Informal Mentoring as an Organisational Resource

long range planning

Long Range Planning 35 (2002) 389–405 www.lrpjournal.com

Informal Mentoring as anOrganisational Resource

Val Singh, Divindra Bains and Susan Vinnicombe

Mentoring is a mechanism for supporting junior managers but until now little researchon the benefits to the organisation has been reported. This paper reports on a surveyof managers in a UK local government authority to ascertain their views of the benefitsof informal mentoring to the organisation. Both mentors and proteges perceivedmentoring as investment in a future pool of managers and a tool for the managementof change. Mentoring was also seen as assisting in the transfer of knowledge,organisational learning and cross-departmental communication—in other words, asnodes in an information network. Further research is suggested into mentoring as amicro-level knowledge-producing community of practice. As informal mentoring is likelyto bring longer-term advantages to the organisation, the paper also discusses how tocapture the benefits of informal mentoring when designing formal schemes. �c 2002Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

IntroductionMentoring is an important form of support for managers at allstages in their careers, and is considered particularly useful forwomen managers in male-dominated organisations. In a majorUS study of senior females and their CEOs, 91 per cent of femaleexecutives mentioned having a mentor, and many saw this asthe ‘single most critical piece to women advancing career-wise’.1

Previous research has indicated the benefits of mentoring fromthe protege’s perspective. Support may be career-focused, withthe mentor acting as sponsor, coach, protector, challenge-giverand exposure-provider. It may also be psychosocial in nature,with the mentor taking the role of friend, social supporter, par-ent, role model, counsellor and acceptance-giver.2 Less has beenreported regarding the value of mentoring to the mentor, but thisincludes the rewarding experience, improved job performance, aloyal base of support, organisational recognition and generativity(a sense of continuity and regeneration for the mentor).3 Much

0024-6301/02/$ - see front matter �c 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 0 2 4 - 6 3 0 1 (0 2 ) 0 0 0 6 4 - X

Dr Val Singh is Senior Research

Fellow in Organisational

Behaviour, working in the

Centre for Developing Women

Business Leaders at Cranfield

School of Management, where

she undertook her doctorate.

Her current research focuses

on women directors on FTSE

100 company boards; diversity

management performance

measurement; impression

management strategies; and

mentoring. She has written a

number of journal articles and

book chapters, as well as

occasional practitioner articles.

Val also lectures on qualitative

research methods. (E-mail:

[email protected])

Ms Divindra Bains is a full-time

M.Phil student studying the

benefits of informal mentoring

to the protege, mentor and

organisation. She previously

worked in local government

housing management. (E-mail:

[email protected])

Professor Susan Vinnicombe is

Director of the Centre for

Developing Women Business

Leaders, as well as Professor of

Organisational Behaviour and

Diversity Management. Susan

has designed and run award-

winning women’s management

development courses in major

organisations. She has written

five books, including Working

in Organizations and The

Essence of Women in

Management, as well as many

journal articles and book

chapters. Susan’s research

interests are focused on

women directors, career

development and leadership.

(E-mail:

[email protected])

Informal Mentoring as an Organisational Resource390

of the previous research into mentoring is US-based, althoughsome researchers have been active in the UK, particularly in thearea of best practice in mentoring for top-level positions.4

While many articles have hinted at the benefits of mentoringto the organisation, these have seldom been discussed in detail,although they are said to accrue to the organisation indirectlythrough the support given to promising young individuals whohave been identified by more senior managers. A notable excep-tion is Wilson and Elman, although no empirical results arereported, and no measure of the organisational benefits has beenfound in the literature.5 The purpose of this paper is to provideempirical evidence of the perceived benefits of mentoring to theorganisation itself.

The aim of this study was to examine whether the views ofmanagers would be in agreement with the benefits of informalmentoring suggested by the literature. We undertook a case studyof Cambridgeshire County Council, a UK public sector organis-ation which was considering whether to introduce an assistedinformal or more formal mentoring scheme. This followed a dec-ade when the presence of mentoring relationships was not moni-tored at all.

This paper focuses on the organisational benefits of informalmentoring. We review the literature on organisational benefits,although it is scant. We then report the findings from our surveyof male and female managers’ perceptions of the benefits ofinformal mentoring to the organisation. Of particular interest isthe view of mentoring as an organisational mechanism for theproduction and capture of tacit knowledge.6 Finally, we reviewimplications for further research, and for managerial practice.

Formality in mentoringThere are two contrasting theoretical models underpinning therationale for mentoring programmes.7 Mentoring may be under-taken as a social exchange, with a rational, cost-benefit approach.The mentor’s performance is formally monitored and recognisedby the organisation. In contrast, a communitarian model leadsto people enacting helping behaviour through core values asmembers of a community, which is a more sustainable model assuch behaviour becomes the norm. The organisational culture iskey to success in this model.

