11 CHAPTER 4shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/10586/11/11_chapter 4.pdf · Chapter 4 Findings and ... (1. Team orientation 2. ... effect of mentoring is moderately effective

1

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS

2

Chapter 4

Findings and Analysis of Data

This chapter is divided into three parts. Firstly to identify the various innovative practices

used by Business schools in mentoring, and then to analyse them from the mentees post

mentoring in form of feedback, which was both qualitative as well as quantitative.

Quantitative analysis of the feedback was conducted with the help of descriptive statistics,

whereas the Qualitative findings have been tabulated. Thirdly to evaluate the relationship

between Emotional Intelligence profile of a management student and his choice of the sector.

As mentioned in the previous chapter an Exploratory study has been conducted to get an in

depth knowledge about the concept of mentoring being used by Business schools. Data has

been collected with the aid of qualitative methodology in form of in-depth interviews with

experienced mentors.

It was found that a mentoring process typically included the following processes: Group

Discussions (GDs), Discovery Interviews (DIs), Group Personal Interviews, Personal

Interviews (PIs).

Once the mentees were guided by the mentors for the above mentioned process activities, the

mentees were then asked to rate the effect of mentoring on each mentoring process activity as

a feedback for mentoring. The rating was conducted on a 4 point scale, where 0 = least

effective, 1 = somewhat effective, 2 = moderately effective, 3 = very effective.

3

Corporate GDs

Corporate GDs were conducted to create an effective managerial scenario. The seating plan

of 10 to 12 on one end facing the same numbers on the other side enabled them to realise the

concept of one-on-one mapping. There were two (2) discussions conducted in each group.

Therefore, there were two roles to be assumed by each student, one, as a participant and two,

as an observer. The time taken per group was two hours. The parameters used for assessment

were explained elaborately in 5 minutes according to the following 5 major parameters:

A. Extent of participation

( 1. Opening 2. Number of times participated 3. Summarisation)

B. New ideas contributed

(1. Creativity 2. Relevance 3. Real life examples 4. Content)

C. Building on others’ ideas

(1. Listening 2. Assimilation 3. Number of Original Ideas)

D. Disagreeing with respect, without being offensive

(1. Patience 2. Culture 3. Confidence)

E. Leading the group, encouraging participation by all

(1. Team orientation 2. Influencing others)

The participating group was given two topics to pick from. With a preparatory time of 2

minutes given to the group, the discussion lasted for 15 minutes. The feedback for each

student was given by a) Student observer and the b) Mentor within the total time of 35

minutes, including time taken for answering queries.

The students were then asked to rate the effect of mentoring on the Group discussion activity

based on the above mentioned factors for Group discussion. The results for which are as

follows:

4

GROUP DISCUSSION RESULTS GD Parameter: Extent of Participation results

Table1: Extent of Participation percentage results

Figure 1: Extent of Participation distribution

For the parameter, “Extent of participation”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for

mentoring to be moderately effective which was around 55% whereas 23% rated it to be very

effective. As less as 7% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective for the given parameter

of Group Discussion. From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter,

Extent of Participation, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the

effect of mentoring is moderately effective because Group Discussion is many a times turns out to be

very chaotic, hence it becomes difficult for students to participate in the chaos, hence an effective

guidance from a mentor regarding, when and how to participate must have created a good impact on

the mentee, hence the maximum rating would have turned out for Moderately effective.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Extent of Participation

0

1

2

3

Parameters/Score 0 1 2 3

Extent of Participation

67 (7.4%) 127 (14.11 %) 498 (55.3 %) 208 (23.1 %)

5

GD Parameter: News Ideas Contributed results

Table 2: News Ideas Contributed percentage results

Fig 2: News Ideas Contributed distribution

For the parameter, “New ideas contributed”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for

mentoring to be moderately effective which was around 42% whereas 23% rated it to be somewhat


of Group Discussion. From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter,

New ideas contributed, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the

effect of mentoring is moderately effective because Group Discussion at one given point of time

becomes repetitive and hence brings boredom, hence an effective guidance from a mentor regarding

when and how to contribute new idea must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the

maximum rating would have turned out for Moderately effective.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

New Ideas Contributed

0

1

2

3


New Ideas Contributed 84 (9.3 %) 212 (23.5 %) 381 (42.3%) 123 (13.6%)

6

GD Parameter: Building on other’s ideas results

Table3 :Building on other’s ideas percentage results

Fig 3: Building on other’s ideas distribution

For the parameter, “Building on other’s ideas”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for

mentoring to be somewhat effective which was around 40% whereas around 36% rated it to be

moderately effective. As less as 10% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective for the

given parameter of Group Discussion, and 13% found mentoring to be very effective for this

parameter. From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Building

on other’s ideas, was somewhat effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of

mentoring is somewhat effective because building on other’s ideas mostly is impromptu, and would

require more practice over a period of time, which may not create immediate impact through

Mentoring, though as shown in the graph the percentage of very effective mentoring for this

parameter is slightly higher than that of least effective.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Building on other’s ideas

0

1

2

3


Building on other’s ideas 94 (10.4 %) 364 (40.4 %) 323 (35.8 %) 119 (13.2%)

7

GD Parameter: Disagreeing with respect without being offensive results

Table4 : Disagreeing with respect without being offensive percentage results

Fig4 : Disagreeing with respect without being offensive distribution

For the parameter, “Disagreeing with respect without being offensive”, as seen from the above table,

maximum voted for mentoring to be somewhat effective which was around 38% though there was not

much difference between somewhat effective and least effective 35% that may be because of the

aggressive nature of the students, to prove their point, beyond a point of time, they may get offensive

and mentoring for disagree with respect may not be effective at one setting and may require few more

mentoring sessions. Hence we find a subsequent drop in the percentages of mentoring being

moderately effective and very effective.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Disagreeing with respect without being offensive

0

1

2

3


Disagreeing with respect without being offensive

315 (35 %) 341 (37.8 %) 171 (19%) 73(8.1 %)

8

GD Parameter: Leading the group, ensuring participation by all results

Table 5:Leading the group, ensuring participation by all percentage results

Fig 5:Leading the group, ensuring participation by all distribution

For the parameter, “Leading the group ensuring participation by all”,as seen from the above table,

maximum voted for mentoring to be moderately effective which was around 45% whereas 20% rated

it to be very effective. As less as 11% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective for the

given parameter of Group Discussion. From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall

for the parameter, Leading the group ensuring participation by all, was moderately effective. From

these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective an effective

guidance from a mentor regarding, when and howtolead and involve all must have created a good

impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating would have turned out for Moderately effective.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Leading the group, ensuring participation by all

