mentor training for post-compulsory sector teaching mentorsHughes, Julie; Stokes, Michael (University of Wolverhampton, 2004)Each pre or in-service student registered on the University of Wolverhampton's PGCE course is allocated an observer who assesses his or her teaching practice. Prior to September 2002 the observer's title was that of work-based assessor. However, the PGCE team felt that the role undertaken and the responsibilities inherent in the support and observation of the development of teaching practice were dimished somewhat by the use of this rather technical label. The title "Teaching Mentor" was adopted in September 2002. This research reflects the PCE (post-compulsory education) team's attempts to ensure that the shift was not simply semantic, but instead may be seen to be ahead of sectoral developments in its focus upon the individuals who mentor new or unqualified teachers and upon their education and training needs.