Mentoring may be informal, with little or no intervention bythe organisation other than an initial introduction. In contrast,formal mentoring programmes are usually carefully structuredand monitored. Individuals seeking mentors or proteges com-plete application forms stating interests and needs, and are allo-cated mentors or proteges by the system. Often the two partiesdo not meet until the match has been made, allowing no chancefor interpersonal liking and interest as a basis for selection. Inmany cases, where all new recruits have to be mentored, thementor role is a duty imposed by the management, and hencementors may carry out the role without personal interest in the

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

career advancement of the protege. Judgment over the match ismade by an administrator. In informal relationships, both men-tor and protege decide whether to proceed. In formal mentoringschemes, there are usually contracts with set goals, time limitsand specified expectations and arrangements. There are usuallyreporting arrangements to the human resources function as wellas line management. Whilst supportive in intent, such formalitycan stifle the evolution of a creative, safe and personal relation-ship which might otherwise provide benefits for several years.However, informal mentoring may suffer from the lack of anexplicit framework within which to operate. For example, ifexpectations of both mentor and protege are not clarified at thestart the relationship may fail. In particular, the initial phase ofthe informal relationship may benefit from some facilitation bythe organisation.

As women often find it more difficult than men to gain infor-mal mentors, because of possible misinterpretations of theirapproaches to senior males, formal mentoring programmes areoften designed to enable females to have equal access to mentors.However, in the Ragins and Cotton study of 1,162 proteges,females received less coaching and social interaction with men-tors in formal programmes compared with those with informalmentors, whereas for males, there were similar benefits in bothkinds of schemes. Despite the fact that formal schemes are oftendesigned with women in mind, informal mentoring, based oninterpersonal attraction, appears to be more successful than for-mally managed schemes, particularly for women.

Previous researchMentoring is acknowledged to be of benefit to protege, mentorand the organisation: ‘The mentor gives, the protege gets, andthe organisation benefits.’8 In this paper, we define mentors as‘individuals with advanced experience and knowledge who arecommitted to providing upward support and mobility to theirproteges’ careers’. The organisational benefits most often dis-cussed in the literature are those relating to human resourcemanagement, particularly recruitment and retention, but inaddition there are suggestions that mentoring facilitates organis-ational change and culture, as well as the future success of theorganisation. Table 1 presents a summary of the literature.9

Mentoring is important because of its contribution to thelong-term health care of the organisation as a social system. Itprovides a structured system for strengthening and affirming thecontinuity of the organisational culture. This provides memberswith a common value base, with implicit knowledge of what canbe expected of them and what they can in turn expect from theorganisation. This is likely to be indispensable to organisationalsuccess and effectiveness. Wilson and Elman comment:

Just as in traditional societies where tribal folklore andfables, each of which contains a “moral,” are passed down

Long Range Planning, vol 35 2002 391

Informal mentoring

appears to be more

successful than

formal schemes


Table 1. Summary of literature on organisational benefits of mentoring

Effect on Organisation Comment Link to Literature

Higher organisational Especially sponsorship and coaching Kram (1985); Aryee and Chaycommitment (1994)

Identification of future leaders; Leaders more likely to have been Whitely et al. (1991); Conwayimproved succession planning mentored; better socialisation to power (1995)

Higher career satisfaction Singapore sample Aryee and Chay (1994)

More collegiality, greater Aggregated benefits, broader Gray et al. (1995)

participation perspectives for proteges and mentors

Improved recruitment, induction Speedier absorption, transfer of skills Conway (1995)

and retention

Enhanced communication Flow of information; deep sensors Conway (1995); Wilson and Elman

across organisation (1990)

Organisational learning Proteges’ individual motivation for Scandura et al. (1996)

learning is increased, mentors gainmore experience

Better culture management, Stabilising factor in times of change; Conway (1995)

change management enhanced responsiveness

Improved productivity Enhancement of competitive edge; Conway (1995); Scandura et al.

individual benefits aggregated for (1996)

enhanced organisational performance

Cost-effective development Especially given increased globalisation, Conway (1995)

decentralisation and shift fromhierarchies to network structures

from generation to generation, mentors in corporate cul-tures can pass down organisational folklore and fables.

