Mentoring for developing employees' professional practices

18 Pages·2004·0.13 MB·English

Mentoring for developing employees’
professional practices: An
educationalist’s perspective
Peter Hudson (Dip Teach; B Ed; M Ed; TESOL; AMACEA)
Lecturer
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
Victoria Park Road
Kelvin Grove 4059
Queensland
Ph. [phone]
[email protected]
Abstract
This literature review provides a perspective for mentoring employees’ professional
practices. Five mentoring factors have been identified from the literature that may have
applications for induction and recruitment of employees (mentees). These mentoring
factors (namely, personal attributes, system requirements, professional knowledge,
modelling, and feedback) may have associated attributes and practices to facilitate the
development of professional practices. Mentoring can aid critical and creative thinking
by facilitating possible solutions to problems and promoting the analyses of situations
from different perspectives. Although there are some negative aspects to mentoring,
mentors can act as agents of change but need to be current and active with professional
knowledge in order to adequately assist their employees.
Introduction
1
Businesses can fail or succeed depending on the quality of knowledge available to the
staff. New employees (and for that matter many new employers) may require training
in order to operate a particular business successfully. Mentoring is considered a way to
recruit employees for increasing the value of a business; however some mentoring
programs fail because of a lack of structure and understanding of the processes (Barbian
2002).
Mentoring has occurred in many different forms and across many different disciplines,
for example, mentoring for life skills (Freedman 1993; Albom 1997), mentoring for
relationships towards inner beliefs (Muller 1993; Huang & Lynch 1995; Hendricks &
Hendricks 1999), mentoring in business and organisations (Murray 1992; Shea 1994;
Bell 1996; Hendricks 1996; Johnson 1997; Peddy 1999) and as a strategy for workplace
learning (Sullivan 1992; Caldwell & Carter 1993). During the 1990’s mentoring
became a feature of many organisations (Edwards & Collison 1996). Mentoring is now
established as a collaborative program for developing practices and can be a means of
guiding change by constructing knowledge about new professional knowledge. Indeed,
mentoring is considered a nurturing of talent, conversely “…by not mentoring, we are
wasting talent. We educate, and train, but don’t nurture” (Wright & Wright 1987, p.
207). The result of effective mentoring is improvement in professional practice with
better articulation and justification of the quality of practices (Van Thielen 1992).
Peterson and Williams (1998 p. 730) simply say that “mentoring works” but mentoring
means different things to professionals in different fields. In general, mentoring has
become a vehicle to enhance the skills and abilities of one’s associates, colleagues, and
mentees. It has been used to assist people in becoming more creative, thinking more
critically, perceiving solutions to problems, and analysing situations from different
perspectives. Mentoring is a creative alternative to direct instruction with skills that
may last after the relationship has ended (Goerner 1998). Collaborative mentoring is a
vehicle for achieving “evolutionary leaps” with “commitment to the greater good”
(Goerner 1998, p. 4).
2
Towards definitions of mentoring
Definitions of mentoring continue to develop, even though the term “mentoring” is
without a precise operational definition (Peper 1994). As mentoring involves complex
personal interactions “conducted under different circumstances” in different workplaces
it “…cannot be rigidly defined” (Wildman et al. 1992, p. 212). However, without a
definition consensus the development of a mentorship knowledge base can be
“haphazard” (Healy & Leak 1990, p. 17). Nevertheless, an expanded view of mentoring
can facilitate the development of the mentor’s role and can make explicit the issues of
mentoring (Mullen, Whatley, & Kealy 1999).
Definitions of mentor and mentee
The two key partners in the mentoring processes are the mentors and the mentees.
Many educators attempt to define “mentor” by single words to highlight the various
mentoring roles. For example, Berliner (1986, p. 7) states that experienced teachers in
the mentoring process are “…models, experts, masters.” Other words such as role
model, protector, sponsor, leader and promoter have been added to the definition of
mentor (Galvez-Hjoernevik 1986). Hutto, Holden, and Hayes (1991, p. 84) state, “a
mentor is an experienced, successful and knowledgeable professional who willingly
accepts the responsibility of facilitating professional growth and support of a colleague
through a mutually beneficial relationship.”