0

1

2

3


Leading the group, ensuring participation by all

99 (11%) 409 (45.4%) 208 (23.1%) 184 (20.4%)

9

Discovery Interviews

Discovery Interviews acted as a bridge between real Personal Interviews and the

unpreparedness of the student. This interview was held as a pre-curser to real PI. The

objective of DI was to unleash the potential in a candidate and gauge the depth of the

candidate bringing him in a “comfort zone”. This was a 12 to 15 minute process. Before

starting the process, they were briefed regarding how this was to be a heart to heart session,

how they needed to consider the mentor as a friend and open up. Students were asked

questions such as What makes you cry? Why?, Which is the biggest lie that you would have

spoken?, If your best friend had to speak about you, what three things would he say?, Who is

your role model and why?, Which is your dream sector and why?, If not an MBA, what

would you have done?, Which is the biggest fear that you have?, What has been the greatest

achievement in your life? How did you celebrate it? While talking to the student, the mentor

made sure that he maintained eye contact with the student to make him feel comfortable. The

idea was to allow the student to open up during the conversation.

The students were then asked to rate the effect of mentoring on the Discovery interview

activity based on the above mentioned factors for Discovery interview. The results for which

are as follows:

10

DISCOVERY INTERVIEW RESLUTS

D.I Parameter: Personality results

Table 6: Personality percentage. Results

Fig 6: Personality distribution

For the parameter, “Personality”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to be

moderately effective which was around 55% whereas 13% rated it to be very effective. As less as 6%

of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective for the given parameter of Discovery

Interview.Whereas around 25% rated it to be somewhat effective. From the given data one can

conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Personality, was moderately effective. From these

results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because Discovery

Interview brings out a lot of unknown facets in a person on surface, which helps in knowing ones

personality better. D.I. stands as a mirror, discovering your personality, hence an effective guidance of

a mentor regarding, understanding ones personality must have created a good impact on the mentee,

hence the maximum rating would have turned out for Moderately effective.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Personality

0

1

2

3


Personality 58 (6.4 %) 222 (24.6%) 501 (55.6%) 119 (13.2 %)

11

D.I Parameter: Body Language results

Table 7: Body Language percentage results

Fig 7: Body Language distribution

For the parameter, “Body Language”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to

be moderately effective which was around 58% whereas 11.5% rated it to be very effective. As less as

7% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective for the given parameter of Discovery

Interview.Whereas around 23.5% rated it to be somewhat effective. From the given data one can

conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Body Language, was moderately effective. From

these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because Body

Language approximately controls 70% and above of a person’s communication which is well

reflected in the Discovery Interview and thus can be well crafted, hence an effective guidance of a

mentor regarding, understanding ones Body Language must have created a good impact on the

mentee, hence the maximum rating would have turned out for Moderately effective.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Body Language

0

1

2

3


Body Language 62 (6.8 %) 212 (23.5%) 522 (58%) 104 (11.5 %)

12

D.I Parameter: Handling Pressure results

Table 8 : Handling Pressure percentage results

Fig 8: Handling Pressure distribution

For the parameter, “ Handling Pressure”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring

to be moderately effective which was around 59% whereas 15% rated it to be very effective. As less

as 5% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective for the given parameter of Discovery


conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Handling Pressure, was moderately effective.

From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because

normally a student specially who is a fresher is stressed facing a job interview which is well reflected

in the Discovery Interview and thus can be well crafted. Hence an effective guidance from a mentor

regarding, understanding one’s stress must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Handling Pressure

0

1

2

3


Handling Pressure 42 (4.6%) 188 (20.8 %) 532 (59.1 %) 138 (15.3%)

13

D.I Parameter: Self Awareness results

Table 9: Self Awareness percentage results

Fig 9: Self Awareness distribution

For the parameter, “Self Awareness”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to

be moderately effective which was around 55% whereas 14% rated it to be very effective. As less as



conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Self Awareness, was moderately effective. From

these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because Self

awarenessisa quality which is at the most reflected in the Discovery Interview and thus can be well

crafted. Hence an effective guidance of a mentor regarding, understanding oneself Awareness must

have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating would have turned out for

Moderately effective.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Self Awareness

0

1

2

3


Self Awareness 44 (4.8 %) 232 (25.7%) 496 (55.1 %) 128 (14.2 %)

14

D.I Parameter: Thought clarity results

Table10 : Thought clarity percentage results

Fig 10: Thought clarity distribution

For the parameter, “Thought clarity”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to

be somewhat effective which was around 49% whereas just 10% rated it to be very effective. Roughly


Interview, leaving not much significant difference between least and most effective percentage values.

Around 25% rated it to be moderately effective. From the given data one can conclude that mentoring,

overall for the parameter, Thought clarity, was somewhat effective. From these results it can be

interpreted that the effect of mentoring is somewhat effective and not moderately or very effective

because though clarity cannot be imbibed at one setting of mentoring and hence may require few

more mentoring sessions.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Thought clarity

0

1

2

3


Thought clarity 98(10.8 %) 442 (49.1%) 278 (30.8%) 82(9.1%)

15

D.I Parameter: Verbal communication results

Table11 : Verbal communication percentage results

Fig 11: Verbal communication distribution

For the parameter, “Verbal communication”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for

mentoring to be somewhat effective which was around 53% whereas just 9% rated it to be very

effective. Roughly 12% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective for the given parameter

of Discovery Interview, whereas around 25% rated it to be moderately effective. From the given data

one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Verbal communication, was somewhat

effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is somewhat effective

and not moderately or very effective because verbal communication cannot be imbibed at one setting

of mentoring and hence may require more practice on the part of the mentee.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Verbal communication

0

1

2

3


Verbal communication 84 (9.3%) 245 (27.2%) 472 (52.4%) 99 (11 %)

16

D.I Parameter: Creativity results

Table 12: Creativity percentage results

Fig 12:Creativity distribution

For the parameter, “Creativity”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to be

somewhat effective which was around 53% whereas just 9% rated it to be very effective. Roughly


Interview, whereas around 25% rated it to be moderately effective. From the given data one can

conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Creativity, was somewhat effective. From these

results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is somewhat effective and not moderately or

very effective because creativity cannot be imbibed at one setting of mentoring and hence may

require few more mentoring sessions.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Creativity