Mentors as trusted sources lend credibility and explanation ofthe meaning of these culture-bearing phenomena to proteges.Mentors are transfer agents of corporate culture, providing pro-teges with information on how to navigate the subtleties of theorganisation’s informal political system, as well as appropriatebehaviours. This transmission of the organisational heritage, cur-rent values and future mission through mentoring can be a subtlemechanism for cohesiveness and continuity in times of change.As people progress, they acquire more senior mentors, and hencegain a better understanding of the organisation from a holisticperspective, as they are groomed for future leadership roles.Mentors can also alert senior management to potential problems,as well as pass upwards information which will help in succession

planning and improved HRM practices. However, no empiricalevidence backs up these suggested benefits to the organisation.

This literature review has shown that the important benefitsare to do with improved HRM practices, management of corpor-ate culture, individual and organisational learning, and invest-ment in the organisation’s future. The question which this paperseeks to address is what are the benefits of mentoring to theorganisation, as perceived by mentors, proteges and those notyet in mentoring relationships.

MethodsThe design used is a single organisational case study. While theresearchers’ aim was to gain an understanding of managers’ per-ceptions of the organisational benefits of informal mentoring,access was given by the public sector organisation because itwanted to ascertain the existence of mentoring in the manage-ment tier. Hence a survey design was used. At a later stage, theresearchers will work with mentors and proteges to gain a deeperunderstanding of mentoring, which will help the managementteam in its consideration of an assisted scheme.

The case study and sampleCambridgeshire County Council (CCC) is the largest employerin Cambridgeshire, which is home to more than half a millionpeople and growing. Consequently, the need for excellence inmanagement of services and infrastructure is critical. The countyhas almost full employment and very high housing costs, leadingto recruitment shortages for CCC. The council is making it apriority to retain and develop managers to the best of theirpotential. One source of talent is the pool of female potentialmanagers. While CCC has achieved 32 per cent female represen-tation in senior management posts, it has publicly set a targetof 42 per cent by 2006. Mentoring is one way to help achievethese targets.

CCC does not have a formal mentoring scheme but the HRDepartment facilitates introductions for informal mentoringwhen individuals approach them on an ad hoc basis. At the timeof our contact, consideration was being given as to whether thisprocess should be better facilitated to encourage more staff tohave mentors. However, CCC did not have any monitoring sys-tem of mentoring, and hence did not know how many individ-uals were in mentoring relationships. For our research, thismeant that whatever arrangements were already in place wouldbe informal.

The HR Department provided access to the entire managerialtier in CCC. The head of HR wrote to the 642 managers invitingthem to take part in an anonymous survey of informal mentoringin the organisation by completing a questionnaire to be mailedback to the researchers. As there was no formal mentoringscheme, it was expected that the level of mentoring would below, and that this would affect the response rate. Just over a third



of managers responded, completing 222 questionnaires. Respon-dents included the CEO, two directors, 11 assistant directors, 61senior managers, 114 first line managers and 33 others. Only47 people confirmed that they were in or had recently been inmentoring relationships within CCC. The mentor sections werecompleted by 16 females and 17 males; 12 females and six malescompleted the protege sections; and four people completed both.Those who had not been involved in mentoring were asked ifthey would support the introduction of a mentoring scheme, andif so, to state their reasons. We received responses from 174 indi-viduals including 90 females.

The sample was very evenly split by gender. A quarter ofrespondents were aged under 40, and about a third were over50 years old. Nearly three-quarters had professional education,and just under half held degrees. Half the sample had organis-ational tenure of more than ten years, and 60 per cent had beenin their present job for one to three years. Responses were wellspread across the different directorates. Of the existing mentoringrelationships reported, three-quarters had been going for up toa year. Mentors were more likely to be male, and current pro-teges were more likely to be female, although for terminatedrelationships, there was an even gender split of proteges. Therewere more mentors than proteges in this sample, but it is likelythat mentors were mentoring proteges not yet in the managerialtier. For further information on the sample, see Appendix A.

MeasureWhile there were established measures of benefits to proteges,and to mentors, we found none for benefits to the organisation.Hence, a new scale was constructed from the literature. In thequestionnaire introduction, we described mentors as senior,influential individuals with advanced experience and knowledge,committed to providing upward mobility and support to theprotege’s career, who were not necessarily in line managementpositions relative to the protege. We also advised that we wereusing the term ‘protege’ to mean mentored persons of either sex.

The measure included 15 statements, with agreement rated ona scale of 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. The alphareliability of the scale was 0.93, indicating a very high level ofinternal consistency. For ease of presentation of results, we col-lapsed the variables to nine (see Appendix A).

FindingsBoth mentors and proteges gave positive responses to all thebenefits listed, although no items were rated above six on aseven-point scale of agreement with the statements. Protegesrated six of the nine variables higher than did the mentors, butmentor/protege differences were not significant. Figure 1 showsthe level of agreement with the mentoring benefits statements bymale and female mentors and proteges.