In education circles, mentors are referred to as “facilitators” (Kesselheim 1992, p. 2),
and “coaches” (Ganser 1996, p. 10). A survey (Braden 1998) defines mentor with
words such as leader, friend, and advisor, which only hints at the variety of roles for the
mentor, and does not provide a context for mentoring. Those who become mentors are
more experienced in practices, and through explicit mentoring processes develop
professional self-efficacy in their mentees, and consequently, autonomy in practice.
The term “mentee” is being used to describe the novice of new practices (Van Ast
2002). Generally, the selection of the term mentee provides a lexical cohesion with the
term mentor in the mentoring process.
3
Mentoring for development and as a change agent
Mentees generally rely on their mentors for learning experiences, and mentoring can be
a change agent but will require a readiness from mentors to guide mentees towards
effective practices. Briscoe and Peters (1997, p. 52) reference several researchers who
claim that collaborative mentoring is instrumental for the process of facilitating change
because “…change occurs in a social context” and is “…influenced by interactive
processes.” They conclude, “collaboration was not only essential, but very desirable to
support the change process, to lessen the fear of risk taking, and to provide a forum for
analysis of what works and what does not” (p. 63). In this work-focused relationship, a
mentee learns many fundamental skills that may mirror the mentor’s behaviour and
expertise, particularly as there is “…a great deal of team-building, and intense
communication and information sharing” (Fullan 1999, p. 37). Through mentoring, an
experienced mentor who articulates practices can elicit from a capable mentee effective
professional skills at a renewed level of awareness. However, mentoring requires more
specific and well-researched guidelines in order to enhance the mentoring process for
professional practices. Mentoring can act as an agent of change where mentors and
their mentees can learn together (Rodrigue & Tingle 1994); however to do so a mentor
supports the mentee who is learning how to develop professional knowledge and skills.
Furthermore, Lapsley and Oldfield (2001) claim that management consultants are well-
positioned to be change agents; although this does not appear to occur at a level
advocated by management.
Towards an understanding of effective mentoring
There were very few comprehensive studies informed by theory that have examined in-
depth the context and consequences of mentoring (Little l990), although this knowledge
base is beginning to grow (Edwards & Collison 1996; Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall 1998;
Tomlinson, 1995). Studies (Williams & McBride 1989) have shown there are generic
characteristics apparent in a successful mentoring relationship. Open communication
skills, conflict management techniques, increased critical self-reflection, a common
shared language; and support group mechanisms are prominent features in successful
programs. Communication skills with a common shared language allows for an
4
understanding of professional situations, while support groups can be a means for
broadening the knowledge of professional technicalities. Indisputably, businesses are
becoming more specialised, which requires specialised knowledge (Drucker 1996).
Conflict management appears to be an element in most business and allows the mentor
to demonstrate how to address immediate personal conflicts so that the mentee’s
learning experiences can be more fluent and less hindered.
A key aspect in a mentoring relationship is developing the mentee’s ability to self
reflect on professional practices, as reflection is considered “…the main catalyst for the
development of autonomy and expertise” (Veenman, de Laat, & Staring 1998, p. 6).
Mentors and mentees need to be “reflectively professional” through professional inquiry
and create “…change in constructively critical ways” (Ovens 2000, p. 219). Such
reflective practice will require some guided experimentation with mentoring that
stimulates “…self-reflection and self-analysis in order to improve instructional
effectiveness” (Veenman 1995, p. 2).
It is an essential aspect of professional development that mentees learn to set goals,
which then requires reflection on the success of achieving these goals. Goals, the
mission, and the tasks are at the centre of an organisation’s structure (Helgesen 1995).
Mentors can guide the professional growth of mentees by promoting reflection and
fostering the norms of collaboration and shared inquiry by referring to pre-organised
goals. To do this mentors need to establish with the mentee key goals and, through
careful questioning and guidance, encourage the mentee to use self-reflection that will
lead to a higher level of expertise. These frontline people are knowledgeable
practitioners and the “walking archives” (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995, p. 152). This
professional knowledge includes knowing how to reap new competitive advantage
opportunities (Husted & Allen 2000), risk management strategies (Hockerts 2001;
Lucas, Lafferty, & Wollin 2002), and professionally responsible behaviour (Waddock
2002).