0

1

2

3


Creativity 112 (12.4%) 482 (53.5%) 227 (25.2 %) 79 (8.7%)

17

D.I Parameter: Passion results

Table 13:Passion percentage results

Fig 13: Passion distribution

For the parameter, “Passion”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to be




conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Passion, was somewhat effective. From these

results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is somewhat effective because passion varies

from person to person, and it becomes difficult to mentor a student about being passionate and bring

him to the same level of passion as that of mentor in one setting. Hence it is required that some more

mentoring sessions to be conducted for this parameter.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Passion

0

1

2

3


Passion 122 (13.5 %) 498 (55.3%) 242 (26.8%) 90 (10 %)

18

D.I Parameter: Aggression results

Table 14: Aggression percentage results

Fig 14:Aggression distribution

For the parameter, “Aggression”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to be




conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Aggression, was somewhat effective. From these

results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is somewhat effective because the mentees

being predominantly youth, aggression was something which had to be practised to be controlled over

a period of time, which was not much effective with one setting of mentoring, hence require some

more mentoring sessions for this parameter.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Aggression

0

1

2

3


Aggression 161 (17.8 %) 512 (56.8 %) 238 (26.4 %) 69 (7.6%)

19

Personal Interviews

Personal Interviews (PIs) were conducted for around half an hour for each student. The

questions were a combination of both general and specialization oriented ones. The idea was

to assess the student with respect to Career Vision/Goal Orientation, Personality Impact,

Communication, Knowledge and General awareness. This was accomplished by conducting

the PIs in 3 key phases:

Phase 1: Warming Up/Opening questions:

Personality Impact was assessed by asking the student to tell something about himself in two

minutes. To assess clarity of thought and career vision, the student was asked about his goal

in life and where did he see himself five years from now. Communication was judged by

asking questions like what are your greatest strengths, weaknesses?, what are your co-

curricular interests?

Phase 2: Specialisation–oriented questions:

The student’s knowledge in the area of specialization was assessed by asking about why he

chose a certain stream, what he thought about the current status and growth prospects in the

industry/sector of choice, what was his dream company/dream job and why?

Phase 3: General questions: The candidate’s creativity, ability to handle pressure, passion,

ethics, general awareness etc. was evaluated by asking questions like what makes you unique

for a specific job, what type of work environment appeals to you the most?, Is there any fast

track route for super-achievers? etc.

The students were then asked to rate the effect of mentoring on the Personal interview

activity based on the above mentioned factors for Personal interview. The results for which

are as follows:

20

PERSONAL INTERVIEW RESLUTS

P.I Parameter: Personality Impact results

Table15 : Personality Impact percentage results

Fig 15: Personality Impact distribution

For the parameter, “Personality Impact”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring

to be moderately effective which was around 48% whereas just 36% rated it to be very effective. As

less as 6% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective and around 10% found out mentoring

to be somewhat effective for the given parameter of Personal Interviews. From the given data one can

conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Personality Impact, was moderately effective.

From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because

guidance on how to create a strong personal impact in a personal interview must have created a good

impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating would have turned out for Moderately effective.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Personality Impact

0

1

2

3


Personality Impact 54 (6%) 93 (10.3%) 428 (47.5 %) 325 (36.1%)

21

P.I Parameter: Career Vision results

Table 16: Career Vision percentage results

Fig 16: Career Vision distribution

For the parameter, “Career Vision”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to be

moderately effective which was around 35% whereas 23% rated it to be very effective. As less as

14% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective and around 27.5% found out mentoring to

be somewhat effective for the given parameter of Personal Interviews. From the given data one can

conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Career Vision, was moderately effective. From

these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because guidance

on how to have a clear career vision for a personal interview must have created a good impact on the


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Career Vision

0

1

2

3


Career Vision 130 (14.4%) 248 (27.5%) 312 (34.6%) 210 (23.3%)

22

P.I Parameter: Communication results

Table 17: Communication percentage results

Fig 17: Communication distribution

For the parameter, “Communication”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to

be moderately effective which was around 48% whereas just 26% rated it to be very effective. As less

as 10% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective and around 16% found out mentoring to

be somewhat effective for the given parameter of Personal Interviews. From the given data one can

conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Communication, was moderately effective. From

these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because guidance

on how to improve on ones’ basic communication skill in a personal interview must have created a

good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating would have turned out for Moderately

effective.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Communication

0

1

2

3


Communication 91 (10.1 %) 142 (15.7%) 436 (48.4 %) 231(25.6 %)

23

P.I Parameter: Knowledge results

Table 18: Knowledge percentage results

Fig 18: Knowledge distribution

For the parameter, “Knowledge”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to be

moderately effective which was around 44% whereas just 13% rated it to be very effective. As less as

9% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective and around 34% found out mentoring to be

somewhat effective for the given parameter of Personal Interviews. From the given data one can

conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Knowledge, was moderately effective. From these

results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because an effective

guidance of Knowledge with regards to the concepts and fundamentals or with regards to their

summer projects must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating would

have turned out for Moderately effective.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Knowledge

0

1

2

3


Knowledge 81(9%) 304 (33.7%) 399 (44.3%) 116 (12.8%)

24

P.I Parameter: General Awareness results

Table 19: General Awareness percentage results

Fig 19: General Awareness distribution

For the parameter, “General Awareness”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring

to be moderately effective which was around 34% close around the percentage figure for somewhat

effective rating which was 30% and least effective to be around 28%. From the given data one can

conclude that there was no significant difference in the percentages mentoring, among moderately

effective, somewhat effective and least effective because General Awareness is a continuous learning

process, where in a student has to constantly upgrade himself with the latest happenings. A mentoring

session will only sensitize the awareness level of general knowledge. Repeat sessions on general

awareness may increase the impact of mentoring for this parameter.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

General Awareness

0

1

2

3


General Awareness 251 (27.8%) 270 (30%) 309 (34.3%) 70 (7.7%)

25

P.I Parameter: Confidence results

Table 20: Confidence percentage results

Fig 20: Confidence distribution

For the parameter, “Confidence”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to be

moderately effective which was around 46% whereas 33.5% rated it to be very effective. As less as

6% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective for the given parameter of Personal

Interviews. From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter

Confidence, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of

mentoring is moderately effective because an effective guidance of how to boost ones’ confidence in

a personal interview must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating

would have turned out for Moderately effective.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Confidence

0

1

2

3


Confidence 52 (5.7%) 118 (13.1%) 418 (46.4%) 302 (33.5%)

26

Group Interviews

Group Interviews were meant to expose the students to a peer group with around 10 students

with a Mentor in the centre. The session was scheduled for an hour. This session was a high

pressure session for the candidates since questions were technical in nature and at the same

time one had to face the peers seated next to them. The group sessions invoked comparison

besides a fear of failure. The idea was to go deep into the functional knowledge and summer

projects. The questions were asked at random to any student and once he answered, the

Mentor immediately cross checked with another candidate for his views. Such sessions

ensured asking students to introduce themselves and talk about their experience during

summers. Besides this, each student was questioned about basic concepts in the area of study.