Female proteges rated seven of the nine benefits higher than

Figure 1. Perceived benefits of mentoring, by gender and mentor/protege roles

male proteges, with two items showing significant gender differ-ences in two-tailed t-tests between mean responses. Female pro-teges gave significantly higher values to the ‘helps in the manage-ment of change’ variable (p=0.04) as well as to ‘strengthens theorganisational culture’. Figure 1 clearly shows how similar werethe ratings of the male and female mentors, other than the highervalue given by males on ‘helps management of change’.

Examination of the top three responses reveals that both maleand female mentors put the same items at the top of the agree-ment scale (spots and develops talent; helps management ofchange; helps recruitment and retention), although male mentorsput ‘management of change’ ahead of ‘spots and develops talent’.Female proteges also agreed with the mentors on ‘spots anddevelops talent’ and ‘improves recruitment and retention’, butthey put ‘strengthens the culture’ in second place. Male protegesalone rated ‘mentoring helps trapped managers’ at the top oftheir list, with ‘leadership succession’ next, and only then con-forming to the values put by the others on ‘spots and developstalent’.

Exploratory factor analysis resultsWe had hoped to be able to undertake a validated factor analysis,but there were too few individuals (only 47) with mentoringrelationship experience in the sample. Nonetheless, we did exam-ine the underlying factors in an exploratory principal compo-nents analysis (using varimax rotation). As stated earlier, t-testshad revealed no significant difference between mentor and pro-tege responses, so these were grouped together for this part of



the analysis. Three factors emerged, accounting for 72 per centof the variance. The largest factor to emerge, HRM benefits,explained 36 per cent of the variance (scale mean 5.07, s.d. 1.15,eigenvalue 7.73, and alpha coefficient high at 0.93). The secondfactor, culture and change benefits explained a further 20 per centof variance (scale mean 5.05, s.d. 0.93, eigenvalue 1.60, and alphacoefficient 0.83). We included ‘strengthens organisational cul-ture’ in this factor for conceptual reasons although it loadedslightly more strongly on the first factor. The third factor waslabelled communication benefits, explaining 16 per cent of thevariance (scale mean 4.86, s.d. 0.97, eigenvalue 1.44 and anacceptable alpha coefficient of 0.77 for the factor scale).

Figure 2 maps out the three factors. While we had testedwhether gender and role (protege or mentor) would influencethe perceptions of benefits to the organisation, finding two sig-nificant differences between male and female proteges, we foundno significant differences on these factor variables. The factorfindings fitted well with our expectations based on the literaturereviewed earlier.

Individuals not in mentoring relationshipsOf those in the managerial tier who returned questionnaires, 22per cent confirmed that they were or had been involved in men-toring relationships in this local authority. Of the 174 individualsnot in mentoring relationships, 79 per cent reported that theygenerally supported and encouraged the introduction of a men-toring scheme. Only 11 managers were against it, and 12 feltthat they needed more information before responding. Table 2presents some of the supportive comments made by those notcurrently in mentoring relationships. Incidentally, mentors wereseen as a scarce resource in this organisation: ‘there are currently

Figure 2. Model based on exploratory factor analysis results (factor loadings in parentheses)

Table 2. Reasons for supporting introduction of an assisted informal mentoring scheme, by those not inmentoring relationships

Staff development Effective way to develop staff, especially senior positions involving significant transition

in terms of levels of responsibility, breadth of view required.Brings along younger staff, gives opportunities that normally only come with promotion.

Improved Managers driven by targets cannot nurture individuals in work setting, so staff

recruitment and disaffection and burnout result. Helps support staff in their roles and lessen staffretention turnover.

Can also help with recruitment and retention.

Provides role models Encourages development of others, the organisation needs role models.Role models are an essential facet for development.

Avoidance of Perception that management is remote—the more interaction between managers and

isolation of senior ‘subordinates’ the better.managers Senior managers can get very isolated personally and professionally, which can affect

performance. Mentoring would assist greatly.

A supportive culture Would encourage it for support, encouragement, a critical friend.Particularly for women seeking recognition and entry to senior management.

Induction Demonstrates the organisation cares, enables newcomers to feel valued.

Cross-departmental Useful means of understanding how the organisation works from the inside and wouldcommunication help navigate around policies and processes. Help to understand the culture so as to

work and communicate effectively.

Build cross-departmental awareness.Better networking Builds on important networking, part of management development.

Ability to network/increase visibility/interact with senior management is all dilutedbecause of distance from centre of the organisation.

