MENTORING THAT FAILS:  HOW TO DEFEAT A SOUND CONCEPT

Linda Gravett, Ph.D., SPHR, May 1, 2003

Over the past five years, I’ve conducted both qualitative and quantitative research with 250 medium to large-size organizations within the United States.  My objective in conducting this research was to discover how poor implementation tactics could defeat a sound concept –mentoring.  My objectives in this article are to identify weaknesses in mentoring initiatives that I observed; describe how these weaknesses defeated the objectives of those initiatives; and provide concrete suggestions to build a mentorship culture within your organization. 

There is no paucity of evidence that mentoring is a sound concept as a component of an organization’s career planning and development and succession planning efforts.  The organizations that I’ve worked with over the past five years have had a variety of reasons for establishing mentor initiatives.  Sixty percent of the organizations in my study developed a mentor initiative as a recruiting and retention tool, especially targeted towards attracting and retaining people in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties.  Twenty percent of the organizations in my study desired to establish a mentor initiative that would support their overarching succession planning efforts, designed to ensure that employees with promise were nurtured and coached and to provide leadership continuity.  Another fifteen percent of the organizations under study developed a mentor initiative to provide networking opportunities for employees and a vehicle for obtaining different perspectives on professional growth and development.  The final five percent of the organizations studied decided that a mentor initiative might improve a low level of morale, in part related to employees believing that management didn’t care about their professional development needs. 

The organizations I’ve studied and worked with over the past five years have enjoyed varying degrees of success with their mentor initiatives.  When the Human Resource professionals and managers with whom I worked were asked why initiatives were not as successful as they had hoped, three primary reasons for the failures surfaced repeatedly.  The weakness that surfaced 16% of the time was, “we did a poor job of recruiting mentors.”  The second weakness provided (31% of the time) was, “we did a poor job of setting expectations for the program.”  The final reason provided for failure (53% of the time) was, “we did a poor job of sustaining momentum.” 

Through the use of two real-world case studies, I’d like to elaborate on the three primary weaknesses in mentor initiatives that I’ve discovered across organizations and provide concrete recommendations to ensure that these weaknesses do not sabotage your mentor initiatives. 

Case Study 1.

You’re the new Human Resources Director for a large law firm in the Midwest.  The firm has 75 attorneys; 30 are partners and the rest are law clerks or associates.  Law clerks and associates are employees of the firm, as are the 14 people in Administration and the 24 legal secretaries. 

In the short time you’ve been with the firm, which specializes in patent and copyright law, you’ve observed that turnover among associates is very high.  Typically, two new associates are hired each year to handle a growing client base; however, three or four associates have quit each year for the past five years.  Fifty percent of the law clerks (law school students) that are offered full time positions upon graduation decline the offer. 

You’ve made some observations about the organizational culture and read some exit interview notes from your predecessor.  A voluntary mentor program is in place that allows for associates to be mentored by a partner who has been with the firm for 10 years or more.  Twenty associates have signed up to receive a mentor and are waiting for a volunteer.  Of these 20 associates, 14 have been waiting for two years or longer for mentoring. 

Mentors receive no training on a formal basis.  The training is more like tribal wisdom passed down from senior partners.  The same partners tend to volunteer to serve as a mentor to someone, and they usually select a person who lives nearby or whose father is a family friend. 

Discussion Questions:  Do you have recommendations for expanding the group of mentors?  How might you convince senior partners that an investment of their time is worthwhile? 

The turnover that the law firm is experiencing is a serious business problem across industries in the United States today.  With a sound economy and unemployment hovering around 4%, retention is likely to continue as a critical issue for human resource practitioners for the foreseeable future.  The concept of a mentor initiative is sound for organizations that want to retain intellectual capital; however, the mentor recruitment process must be designed and implemented effectively. 

The firm in the case study, like many organizations with failed mentor efforts, did not identify the objectives of the mentor program and share those with potential mentors.  When a potential mentor understands that a mentor initiative has been designed to promote retention or provide support for a succession plan, he or she can make an informed decision regarding whether the organizational objectives resonate with personal interests.  The firm in the case study did not determine the competencies that would be required to fulfill the objectives of the mentor initiative and could thus not target potential mentors that possessed those competencies.  The law firm made the mistake that many organizations make, which was to only call upon people in senior or executive positions to serve as mentors rather than select individuals at any level that possessed required mentor skills.  Finally, the law firm did not develop and share with potential mentors the incentives that would be provided to them for investing time and energy in mentor activities.  If people do not see a return on the investment of their time for an endeavor, they’re not likely to participate. 