Identifying factors for mentoring
5
This article draws upon a series of studies (Hudson 2004a, 2004b; Hudson & Skamp
2003; Hudson, Skamp, & Brooks 2004c) that have identified mentoring factors for
developing teaching practices. These studies involved gathering mentees’ perceptions of
their mentoring in teaching; the largest study (n=331, Hudson et al. 2004c) used
confirmatory factor analysis to validate the hypothesised five factors. Each of these five
factors (i.e., personal attributes, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge,
modelling, and feedback) had a Cronbach alpha reliability greater than .70 (i.e.,
“Personal Attributes”=.93, “System Requirements”=.76, “Pedagogical Knowledge”=.94,
“Modelling”=.95, and “Feedback” =.92). The final five factor model was designed to
correlate and produced acceptable goodness of fit indices (χ2=1335, df=513,
CMIDF=2.60, IFI=.922, CFI=.921, RMR=.066, RMSEA=.070; p<.001; see Hudson et
al. 2004c), which also indicating the interrelationship between the factors. However,
this paper suggests that “Pedagogical Knowledge”, which is related to teaching
knowledge, needs to be replaced by a more appropriate term for mentoring in business,
that is, “Professional Knowledge”.
Although there are generic mentoring approaches, specific mentoring will differ from
profession to profession and therefore will require specific mentoring to ensure
adequate training. Postulated from the previous studies listed above, the five factors
that may characterise mentors’ practices may be identified as personal attributes, system
requirements, professional knowledge, modelling, and feedback (see Figure 1). It is
further argued that these factors for effective mentoring are interrelated, generic, and
can apply to mentoring in all professional practices. Indeed, the personal attributes of
mentors may encircle the whole mentoring process.
Personal
6
System
Requirements
Feedback Professional
Knowledge
Modelling
Attributes
Figure 1: Five-factor mentoring model
The five factors: personal attributes (Galbraith & Cohen 1995), system requirements
(Lenton & Turner 1999), professional knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Edwards
& Collison 1996), modelling (Barab & Hay 2001), and feedback (Schon 1987), may
have associated mentoring attributes and practices linked to the development of
professional practices. By articulating these associated attributes and practices, it may
be possible to more clearly define the mentor’s role for developing effective practice.
Each of these theoretical factors and associated attributes and practices are discussed in
the following five sections.
Factor 1: Personal attributes
Researchers claim that mentors should be selected on their interpersonal ability to interact
with adults (Fairbanks, Freedman, & Kahn 2000; Jonson 2002). Learning takes place
within the social context (Kerka 1999), and in professions that have a focus on social
interaction, interpersonal skills are seen as a basic requirement for effective performance
(Ratsoy 1979). A mentor must employ personal skills in a two-way dialogue (Edwards &
Collison 1995). Wang and Odell (2002) claim that mentors’ personal dispositions towards
7
their profession can have a strong impact on the mentees’ learning. More specifically, the
mentor needs to be supportive and attentive to the mentee’s communication (Ackley &
Gall 1992), which allows for a more effective learning environment in which the mentees’
skills can be developed (Peterson & Williams 1998). The mentor must also assist the
mentee to reflect on specific practices (Upson, Koballa, & Gerber 2002). Finally, instilling
positive attitudes and confidence (Matters 1994) appears reliant upon the mentor’s
personal approach.
Factor 2: System requirements
System requirements provide a direction for the profession and present a framework for
regulating the quality of practices. This requires mentors to provide for their mentees
clear and obtainable goals (Helgesen 1995), relevant policies (Luna & Cullen 1995;
Riggs & Sandlin 2002), and most importantly knowledge of the profession’s operations
(Bybee 1997) in order to present the fundamental requirements of a system.
Factor 3: Professional knowledge
Researchers (Drucker 1996; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995) have shown that developing
effective practice requires the acquisition of particular knowledge. Bishop (2001), for
example, argues the necessity for “professional practical knowledge”. Specifically,
mentors need to provide the professional knowledge for: planning (e.g., Jarvis et al. 2001);
preparation (e.g., Williams 1993); problem solving (Ackley & Gall 1992); management
(Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995); implementing effective practice (Briscoe & Peters 1997); and
assessment of practice (e.g., Jarvis et al. 2001). For developing the mentee’s practices,
mentors also need to provide other viewpoints.