Organisational A way of helping another to understand more fully and learn more comprehensively

learning from their day-to-day experience.Facilitates personal development, change management, cross-organisation learning.

Valuable informal tool for learning and reflecting on organisational theory and practice.

Gives a ‘feel’ and ‘flavour’ of what the job entails, opportunity to gain information andvicarious experience.

Helps to build greater sense of corporate purpose.

Transfer of skills and Vital to continuing strength of local government. Speed of ‘early retirement’ over past 15knowledge years outstripped ability to ensure knowledge and skills are fully passed on.

Would have valued understanding of Asst Director’s perspective.

Gives wider perspective on transferable skills.A lot of experience held by staff doesn’t normally surface.

Particularly useful because senior positions now require management of functions other

than one’s own area of professional expertise.

very few mentors in this county council—those which exist aresought after.’

DiscussionThe results confirmed our expectations based on the literaturefrom which the questionnaire was derived. The limited numberof responses relating to actual mentoring experience means thatwe can only use these findings as indicators for further researchwith larger samples. Nonetheless, there are some interestingresults, including comments made by non-mentoring managers


The responses reflect

views of mentoring as

a co-learning activity


about expectations of mentoring benefits. The findings provideconfirmation that managers do perceive the benefits of men-toring in the way that previous researchers have indicated butnot measured empirically.

All results from those in mentoring relationships were abovethe neutral mid-point, showing the value attached to mentoringby these managers. Top responses for all groups (male andfemale mentors and proteges) indicate the importance of thedevelopmental aspects of mentoring. Both the HRM and theorganisational culture benefits were rated highly by most respon-dents, supporting the previous work of Wilson and Elman, andConway. Managers also confirmed that they saw mentoring asan investment in the future success of the organisation.

The similar results from male and female mentors indicatethat they share views about the benefits of mentoring. However,protege responses differed by gender and were different from thementors’ views, though not significantly so. The finding thatfemale mentors share views with male mentors on mentoringand its benefits to the organisation is similar to findings in Singhand Vinnicombe.10 In that study, senior women shared themeanings of commitment with male senior managers, whilemore junior women had different views of the organisationalvalues and expectations around commitment. It is interestingthat only the female proteges have the organisational culture itemin their top list. Perhaps this relates to the way in which femaleproteges perceive the organisational culture. If they see it as lesswelcoming to female managers, then they may see mentoring asan important enabler for a more supportive culture.

The evaluations from those in mentoring relationships are alsosupported by the findings from those who have not experiencedthese relationships, shown in Table 2. The latter group also men-tioned the beneficial effect of mentoring to reduce isolation ofmanagers, supporting the suggestion by Conway.

Mentoring as a micro-level knowledge-producingcommunity of practiceInterestingly, there was an emphasis from the non-mentoringgroup on the benefits of mentoring in the deep sensor and organ-isational learning roles suggested by Wilson and Elman. In theopen-ended questions, a number of non-mentoring individualstalked about the organisational benefits of cross-departmentalcommunication and better networking. A number of them gavereflective responses regarding the transfer of skills and knowl-edge, and organisational learning. These responses reflect viewsof mentoring as a co-learning activity in which the mentor andprotege exchange ideas and information to create new organis-ational-level knowledge as well as individual knowledge.11 Dixonsuggests that learning takes place at three levels, privately, collec-tively and organisationally, and she suggests that ‘hallway’ con-versations are essential for the construction, transmission andeventual codification of new tacit knowledge.12 Such informalconversations can be facilitated by encouragement of mentoring

relationships. While the information that the mentors pass downwill shape the future for the proteges, the information which theysend upwards can also be vitally important for the organisation.

This view is also suggested by von Krogh who emphasises theneed for trust in mentoring relationships for the successful cre-ation of knowledge, and the need for both mentors and protegesto feel responsibility for this activity, through reflexivity,exchange of meaning, and leveraging of the new knowledge.13 Ineffect, the mentor/protege dyad is acting as a micro-level knowl-edge-producing community of practice. The knowledge may beencoded (collective knowledge which is signalled), embedded(collective knowledge which is complex and unwritten),embrained (individual knowledge which is formal and recorded)and embodied (individual knowledge which is learned by doing),as suggested by Nonaka and also Lam.14 In this way, the newknowledge becomes a tool for continuity and change of theorganisational culture. Using Krogh’s notion of mentors as car-ing experts with responsibility to acquire expertise and make thatexpertise available to those who need it, as well as accessible to‘the organisation’ through tacit knowledge creation, Figure 3seeks to map out the role of mentoring as a knowledge-produc-ing community of practice. Further research using a qualitativedesign would be useful to gain an in-depth understanding of thisparticular process within the mentoring context.