In the mentor initiatives under study, five core mentor competencies were apparent in those companies where the mentorship efforts were deemed a success.  These competencies were:  the ability to design quality activities and discussions with mentees; tolerance for other perspectives; active listening skills; the ability to provide constructive criticism; and the creativity to recommend various avenues and mechanisms for mentees to develop throughout their careers. 

Successful mentor initiatives in the study had another characteristic in common:  specific competencies possessed by those people being mentored.  These competencies included:  the ability to accept constructive criticism; strong communication skills that enabled mentees to articulate their aspirations; and the courage to try out recommendations and ideas that were out of their “comfort zone.” 

The second critical flaw in mentor initiatives in the study was the failure to establish expectations or objectives for the program.  The following actual case study is typical of this implementation weakness.

Case Study 2.        

You’re the Vice President of Human Resources for a large insurance company based in the Midwest.  Within the past year the parent company has acquired a smaller insurance company that is headquartered in the Southwest.  In order to acclimate executives from the acquired company, a formal mentor initiative has been established. 

The only guidelines are:  each executive in the acquired company is to be assigned a mentor in his or her specialty area; the mentor is supposed to contact the assigned mentee within 30 days after the assignment is made; the mentor and mentee will establish their own ground rules for working together; and either the mentor or mentee can terminate the relationship and obtain another assignment. 

After 10 months, you’ve concluded that the mentor initiative is not effective.  Twenty-five executives from the acquired company were assigned a mentor.  Only six of those relationships have survived.  In every case except one, the mentor has been the one to bail out.  Common complaints have been:  “the mentee just wants me to get her a job at headquarters”; “the mentee calls me at 10:00 on a Saturday night”; and “my mentee can’t take negative criticism.” 

Discussion Question:  What can be done to salvage the initiative and ensure its future success? 

The insurance company in the above case study made the same mistakes that many companies make.  The company did not set fair and realistic objectives at the outset.  Mentees must clearly understand the boundaries of the relationship.  Mentors are unlikely to volunteer their time if they believe that they’re likely to receive repeated phone calls during nonwork hours.   Designers of mentoring activities must communicate the expected outcomes to potential mentors or mentees and hold both accountable for the success of the partnership.  Otherwise, mentees will become disenchanted with the process and mentors will become resentful of the time invested. 

The third most common reason that mentor initiatives in the study failed was that no efforts were made to sustain momentum and build a mentorship culture after the initiative was under way.  Consequently, mentors suffered from “burn out” and the relationships became stagnant and were discontinued.  The initiatives that have enjoyed ongoing success have some common characteristics:  the duration of the formal mentor relationship is limited to 18 months; mentees are asked to become mentors themselves after moving through at least one successful relationship; the organization finds ways to utilize the newly-developed skills and competencies of mentees; and the successes of mentor-mentee teams are acknowledged and publicly recognized. 

When a mentor-mentee relationship was limited to 18 months, companies in the study found that mentors were able to sustain interest and did not feel resentful of time spent with their mentees.  Those teams that wished to stay in contact on an informal basis certainly exercised that prerogative.  Even though not every mentee had a promotion waiting for him or her immediately following an assignment, mentees’ new skills were tapped through task force leadership, facilitation of problem solving teams, or training activities.  Mentors in the successful organizations were thanked often and publicly for their contributions in forums such as luncheons, staff meetings, and newsletters. 

In light of the rapidly changing business environment in the United States today, I project that mentor initiatives will have to change in order to be successful.  I envision the growth of telementoring:  using technology to connect mentors and mentees in different parts of the country or even the world.  This will necessitate excellent written communication skills for mentors and mentees, as well as a willingness to sometimes forego face-to-face contact in a mentor-mentee relationship. 

I project that the traditional rules of mentoring that have limited the success of organizations such as those in this study must change.  One new rule should be that the best matches (between mentor and mentee) are actually mismatches.  The common ground that the mentee and mentor should possess is that of professional interest, rather than country club membership or college affiliation.  A second new rule should be that a good mentor is anyone from whom a person can learn.  The mentor doesn’t have to hold the title of Senior Vice President in order to make a contribution.  The last new rule should be that everyone needs mentors.  There should not be a juncture at which one can comfortably say, “I no longer require any assistance in my career development.”    

If you’d like additional information on this topic or have any questions, please email me at Linda@Gravett.com or call me at (513)753-8870 or complete my feedback form (click here).

(Close this window)