Each student would get at least four opportunities to speak. The Mentor ended the session by

giving feedback on their flow of thoughts, knowledge and body language.

The students were then asked to rate the effect of mentoring on the Group interview activity

based on the above mentioned factors for Group interview. The results for which are as

follows:

27

GROUP INTERVIEW RESLUTS

G.I Parameter: Ability to Introduce yourself results

Table21 :Ability to Introduce yourself percentage results

Fig 21:Ability to Introduce yourself distribution

For the parameter, “Ability to introduce yourself”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for

mentoring to be moderately effective which was around 46% whereas 33.5% rated it to be very


of Group Interviews. From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter

Ability to introduce yourself, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that

the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because an effective guidance of how to introduce

yourself among the rest of the students in a group interview must have created a good impact on the


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Ability to Introduce yourself

0

1

2

3


Ability to Introduce yourself

73 (8.1%) 114 (12.6 %) 411 (45.6%) 302 (33.5%)

28

G.I Parameter: Ability to talk about summers results

Table 22:Ability to talk about summers percentage results

Fig 22:Ability to talk about summers distribution

For the parameter, “Ability to talk about your summers”, as seen from the above table, maximum

voted for mentoring to be moderately effective which was around 45% whereas 32% rated it to be

very effective. As less as 8% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective for the given

parameter of Group Interviews. From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the

parameter Ability to talk about your summers, was moderately effective. From these results it can be

interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because an effective guidance of how

to talk about your summers with regards to the content, technicalities in summer project among the

rest of the students in a group interview must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Ability to talk about summers

0

1

2

3


Ability to talk about summers

72 (8%) 138 (15.3%) 404 (44.8%) 286 (31.7%)

29

G.I Parameter: Knowledge within area of specialization results

Table 23:Knowledge within area of specialization percentage results

Fig 23:Knowledge within area of specialization distribution

For the parameter, “Knowledge within area of specialization”, as seen from the above table,

maximum voted for mentoring to be moderately effective which was around 43% whereas 15% rated

it to be very effective. As less as 12% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective for the

given parameter of Group Interviews. From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall

for the parameter Knowledge within area of specialization, was moderately effective. From these

results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because an effective

guidance of Knowledge within area of specialization with regards to the concepts and fundamentals

must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating would have turned out for


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Knowledge within area of specialization

0

1

2

3


Knowledge within area of specialization

109(12.1%) 276 (30.6%) 384 (42.6%) 131 (14.5%)

30

G.I Parameter: General awareness results

Table 24:General awareness percentage results

Fig 24:General awareness distribution

For the parameter, “General Awareness”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring

to be moderately effective which was around 35% whereas hardly 10% rated it to be very effective.

Around 32% of the mentees found mentoring to be somewhat effective for the given parameter of

Group Interviews. From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter

General awareness, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that there is not

much significant difference between moderately effective and somewhat effective, as well as the

percentage of least effective is high compared to other parameters because General Awareness is a

continuous learning process, where in a student has to constantly upgrade himself with the latest

happenings. A mentoring session will only sensitize the awareness level of general knowledge. Repeat

sessions on general awareness may increase the impact of mentoring for this parameter.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

General awareness

0

1

2

3


General awareness 212 (23.5%) 289 (32.1%) 312 (34.6%) 87 (9.6%)

31

G.I Parameter: Confidence level results

Table 25:Confidence level percentage results

Fig 25:Confidence level distribution

For the parameter, “Confidence level”, as seen from the above table, maximum voted for mentoring to

be moderately effective which was around 45% whereas 36% rated it to be very effective. As less as

7% of the mentees found mentoring to be least effective for the given parameter of Group Interviews.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Confidence level, was

moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is

moderately effective because a good Mentor can boost on the Confidence level of a student

particularly when the student is exposed to a group. Hence an effective guidance of a mentor

regarding, how to stand confident among the rest of the students in a group interview must have

created a good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating would have turned out for


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Confidence level

0

1

2

3


Confidence level 62 (6.8%) 109 (12.1%) 408 (45.3%) 321 (35.6%)

32

For analyzing the second set of objectives, the four EQ parameters (Literacy, Competency,

Values & Beliefs and Outcomes) spread across 16 scales are rated by the respondents and the

responses are translated into their respective performance zones (Optimal, Proficient,

Vulnerable, Cautionary). The respondents at the time of survey have chosen the sector of

their choice mentioned as Expected sector, and after their EQ mapping, the mentors are able

to suggest the sector to the respondents mentioned as Suggested sector. A Frequency cross

tabulation between the Expected sector and the Suggested sector for individual EQ parameter

is taken into consideration for analyses. A Descriptive statistics thus, in form of frequency

cross-tab and percentages, has been used to analyze the scores of the respondents as well as

Inferential statistics has been performed in form of Chi-square test of association to test the

hypothesis, whether there exists any significant difference in the expected sector by the

respondent and the suggested sector by the mentor. (If there exists a significant difference,

one can conclude that Mentoring with the aid of E.I. as a mentoring tool is effective, thus

rejecting the Null hypothesis as mentioned in chapter 1) for each EQ parameter using SPSS

19.0 version.

The data analysis for EQ Literacy level has been analyzed and the observations are tabulated

as under:

EQ Literacy Cross tabulation

For the EQ parameter Literacy a cross tabulation has been performed between the suggested

sector and the expected sector for a sample of 900 Business school students. The cross

tabulation table is preceded by the case processing summary.

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

EQ Literacy Suggested

sector * EQ Literacy

Expected sector

900 100.0% 0 .0% 900 100.0%

Table 26 : Case Processing Summary EQ Literacy Cross tabulation

Table 26 shows the total number of cases observed and analyzed to be 900, with no cases missing.