It is likely that mentoring relationships will involve all of thesetypes of knowledge, as mentors and proteges share informationabout their personal experiences, their work, their difficulties,aspirations and their understanding of formal and informal sys-tems and processes. The tacit knowledge created is then concep-tualised by the mentor and crystallised in an interactive process,after which it is evaluated through reflection, and eventually inte-grated into organisational knowledge. The new knowledge isintegrated with the organisational vision, transmitted into thecultural network, and used again by mentors and proteges ascodified knowledge.

Figure 3. Mentoring as a knowledge-producing community of practice


In IBM management

is seeing the benefits

of reverse mentoring


Managerial implicationsThis is the first empirical study to measure the perceived benefitsof informal mentoring to the organisation. While care must betaken in interpreting the managerial implications due to the sizeand design of the sample, the results are very encouraging. Overthe past decade mentoring has increasingly been promoted as anorganisational resource to help advance the careers of individ-uals, particularly women. This study strengthens this view. Activementors and proteges see the identification and development ofhigh potential individuals as a key benefit of mentoring. Theprocess offers senior managers the opportunity to get to knowjunior members of staff in open and supportive ways. This con-trasts strongly with selection appraisal and promotion processeswhere the clear purpose is for junior members to impress seniormanagers, therefore they will be much more guarded in theirviews. Proteges can take more risks with mentors in expressingpersonal attitudes and aspirations and can ask for and receivemore candid feedback. There are no formal obligations betweeninformal mentors and their proteges. Hence when mentors giveproteges compliments or put them forward for projects or jobs,proteges can be confident that such behaviours are genuine. Nat-urally this builds self-esteem in the protege. This is one of thekey benefits of informal mentoring over formal mentoring. Thereare no formal requirements of mentors and their performanceis not evaluated by the organisation in any formal way.

An allied purpose of mentoring is inducting new staff. Manyorganisations use mentoring alongside traditional methods ofinduction training to help settle in new members of staff. Thisis especially important where those new members of staff rep-resent a significant investment e.g. graduates into a large multi-national corporation or expensive experienced hires into a busyinternational management consultancy. The authors havenoticed that informal mentoring is increasingly being used inprofessional service firms, where the traditional notion of a linemanager is absent. In such situations it is easy for young pro-fessionals to feel marginalised and not valued. At the same time,project allocation in these environments is usually linked to per-sonal relationships with senior members of staff. Mentoring canbe invaluable in providing a social anchor for new members aswell as collegial guidance. In our study, the findings indicate thatinformal mentoring helps induct new staff. In some organis-ations, however, this process is not seen as just a one-way pro-cess. In IBM, for example, management is seeing the benefitsof reverse mentoring, where junior members are helping moreexperienced members of the organisation with fresh ideas.

The benefit of mentoring as a mechanism for informationflows and organisational learning has already been mentioned.The third and quite distinct benefit of mentoring shown in ourstudy is the management of change and strengthening the cul-ture. The problem with so many organisational change pro-grammes is that they remain divorced from the individuals inthe organisation, and hence they lack real impact. Mentoring,

through its essential one-to-one process, immediately impactsupon individuals. Organisations that have addressed genderdiversity through cultural change often use mentoring of femaleemployees to help advance their careers and thereby diversifytheir management teams. In such instances, mentoring is thebehavioural expression of the values communicated in the cul-tural change programme.

This article has focused on the perceived benefits of mentoringby active mentors and proteges in Cambridgeshire County Coun-cil. However, it is interesting that the majority of the remainingmanagers surveyed were overwhelmingly positive in supportinginformal mentoring. Their views supported those of their col-leagues already discussed. In addition, however, they also pointedto the advantages of networking across the organisation and thetransfer of skills and general organisational learning.

Capturing benefits of informality in formal mentoringprogrammesWhile the purpose of this paper was to report a study on theorganisational benefits of informal mentoring, it may be usefulto discuss here how formal schemes might be developed to retainthe benefits of informal mentoring. Selection of mentors andproteges is best done by those involved, to allow for their per-sonal choice. So at regular intervals, perhaps once or twice a yearto pick up newly recruited and promoted staff, the HR managermight collect personal profiles (including career background andexperience as well as information on personal values) from man-agers who want to mentor, as well as from individuals seekingto become proteges. These should be circulated to all appropriatestaff. Those wanting such relationships could then identify somepotential partners, seeking additional advice from the HR depart-ment if they wished. Then an informal event could be held bythe HR department, where all potential mentors and protegescould meet, without obligation, and have informal conversationswith a number of possible mentoring partners. This would allowrelationships to develop more naturally, and expectations onboth sides would be better matched through an understandingof the personal values as well as career backgrounds of the twoparties. Additional facilitation could be arranged for those whodid not make successful introductions at the event.