Factor 4: Modelling
Effective mentors model practice (Galvez-Hjoernevik 1986) and professional skills are
learned more effectively through modelling (Tomlinson 1995). Modelling practice allows
mentees to develop a greater understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses (Moran
1990). Apart from displaying enthusiasm for the profession (Van Ast 2002), mentors need
8
to model: a rapport with their clients (e.g., Bell 1996); planning (Nonaka & Takeuchi
1995); professional language (Jarvis et al. 2001; Williams & McBride 1989);
implementation of practice (Raizen & Michelson 1994); and competent management
(Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995).
Factor 5: Feedback
Numerous researchers (Bishop 2001; Jonson 2002; Little 1990; Schon 1987; Wyatt,
Meditz, Reeves, & Carr 1999) have reported that constructive feedback on practice is vital
to the mentoring process. Feedback allows for the mentee to reflect and improve upon
practice. Having the experience to formulate a personal professional philosophy, potential
mentors should possess the appropriate vocabulary to articulate practices, as the mentee’s
development can be enhanced by the mentor’s focused discussion about practice (Drucker
1996; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). Indeed, basic mentoring requires mentors to discuss
suggestions for practice in the context of the workplace (Allsop & Benson 1996).
Specifically, mentors need to observe practice in order to provide oral and written
feedback on aspects associated with the mentor’s professional knowledge (Ganser 1996),
which also includes reviewing plans (e.g., Monk & Dillon 1995), and assisting in
developing the mentee’s evaluation of practice (Long 1995). Linked to the provision of
feedback is the mentor’s articulation of expectations and goals (Drucker 1996; Ganser
2002a; Klug & Salzman 1990; Koki 1997).
There is little evidence that mentors encourage mentees to think critically about their
professional practices and this is why mentoring needs to be planned (Edwards & Collison
1996). Goal setting, which specifically includes objectives, can enable the mentor to plan
for specific guided feedback on the mentee’s practices. Mentoring should be an intentional
process, as a formal mentoring program “…increases the likelihood that the protégé’s
needs will be met” (Ackley & Gall 1992, p. 23). Ackley and Gall also claim that the
conversations occurring between mentor and mentee are at the heart of the mentoring
relationship, and the provision of feedback is a considerable aspect for improving
practices. In order to provide feedback the mentor must at least observe the mentee’s
practices (Jonson 2002; Portner 2002). Even though from this point feedback contributes
9
to the mentee’s practices, mentors need to focus on clear objectives in order to be most
effective (Curran & Goldrick 2002). Indeed, feedback will be more useful if it addresses
the mentee’s needs in relation to the objectives that aim at producing effective practices.
Addressing the negative aspects of mentoring
Even though there appear to be countless positive effects of mentoring, there are
negative aspects that can affect the mentoring process. In teacher education for
example, studies by McLaughlin (1993), Fullan and Hargreaves (1996), and Long
(1997) have found collaborative environments that stifle innovation and reinforce
traditional practice, even though this appears not to be the norm (Little, 1993). In
general terms, Giebelhaus and Bendixon-Noe (1997) identify three problem areas in the
highly complex field of mentoring. They claim that the main concerns deal with “…the
definition of mentoring, the role of mentors, and the selection of mentors” (p. 22).
Although problems vary from practice to practice, there appear to be three main
problem areas that may be relevant to mentoring in businesses: mentee’s preparation,
mentee’s accountability, and mentor’s knowledge and skills (Campbell & Kovar 1994).
However, other pitfalls to mentoring include an over dependence on the part of the
mentee that may hinder the mentor (Heller & Sindelar 1991). Conversely, a mentee
who excels may receive positive affirmations from others and even comparison with the
mentor’s ability which may “show up” the mentor, and hence create ego problems on
the part of the mentor. Managing the mentor’s time is another consideration. Finally,
and more relevant to larger businesses, selecting and matching suitable mentors may
present difficulty, particularly as collaborative relationships are characterised by
respect, collegiality, and willingness from both parties to do be involved in a mentoring
relationship. In addition, mentors will need to have not only the experience and
expertise but also the ability to articulate effective practices.
Educating mentors towards effective mentoring practices
Although there are opportunities such as courses to learn how to manage new staff,
“…more high-level training needs to occur for the mentor” (Riggs & Sandlin 2002, p.
5). In most cases, “mentors are thrust into the new role of mentoring with only the most
10