33

EQ Literacy Expected sector

Total

BD, Banking,

Insurance,

FMCG, Retail,

Adv

Sales, Product

Development in

Finance or

Telecomm,

Creative in Adv

Research

Profile,

Media,

Design/Dev

p in Auto

Service

Profile, HR,

Proj

Managemen

t, Hsp

EQ Literacy

Suggested sector

Not Sector 1 58 124 104 108 394

BD, Banking,

Insurance,

FMCG, Retail,

Adv

230 112 89 75 506

Total 288 236 193 183 900

Table 27: EQ Literacy Suggested sector * EQ Literacy Expected sector

Crosstabulation

Table 27 shows a Frequency Cross tabulation between the Expected sector Vs Suggested

sector from the EQ Literacy level point of consideration. Its been observed that out of a total

of 900 cases, 32% (288) expects BD/Banking/Insurance/FMCG/retail/Adv sector, 26% (236)

expects Sales/Product development in Finance/Telecomm/ Creative pro in Adv sector, ~21%

(193) expects careers in Research profile, Media, Design &Devp in Auto sector whereas

roughly 20 % (183) expects Service profile, HR, Project Mgmt, Hospitality sector.

43.77% (394) are suggested not to pursue their careers in the

BD/Banking/Insurance/FMCG/retail/Adv sector, whereas 56.22% (506) are suggested the

above mentioned sector (Sector 1).

There are roughly 25% of respondents (230/900) whose expected and suggested sector

matches, whereas the rest of the figures in Table 1 suggest a mismatch between the two, say

112 respondents represents respondents interested in sector 2 (Devp in Finance/Telecom..)

but are suggested Sector 1 (BD, Banking, Insurance…)

34

Hypothesis Testing results for EQ Literacy level

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-tailed)

Pearson Chi-Square 98.029a 3 .000

Likelihood Ratio 103.702 3 .000

Linear-by-Linear

Association

73.724 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 900

Table28: Hypothesis Testing results: Pearson Chi-Square results for EQ Literacy level

Table 28, shows the Pearson Chi-Square results for the above crosstab, to find out whether

there exists any significant difference in the expected and suggested outcomes. Using SPSS,

the p value found out to be is 0.000. Since this value is less than α = 0.01, the Null

Hypothesis is rejected, which means there exists a significant difference in the expected

sector by the respondent and the suggested sector by the mentor in the EQ Literacy level.

Thus one can conclude that Mentoring with the aid of E.I. as a mentoring tool is effective

under the EQ literacy level.

Table29 :Index of Agreement & Strength of Association between EQ Literacy

Suggested * Expected sector

Symmetric Measures

Value

Approx.

Sig.

Nominal by

Nominal

Phi .292 .000

Cramer's V .292 .000

Contingency

Coefficient

.280 .000


35

Table 29 shows the index of agreements, as in how strong is the association between the

suggested sector and the expected sector which varies from value of 0 to 1, a Phi & Cramer’s

V of 0.292 or a Contingency Coefficient of 0.280 suggests that the association between the

suggested and expected sector in the EQ Literacy level is weak.

EQ CompetencyCrosstabulation:

For the EQ parameter Competency cross tabulation has been performed between the

suggested sector and the expected sector for a sample of 900 Business school students. The

cross tabulation table is preceded by the case processing summary.


Cases

Valid Missing Total


EQ Competency

Suggested sector * EQ

Competency Suggested

sector

900 100.0% 0 .0% 900 100.0%

Table 30 :Case Processing Summary EQ Competency Cross tabulation

Table 30 shows the total number of cases observed and analyzed to be 900, with no cases

missing.

36

EQ Competency Suggested sector * EQ Competency Expected sector Cross tabulation

Count

EQ Competency Expected sector

Total

BD,

Banking,

Insurance,

FMCG,

Retail, Adv

Sales,

Product

Development

in Finance or

Telecomm,

Creative in

Adv

Research

Profile,

Media,

Design/Dev

p in Auto

Service

Profile, HR,

ProjManage

ment

Hospitality

EQ

Competency

Suggested

sector

Not Sector 2 159 52 100 104 415

Sales/PdtDvp in

Finance or Telecomm,

Creative in Adv

128 185 93 79 485

Total 287 237 193 183 900

Table 31 :EQCompetency Suggested sector * EQ Competency Expected sector

Crosstabulation


sector from the EQ Competency level point of consideration. It has been observed that out of

a total of 900 cases, 32% (287) expects BD/Banking/Insurance/FMCG/retail/Adv sector, 26%

(237) expects Sales/Product development in Finance/Telecomm/ Creative pro in Adv sector,

~21% (193) expects careers in Research profile, Media, Design &Devp in Auto sector

whereas roughly 20 % (183) expects Service profile, HR, Project Mgmt, Hospitality sector.

46.11% (415) are suggested not to pursue their careers in the Sales/Product development in

Finance/Telecomm/ Creative pro in Adv sector (Sector 2).

There are roughly 20.55% of respondents (185/900) whose expected and suggested sector


128 respondents represents respondents interested in sector 1

(BD/Banking/Insurance/FMCG/retail/Adv sector) but are suggested Sector 2 (Sales/Product

development in Finance/Telecomm)

37

Hypothesis Testing results for EQ Competency level

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-tailed)



Linear-by-Linear

Association

1.978 1 .160


Table 32 : Hypothesis Testing results: Pearson Chi-Square

results for EQ Competency level





sector by the respondent and the suggested sector by the mentor in the EQ Competency level.


under the EQ Competency level.

Symmetric Measures

Value

Approx.

Sig.

Nominal by

Nominal

Phi .284 .000


Contingency

Coefficient

.278 .000


Table 33: Index of Agreement & Strength of Association between EQ

Competency Suggested * Expected sector




suggested and expected sector in the EQ Competency level is weak.

38

EQ Values & Beliefs (V&B)Crosstabulation:

For the EQ parameter Values & Beliefs a cross tabulation has been performed between the

suggested sector and the expected sector for a sample of 900 Business school students. The

cross tabulation table is preceded by the case processing summary.


Cases

Valid Missing Total


EQ Values & Beliefs

Suggested sector * EQ

Values & Beliefs

Expected sector

900 100.0% 0 .0% 900 100.0%

Table 34: Case Processing Summary EQ V&B Cross tabulation


missing.