A one-year agreement might be appropriate in the firstinstance, but it should not be a cut-off point, as some of thebeneficial effects are likely to develop over a longer period. Flexi-bility of meetings is essential, and each mentoring pair shouldfind what suits them best, regarding how often to meet, whereto meet, and what the agenda should be. A best practice guideto mentoring for proteges and mentors would be a useful tool,as would training for prospective and existing mentors and pro-teges for the different stages of mentoring relationships. How-ever, formal monitoring of mentor performance is best avoided,as better results are likely to come from those undertaking thisrole as ‘communitarians’, in a supportive and developmental



environment, over varying periods of time with each protege,rather than from those seeking reward in a particular timeframe.Even in formal schemes, informal communication is an essentialpart of the process. While there has to be trust and confidentialityin the relationship, mentoring can lead to the utilisation of tacitknowledge, helping the development of a learning organisation.As this research has shown, as well as providing support for pro-teges and experience for mentors, mentoring is worth seriousconsideration as an investment providing a resource tostrengthen the organisational culture and facilitate change.

ConclusionsThis paper has contributed to the literature on informal men-toring by building on Wilson and Elman’s and Conway’s work,constructing a scale derived from the literature covering a rangeof benefits to the organisation. We also have provided evidenceof mentoring benefits perceived by a UK sample, whereas mostprevious research in this area has been undertaken in the US.However, despite an initial sample of 642 managers, and aresponse rate of 35 per cent, there were few informal mentorsand proteges in the sample. We have identified three clear factorsfrom the results: namely HRM benefits, Culture and Changebenefits and Communication benefits, as expected from theliterature review.

We acknowledge that this study has limitations due to thesmall number of responses from those with experience of men-toring relationships in the organisation selected, which were toofew for a valid factor analysis of the new scale to be undertaken.There is additional self-selection bias in that those who com-pleted our mentoring benefits questionnaire were in mentoringrelationships and would have been more likely to view mentoringas beneficial. There may also be public/private sector differencesin the perceived benefits of mentoring.

We suggest further research should follow with a larger sam-ple. Such information would be invaluable for organisationswhen considering investment in mentoring. Questions should beadded to the scale to cover organisational learning and the trans-fer of skills and knowledge, given the emphasis on this fromthe non-mentoring respondents in this sample. The links withcommitment and motivation for these variables could also beusefully explored. The tacit knowledge contributed by mentorsto both protege and organisation seems a promising area forfurther research, following on from von Krogh. Further researchusing a qualitative design for interviews with mentor/protegedyads is also suggested, to explore in more depth the benefitswhich they perceive to accrue to the organisation, to understandhow these arise, and how they may be best exploited to theadvantage of all involved.

We obtained qualitative comments about reasons for support-ing the introduction of assisted informal mentoring from theremainder of respondents. Results showed that their expectations

of benefits were very similar to the ratings given by those inmentoring relationships. We did not find strong evidence of gen-der differences in responses. Female and male mentors sharedviews on the benefits to the organisation, indicating commonvalues and organisational knowledge. Male proteges appear tofocus more on individual benefits, indicating their own hopesand ambitions, while female proteges put significantly highervalue on the impact of mentoring on the organisational culture.

We have suggested a number of implications for practice.Mentoring is generally seen as beneficial at the organisationallevel, particularly in terms of its succession planning and careerdevelopment facets, by both mentors and proteges, as well as bythose not yet in mentoring relationships. It is also seen as a toolfor the management of organisational culture, both in terms offacilitating cultural change and maintaining continuity of valuesand culture. In addition, there are indications that the tacitknowledge embedded in the mentoring process can be utilisedfor organisational advantage. Mentors should be encouraged toreflect on the mentoring process together with their proteges,so that they can act as better and deeper sensors, and seniormanagement should ensure that they capture this valuable andhidden resource. The issue for practitioners is how to design andimplement formal mentoring schemes which do not stifle thedeveloping relationships, and this paper has suggested some waysin which such schemes might be initiated.

Appendix A

Methods and resultsTable (i) Further information on sample

Job Level CEO, 2 directors, 11 assistant directors, 61 senior managers, 114 first linemanagers and 33 level not known.

Gender 50.5% were female, 49.5% maleAge 4% were aged under 30, 22% of respondents were aged 30–39, 44% were aged

40–49, 28% were aged 50–59, and 2% were 60–65.Directorates Well spread, with 29% from Environment and Transport, 28% from Social

Services, 20% from Resources, Properties and Procurement, 16% fromEducation, Libraries and Heritage, and 5% from the Chief Executive’sDepartment.

