An Alternative to One on One Mentoring for the Navy Region Northwest

What are mentoring groups?

Structuring mentoring groups

Training

Measuring Success

Pointers for Managing the Process

Potential Barriers to Success

What Can Mentoring Groups do for the Navy Region Northwest and the Leadership Development Program Participants?

Mentoring relationships that include one-two mentor(s) and 6-12 protégés

Intended to facilitate career development and retention for high performing employees

May target certain groups of employees, such as new hires or under-represented groups

Also called mentoring rings or mentoring circles

Group meets once a month for 2-3 hours

Protégés are responsible for coordinating meetings and setting agendas; mentors are responsible for facilitating directed discussions and providing advice and guidance.

Best if structured to focus in a particular area, like leadership development, work/life balance, career development, etc.◦ Narrowing the scope balances out the tendency of groups

to expand scope when each member has his/her own specific goals for the relationship

Important to include only high performers◦ More work than 1:1 mentoring, administratively and in

terms of time Meetings have to be longer in order to include input from all

members of the group Scheduling meetings and establishing agendas can be

complicated due to the number of people involved

Consider mixing female, minority and majority males as equally as possible, in order to foster diversity and inclusion.

Recommend meeting once per month

Recommend groups of 8-10◦ Maximizes collective brainstorming and problem solving:

big enough to include several perspectives and small enough to get participation from all members

Recommend structuring the relationships for durations of 6-12 months◦ A year may be too much commitment for participants,

especially the first time but will depend on the organization

◦ It can be challenging to maintain momentum for longer than 6 months with that many people so focus on this will be key

Members may have slightly different goals for the relationship, but there should be a common goal or theme for the group◦ At least establish specific themes or topics for each

meeting◦ Keeps the team together◦ Helps members choose the mentoring ring that meets

their needs

The team of protégés needs to drive the agenda, scheduling, and meeting facilitation◦ Takes some of the burden off mentors, who have already

made a big commitment◦ Provides protégés opportunities to practice leadership,

teamwork, and mutual accountability

Focus of meetings should be on group discussions◦ Meetings should not be set up as classroom situations in which

mentors lecture on a given topic

All members required to set goals at the beginning and provide accountability reports to other members at each meeting◦ Outside 1:1 discussions should be discouraged because they

threaten confidentiality and trust and can impose an additional burden on the mentor

Confidentiality is of utmost importance◦ For the relationship to be successful, members must be able to

trust one another enough to give goal progress reports and discuss personal issues or challenges openly

Should occur at the outset of the relationship

Should include the same information provided to mentors and protégés for traditional 1:1 mentoring relationships◦ Process, structure, timelines◦ Goals, responsibilities for each party, how success is measured, etc.

Should be augmented by an additional section stressing group dynamics, group facilitation, and mutual accountability

Use the same criteria we would use for 1:1 mentoring

Use both general metrics and observable changes in the protégés

General metrics:◦ Retention◦ Promotions

Changes in protégés:◦ Network expansion◦ Confidence◦ Job satisfaction◦ Engagement

Ideally, compare pre/post measurements rather than gauging perceived change after the fact◦ Self-reported progress (questionnaire format) is great, but more

powerful if comparing baselines to post-experience evaluations

In the case of self-reported progress, everyone is measured on different things because they each had individual goals◦ This is a good reason to combine self-reported progress with

metrics like retention and promotion

Self-reported progress provides richer information and tends to make a stronger case for continuing the mentoring program than basic metrics alone.

Often protégés will rotate leadership for agenda setting, scheduling meetings, and meeting facilitation◦ The tag team approach to meeting facilitation can be very

effective◦ It’s good practice◦ The mentor’s role is to oversee overall group dynamics and

provide content expertise and advice during meetings only; not to facilitate the meeting itself, in terms of progressing through an agenda

Sometimes the protégé group will meet between meetings with the mentor; that’s ok

Consider mixing functions within groups◦ To add diversity◦ Because it will be logistically difficult not to

However, preferable not to combine multiple levels within the protégé group◦ Try to keep all protégés within a couple of levels of one another

No other similarities are crucial; in fact, a mix of technical and non-technical, verbal and quantitative, etc. is preferable◦ Studies show a diverse mentoring group leads to more career

advancement for underrepresented groups◦ The mix will make the group harder to manage, and potentially

volatile, but the end result will be better!

Start with a REALLY special group of people that you can’t afford to lose◦ Highlights the business case for mentoring◦ Makes success more visible

Usually companies offer one or the other, but consider offering a choice between group mentoring and traditional, one on one mentoring◦ Depending on the protégé's needs, different programs work

well in different situations

Risk to Confidentiality◦ Important for the relationship to have a positive impact, but

difficult to maintain in groups

Maintaining Independence from Reporting Relationships and Work Teams◦ Logistically difficult to draw all members from different teams

and sections of the org chart Many members on the team

Social Loafing◦ Likely in any group setting◦ Part of the reason to include only top performers◦ Build in accountability with progress reports

Time frame too long (a year may be too long)

Too loosely structured; protégés don’t have specific goals

Poor facilitation; training incomplete or protégés not well-selected

Confidentiality/trust broken

No group rules established ahead of time

Participants that don’t like the group process; be careful to select for this◦ One good reason to offer both group and 1:1 mentoring

Provide career direction and planning for high performing Total Force Personnel

Improve NRNW problem solving, creativity, and effectiveness

Provide networking and advancement opportunities

Improve retention of high performing personnel

Improve diversity at increasingly higher levels of the organization

Bridget Bakken, Lead Product Planner, US-HR Mgmt & Leadership Development, Microsoft Corporation, personal interview, August 6, 2001.

Linda Phillips-Jones, Ph.D., Consulting Psychologist, The Mentoring Group, Grass Valley, CA, teleconference interview, August 13, 2001.

Mentoring, Beverly Ayea and Devon Scheef, Info-Line, ASTD, April, 2000.