EQ Values & Beliefs Suggested sector * EQ Values & Beliefs Expected sector Crosstabulation

EQ Values & Beliefs Expected sector

Total

BD,

Banking,

Insurance,

FMCG,

Retail,

Adv

Sales,

Product

Development

in Finance or

Telecomm,

Creative in

Adv

Research

Profile,

Media,

Design/Dev

p in Auto

Service

Profile, HR,

Proj

Management

, Hsp

EQ Values & Beliefs

Suggested sector

Not Sector 3 161 127 39 91 418

Research Pro, Media,

Design/Devp in Auto

Manuf

126 110 154 92 482

Total 287 237 193 183 900

Table 35: EQ V&B Suggested sector * EQ V&B Expected sector Crosstabulation

39


sector from the EQ Values & Beliefs level point of consideration. It has been observed that

out of a total of 900 cases, ~32% (287) expects BD/Banking/Insurance/FMCG/retail/Adv

sector, 26% (237) expects Sales/Product development in Finance/Telecomm/ Creative pro in

Adv sector, ~21% (193) expects careers in Research profile, Media, Design &Devp in Auto

sector whereas roughly 20 % (183) expects Service profile, HR, Project Mgmt, Hospitality

sector.

46.44% (418) are suggested not to pursue their careers in the Research Pro, Media,

Design/Devp in Auto Manuf sector (Sector 3), whereas 53.55% (482) are suggested the


There are roughly 17.11% of respondents (154/900) whose expected and suggested sector


126 respondents represents respondents interested in Sector 1 (BD, Banking, Insurance….)

but are suggested Sector 3 (Research Pro, Media, Design/Devp in Auto Manuf …)

Hypothesis Testing results for EQ Values & Beliefs level

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed)



Linear-by-Linear

Association

15.638 1 .000


Table 36 : Hypothesis Testing results: Pearson Chi-Square results

for EQ V &B level



40



sector by the respondent and the suggested sector by the mentor in the EQ V&B level. Thus

one can conclude that Mentoring with the aid of E.I. as a mentoring tool is effective under the

EQ V&B level.

Symmetric Measures

Value

Approx.

Sig.

Nominal by

Nominal

Phi .279 .000


Contingency

Coefficient

.268 .000


Table 37: Index of Agreement & Strength of Association between EQ V &B Suggested *

Expected sector




suggested and expected sector in the EQ V&B level is weak.

EQ Outcome Cross tabulations

For the EQ parameter Outcome a cross tabulation has been performed between the suggested

sector and the expected sector for a sample of 900 Business school students. The cross

tabulation table is preceded by the case processing summary.


Cases

Valid Missing Total


41


Cases

Valid Missing Total


EQ Outcomes Suggested

sector * EQ Outcomes

Expected sector

900 100.0% 0 .0% 900 100.0%

Table 38 :Case Processing Summary EQ Outcome Cross tabulation


missing.

Table 39 :EQ Outcome Suggested sector * EQ Outcome Expected sector Cross tabulation


sector from the EQ Outcome level point of consideration. Its been observed that out of a total

of 900 cases, ~32% (287) expects BD/Banking/Insurance/FMCG/retail/Adv sector, 26%

(238) expects Sales/Product development in Finance/Telecomm/ Creative pro in Adv sector,

~21% (192) expects careers in Research profile, Media, Design &Devp in Auto sector

whereas roughly 20 % (183) expects Service profile, HR, Project Mgmt, Hospitality sector.

43.77% (413) are suggested not to pursue their careers in the

BD/Banking/Insurance/FMCG/retail/Adv sector, whereas 56.22% (506) are suggested the


There are roughly 16% of respondents (145/900) whose expected and suggested sector


116 respondents represents respondents interested in sector 2 (Devp in Finance/Telecom..)

but are suggested Sector 4 (Service Profile, HR, ProjMgmt,Hospitality…)

EQ Outcomes Suggested sector * EQ Outcomes Expected sector Cross tabulation

42

Table 39 :EQ Outcome Suggested sector * EQ Outcome Expected sector Cross tabulation

Hypothesis Testing results for EQ Outcomes level

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)



Linear-by-Linear

Association

23.638 1 .000


Table 40 : Hypothesis Testing results: Pearson Chi-Square results for

EQ Outcome level





Count

EQ Outcomes Expected sector

Total

BD,

Banking,

Insurance,

FMCG,

Retail, Adv

Sales,

Product

Development

in Finance or

Telecomm,

Creative in

Adv

Research

Profile,

Media,

Design/Devp

in Auto

Service

Profile, HR,

Proj

Management,

Hsp

EQ Outcomes

Suggested sector

Not Sector 4 143 122 110 38 413

4

Service Profile, HR,

ProjMgmt,Hospitality

144 116 82 145 487

Total 287 238 192 183 900

43

sector by the respondent and the suggested sector by the mentor in the EQ Outcome level.


under the EQ outcome level.

Symmetric Measures

Value

Approx.

Sig.

Nominal by

Nominal

Phi .267 .000


Contingency

Coefficient

.258 .000


Table 41: Index of Agreement & Strength of Association between EQ Outcome Suggested *

Expected sector




suggested and expected sector in the EQ Outcome level is weak.

For the purpose of analyzing the effect of mentoring on the sector selection of students, a

qualitative methodology was used to collect data from the mentees after they underwent the

process of mentoring. Discussions with the mentees revealed the following feedback:

No. Feedback of Mentees after mentoring

1 Encouraging & confidence boosting interaction.

2 Great advice for the future. Was highly interactive.

3 Motivational, informative, friendly.

4 Liked interacting with the Mentor & got to know many more things.

5 Good interactive communication, motivational & was given good feedback.

44


6 Awesome interaction. Mentor gave a very good feedback and motivated me to give

more than 100% in everything I do. Most important advice- Don’t Not Restrict

Yourself.

7 It was a good session. Got to learn many things about myself.

8 It was a good session, motivational, enthusiastic, and highly interactive and was given

good advice.

9 I found the session very interactive & positive. I found where I was making mistakes

about myself.

10 A good counselling session which brought confidence in me. This 15min session

showed both perspectives i.e. of the interviewer & of the interviewee. Thanks a lot.

11 Would like to have one more session after improvising myself with the inputs.

12 A very good interactive session where I came to know what I need to do to improve

my weakness. Valuable inputs from the interviewer to bring change.

13 Mentor was very quick in understanding what I fear. It was helpful in giving a

direction & made me promise something I have never done before; but in my case it

was a very short session.