Table (ii) Original 15 statements, means and standard devi-ations

Statement (scale, 1=strongly disagree, to 7=strongly agree) Mean s.d.

1. Mentoring speeds the development of talented staff 5.62 1.242. Mentoring helps develop a wider pool of talented managers 5.54 1.223. Mentoring helps spot individual talent 5.19 1.314. Mentoring helps develop the future success of the organisation 5.26 1.285. Mentoring helps with careful grooming of future leaders 4.76 1.64



6. Mentoring helps managers trapped in the wrong job 4.47 1.777. Mentoring helps recruitment and retention 5.30 1.308. Mentoring encourages greater diversity 4.55 1.329. Mentoring helps in the management of change 5.38 1.0510. Mentoring is a stabilising factor in times of change 5.17 0.9211. Mentoring strengthens the organisational culture 5.21 1.2112. Mentoring enhances the competitive edge 4.45 1.3313. Mentoring identifies early warning signals of problems 4.74 1.0414. Mentoring helps to induct new staff more quickly 5.17 1.1915. Mentoring improves organisational communication 4.66 1.27

Note to Table (ii): For ease of presentation of results, wereduced the above 15 variables to nine, combining the talentstatements (items 1–3) into one variable (spots and developstalent). We combined items 4 and 5 into a new variable (helpsleadership succession). Items 9 and 10 were combined to form‘helps management of change’. Finally, items 13–15 were mergedinto ‘helps communication’.

References1. B. Ragins, B. Townsend and M. Mattis, ‘Gender gap in the

executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on break-ing the glass ceiling’, Academy of Management Executive,12(1), 28–42 (1998).

2. B. Ragins and J. Cotton, ‘Mentor functions and outcomes:a comparison of men and women in formal and informalmentoring relationships’, Journal of Applied Psychology,84(4), 529–550 (1999).

3. B. Ragins and T. Scandura, ‘Burden or blessing? Expectedcosts and benefits of being a mentor’, Journal of Organis-ational Behavior, 20, 493–509 (1999).

4. D. Clutterbuck and D. Megginson, Mentoring Executives andDirectors, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (1999). C. Con-way, ‘Mentoring managers in organisations’, Equal Opport-unities International, 14(3/4), 1–52 (1995).

5. J. Wilson and N. Elman, ‘Organisational benefits of men-toring’, Academy of Management Executive, 4(4), 88–94(1990).

6. I. Nonaka, ‘A dynamic theory of organisational knowledgecreation’, Organisation Science, 5(1), 14–37 (1994).

7. S. Gibb, ‘Usefulness of theory: a case study in evaluating for-mal mentoring schemes’, Human Relations, 52(8), 1055–1075.

8. T. Scandura, M. Tejeda, W. Werther and M. Lankau, ‘Per-spectives on mentoring’, Leadership & Organisational Devel-opment Journal, 17(3), 50–57 (1996).

9. S. Aryee and Y. Chay, ‘An examination of the impact ofcareer-oriented mentoring on work commitment attitudesand career satisfaction among professional and managerialemployees’, British Journal of Management, 5, 241–249(1994). J. Gray, M. Lee and J. Totta, ‘Mentoring at the Bank

of Montreal’, Human Resource Planning, 18(4), 45–51 (1995).K. Kram, Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships inOrganisational Life, Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL (1985). W.Whitely, T. Dougherty and G. Dreher, ‘Relationship of careermentoring and socio-economic origin to managers’ and pro-fessionals’ early career progress’, Academy of ManagementJournal, 34, 331–351 (1991).

10. V. Singh and S. Vinnicombe, ‘Gendered meanings of com-mitment from high technology engineering managers in theUK and Sweden’, Gender, Work and Organisation, 7(1), 1–19 (2000).

11. K. Kram and D. Hall, ‘Mentoring in a context of diversityand turbulence’ in S. Lobel and E. Kossek (eds), HumanResource Strategies for Managing Diversity, Blackwell, Lon-don (1995).

12. N. Dixon, ‘The hallways of learning’, Organisational Dynam-ics, Spring, 23–34 (1997).

13. G. Von Krogh, ‘Care in knowledge creation’, California Man-agement Review, 40(3), 133–153 (1998).

14. A. Lam, ‘Tacit knowledge, organisational learning andsocietal institutions: an integrated framework’, OrganisationStudies, 21(3), 487–513 (2000).


Informal Mentoring as an Organisational Resource

Documents

Transcript of Informal Mentoring as an Organisational Resource