14 It wasn’t an interview, rather a friendly conversation; as if interacting with a friend

who was happy to listen to me. Got motivated & cheered to achieve my dream. Thank

you!

15 It was a very good session. I came to know about some weakness which I will try to

improve upon. The best thing I liked was ‘to dream big!’

16 The best interview I have had till date. I am very clear now-where I should proceed in

life. Initially I was nervous about this interview but then it went on so smoothly;

could freely share my feelings.

17 It was a very positive atmosphere to express and quite a learning as well. I got

motivated about my goals & improvements as an individual.

18 I felt so good about knowing my problem. I’ll try to think individually & not be

influenced by others. Felt so good about it!

19 This was a really good experience to interact with the person who had good

knowledge about the field which we are interested in.

45


20 Good experience. Gave a clear & appropriate guidance. I would like to have more

sessions like this. Will now be able to focus on my weakness & my qualities.

21 A very comfortable & a relaxing interview. I need to give more time to tackle issues.

Good experience.

22 Mentor gave me wonderful insights of the areas I need to improve upon. Mentor

gave me the guidance to take initiatives & try socializing. The ozone session was very

helpful for me. It was a knowledge & experience gaining session for me.

23 One of the most jovial meetings ever. Extremely pleasant personality to interact with.

Looking forward to meet again.

24 The interaction & suggestions would surely be helpful in my future. I hope to learn

more in the forthcoming 1year of my MBA in marketing & media.

25 Amazing introspection; useful advices which will help me develop me as a human

being. Had a wonderful interaction. Loved it! Thank You!

26 Loved talking to the mentor!!! I thought talking would be difficult but after our

interview started, I wasn’t aware that I was in front of a senior person. Thank you for

the feedback. Will definitely work on it.

27 I learnt that I need to explore more opportunities & be clear about my goals.

28 I learnt about my weaknesses & strengths. This session was helpful. Asked relevant

questions which were very helpful. In all, good interview and interaction

29 Good session. Got some inputs on how to proceed in career. Interviewer kept a

neutral view on my confusion. Good experience, would like to have more such

session further.

30 Quite interactive session. I realized that I need to work on my goals & should make

the steps to achieve the same. I should also work on my weaknesses.

31 Discovery session was helpful to know about my short comings & how to work upon

them to overcome.

32 Quite an interesting & interactive session. Mentor made me more comfortable during

the process; boosted my confidence about my goal & gave advice to be more focused

in whatever I decide.

33 Interactive, motivational, gave good advice; told what things need to do to achieve the

goals.

46


34 Great interaction; useful piece of advice.

Interview was good, I got to know on what all things I need to improve and I need to

be more committed towards my goal. It was interacting with sir giving good advice.

35 Had a good conversation. Eye opener to me. Friendly talk.

36 Helped discover where & how I need to set up & achieve my goals. A firm career

path needs to be decided and strictly adhered to.

37 Good advice, nice interaction. Want to have 1 more session with you sir.

38 The session really helped me in understanding the things which are needed to be done

in life.

39 The session was so insightful. There was proper two way communication. This

session gave me in-depth suggestions on my inner self.

40 Had a really good session; was distressing. The interviewer could really connect & I

could actually talk with her. It was really productive. Thank you for a good stress

buster & an advisable session.

41 Came to know strengths & weaknesses. I have identified the loop holes. The feedback

is very useful and I will start working on it

42 It was a good experience. It was more of a personal session. The questions were

mostly concerned with my personal life. After the interview I felt light. I must thank

you for your efforts & guidance.

43 The session was really a warming one. Felt really nice, wherein our mentor would

want to know more about us apart from academics. Would love to have it once again

44 That was an awesome session that relieved me & suggested a very important thing

that is to give sometime to myself & decide gradually about my future. I learnt that

career decisions are to be taken during the course of time & not in a night. Got to

learn about the sector I have to opt for & now I’ll keep an open mind to decide about

the job profile I should go for. Thank You Very Much!

I feel this session was interactive & interesting. I came to know about my weaknesses

& even the things that I have to improve for future. I would like to attend many more

session like this. Thank you.

47

Table 42: Feedback of Mentees after mentoring

Discussion

From the findings and analysis of the data, one can understand the importance and

effectiveness of Emotional Intelligence as a tool for mentoring as it is been observed from

Table No. 3,7,11,15, which represents the Hypothesis Testing results, it has been observed

that for all the EQ parameters (Literacy, Competency, Values & Beliefs and Outcomes), p

value obtained is 0.000 at 1% level of significance which suggests that for all the EQ levels,

Null Hypothesis is rejected, which means there exists a significant difference in the expected

sector by the respondent and the suggested sector by the mentor in all the EQ parameters.

Thus one can conclude that Mentoring with the aid of E.I. as a mentoring tool is effective for

all the EQ levels.

With regards to the feedback of mentees (students) on the mentoring quantitatively, from the

findings and analysis of the data one can interpret on the feedback for mentoring on Group


45 The session was a good experience & a reality check for me as I got to know many

deeper insights of myself. Mentor made me realise a few points about myself and the

outside world (i.e. working environment) & helped me gain some knowledge of the

different sectors. All & all it was a good motivating session and hope we have more

sessions like these to develop our personality.

46 The session was interactive, interesting & knowledgeable. I came to know about my

weak points on which I have to work upon. This session will help me to improve my

performance in future. I would recommend having more sessions like this.

47 I enjoyed the session. Finally told about my insides to someone after a long time.

Good to have such session. Will be pleases to deliver the oath taken.

48 I had a very good experience. The session was very interactive. I actually got a gist of

the sectors I was interested in; which helped me think over my choice of sector again.

49 I would like to have more session of mentoring.

50 My interaction with mentor was good. I learnt one thing-‘that I should not restrict

myself with any boundary.’ I should allow myself to do anything.’

48

Discussions (GDs), Discovery Interviews (DIs), Group Personal Interviews, Personal

Interviews (PIs) from their descriptive statistics.

Group Discussion

From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective

because Group Discussion is many a times turns out to be very chaotic, hence it becomes

difficult for students to participate in the chaos, hence an effective guidance from a mentor

regarding, when and how to participate must have created a good impact on the mentee,



because Group Discussion at one given point of time becomes repetitive and hence brings

boredom, hence an effective guidance from a mentor regarding when and how to contribute

new idea must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating would

have turned out for Moderately effective.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Building on

other’s ideas, was somewhat effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect

of mentoring is somewhat effective because building on other’s ideas mostly is impromptu,

and would require more practice over a period of time, which may not create immediate

impact through Mentoring, though as shown in the graph the percentage of very effective

mentoring for this parameter is slightly higher than that of least effective.

For the parameter, “Disagreeing with respect without being offensive”, as seen from the

above table, maximum voted for mentoring to be somewhat effective which was around 38%

though there was not much difference between somewhat effective and least effective 35%

that may be because of the aggressive nature of the students, to prove their point, beyond a

point of time, they may get offensive and mentoring for disagree with respect may not be

effective at one setting and may require few more mentoring sessions. Hence we find a

subsequent drop in the percentages of mentoring being moderately effective and very

effective.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Leading the

group ensuring participation by all, was moderately effective. From these results it can be

interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective an effective guidance from a

49

mentor regarding, when and how to lead and involve all must have created a good impact on

the mentee, hence the maximum rating would have turned out for Moderately effective.

Discovery Interviews


because Discovery Interview brings out a lot of unknown facets in a person on surface, which

helps in knowing ones’ personality better. D.I. stands as a mirror, discovering your

personality, hence an effective guidance of a mentor regarding, understanding ones

personality must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating

would have turned out for Moderately effective.


because Body Language approximately controls 70% and above of a person’s communication

which is well reflected in the Discovery Interview and thus can be well crafted, hence an

effective guidance of a mentor regarding, understanding ones Body Language must have

created a good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating would have turned out for



because normally a student specially who is a fresher is stressed facing a job interview which

is well reflected in the Discovery Interview and thus can be well crafted. Hence an effective

guidance from a mentor regarding, understanding one’s stress must have created a good

impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating would have turned out for Moderately

effective.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Self

Awareness, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect

of mentoring is moderately effective because Self awareness is a quality which is at the most

reflected in the Discovery Interview and thus can be well crafted. Hence an effective

guidance of a mentor regarding, understanding ones Self Awareness must have created a


effective.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Thought

clarity, was somewhat effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of

mentoring is somewhat effective and not moderately or very effective because though clarity

50

cannot be imbibed at one setting of mentoring and hence may require few more mentoring

sessions.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Verbal

communication, was somewhat effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the

effect of mentoring is somewhat effective and not moderately or very effective because

verbal communication cannot be imbibed at one setting of mentoring and hence may require

more practice on the part of the mentee.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Creativity,

was somewhat effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring

is somewhat effective and not moderately or very effective because creativity cannot be

imbibed at one setting of mentoring and hence may require few more mentoring sessions.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Passion, was

somewhat effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring is

somewhat effective because passion varies from person to person, and it becomes difficult to

mentor a student about being passionate and bring him to the same level of passion as that of

mentor in one setting. Hence it is required that some more mentoring sessions to be

conducted for this parameter.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter, Aggression,

was somewhat effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring

is somewhat effective because the mentees being predominantly youth, aggression was

something which had to be practised to be controlled over a period of time, which was not

much effective with one setting of mentoring, hence require some more mentoring sessions

for this parameter.

Personal Interviews

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Personality

Impact, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of

mentoring is moderately effective because guidance on how to create a strong personal

impact in a personal interview must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the


51

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Career

Vision, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of

mentoring is moderately effective because guidance on how to have a clear career vision for

a personal interview must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum

rating would have turned out for Moderately effective.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter

Communication, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the

effect of mentoring is moderately effective because guidance on how to improve on ones’

basic communication skill in a personal interview must have created a good impact on the


From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Knowledge,

was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring

is moderately effective because an effective guidance of Knowledge with regards to the

concepts and fundamentals or with regards to their summer projects must have created a good


effective.

From the given data one can conclude that there was no significant difference in the

percentages mentoring, among moderately effective, somewhat effective and least effective

because General Awareness is a continuous learning process, where in a student has to

constantly upgrade himself with the latest happenings. A mentoring session will only

sensitize the awareness level of general knowledge. Repeat sessions on general awareness

may increase the impact of mentoring for this parameter.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Confidence,

was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the effect of mentoring

is moderately effective because an effective guidance of how to boost ones’ confidence in a

personal interview must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum

rating would have turned out for Moderately effective.

Group Interviews

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Ability to

introduce yourself, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that the

effect of mentoring is moderately effective because an effective guidance of how to

52

introduce yourself among the rest of the students in a group interview must have created a


effective.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Ability to talk

about your summers, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that

the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because an effective guidance of how to talk

about your summers with regards to the content, technicalities in summer project among the

rest of the students in a group interview must have created a good impact on the mentee,


From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter Knowledge

within area of specialization, was moderately effective. From these results it can be

interpreted that the effect of mentoring is moderately effective because an effective guidance

of knowledge within area of specialization with regards to the concepts and fundamentals

must have created a good impact on the mentee, hence the maximum rating would have

turned out for Moderately effective.

From the given data one can conclude that mentoring, overall for the parameter General

awareness, was moderately effective. From these results it can be interpreted that there is not

much significant difference between moderately effective and somewhat effective, as well as

the percentage of least effective is high compared to other parameters because General

Awareness is a continuous learning process, where in a student has to constantly upgrade

himself with the latest happenings. A mentoring session will only sensitize the awareness

level of general knowledge. Repeat sessions on general awareness may increase the impact of

mentoring for this parameter.


because a good Mentor can boost on the Confidence level of a student particularly when the

student is exposed to a group. Hence an effective guidance of a mentor regarding, how to

stand confident among the rest of the students in a group interview must have created a good


effective.

Also, qualitatively, the discussions with the mentees after the mentoring revealed a positive

feedback. Most of them found the mentoring to be interactive, interesting and knowledgeable.

53

It was reality check for the students as they got to know many deeper insights of themselves

as well as the workingenvironment helped them gain knowledge of the different sectors.

More importantly the interaction was of a friendly nature, and was a stress buster. The

session was meant to advise the mentee on account of how he needs to set up & achieve his

goals. A session which acted as a mirror in terms of knowing where they stand and could act

as a complete SWOT analysis of themselves. There were suggestive feedbacks also with

respect to how to overcome the weakness. Overall the feedback of the mentoring was quite

satisfactory.

Documents

11 CHAPTER 4shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/10586/11/11_chapter 4.pdf · Chapter 4 Findings and ... (1. Team orientation 2. ... effect of mentoring is moderately effective