FeatureJanuary 2006
| Feature | No.46 January 2006 |
||
| print view |
Introduction
Providing young professionals with learning environments in which they
experience comfort, confidence, competence, and achievement of personal
and community goals continues to be one of the aims of sport science and
physical education professionals. The manner in which young professionals
have been supported throughout this learning phase in the 21st Century
seems to have been formally left out of the academic review process. This
leaves little possibility for a meaningful, planned, coordinated, quantifiable
and valued approach that benefits the profession. Mentoring as a strategy
for leadership development has again come to the forefront of this discussion.
Leadership development is critical, yet there seems to be an enormous
gap between leadership supply and demand. In an exponentially changing
professional environment, following the same leadership development strategies
as yesteryear is not a formula for success. A changing professional environment
requires dynamic leadership, as leadership is undoubtedly the critical
element behind vibrant effective professional environments. It goes without
saying that quality leadership is a priceless ingredient in sport science
and physical education professional development globally. Consequently,
the investment in developing young professionals through mentoring has
the potential of bringing a competitive advantage and added value to higher
education throughout the world. Claryfying mentorship
Mentoring has become a popular and effective method of developing human
resources. The meaning of the word “mentor” is sometimes
stretched to cover a spectrum of activities risking a dilution of the
essential meaning of this valuable concept. In its simplest form, mentoring
is a dynamic, reciprocal relationship within a working environment,
generally involving an individual with more wisdom (knowledge + experience)
in a specific field (the mentor) and a less experienced individual (the
mentee), often a beginner in that field (Weaver and Chelladurai, 1999;
Wright and Smith, 2000) to guide the mentee to a higher level of personal
excellence. Hitt (1998) classifies mentoring as transforming leadership,
lifting people to their better selves. Rising to one’s better
self through mentoring implies a relationship between two individuals
based on mutual trust and respect and enhances the development of their
respective skills for the length of the relationship (Bloom et al.,
1998).The mentor also permits the mentee to enlarge knowledge and experience
by providing support during development.
To optimize this complex learning relationship, both mentor and mentee
contribute to and benefit from the two-way process. A mentor shows a
high level of personal involvement with the mentee through a willingness
to offer guidance, counseling, coaching, support, simulation and even
challenge. The mentee responds by showing willingness to learn, takes
responsibility for his/her future and integrating mentoring into a personal
and life plan. The synergistic outcome of the two-way mentoring relationship
should be acquisition of largely intuitive skills that allow people
to operate effectively at higher degrees of competency or in a wide
range of different situations, a forward focus on achieving the mentee’s
goals and ultimately competent leaders in higher education.
Mentoring, as a dynamic process, consists of different stages that provide
a mentee with opportunities to learn and grow. Effective mentoring strategies
differ according to the knowledge and experience levels of mentees.
Mentors guide mentees through four stages of mentoring relationships:
A Prescriptive mentoring relationship is generally the
first point of mentoring contact. The mentee has limited experience in
the profession and is most comfortable for the beginning faculty member
who depends heavily on the mentor for support and direction. During this
stage, the mentor is prescribing, ordering and advising the mentee. The
prescriptive mentoring relationship requires the mentor to give praise
and attention to build the mentee’s confidence. The mentor will
devote more time to a mentee in this relationship than in any of the other
mentoring relationships. The mentor will usually provide detailed guidance
and advice. In this relationship, the mentee assumes the role of a sponge,
soaking up every piece of new information. The mentor will share experiences,
trials and anecdotes during this stage.
A Persuasive mentoring relationship requires the mentor
to take a constructive approach with the mentee. In this stage, the mentor
actively persuades the mentee to find answers and seek challenges. The
mentee usually has some experience but needs firm direction to be successful.
During this stage of the mentoring relationship, the mentor may suggest
new strategies and push the mentee into discoveries.
During the Collaborative mentoring relationship, the
mentee has enough experience and ability to work with the mentor to jointly
solve challenges and participate in more equal communication. In this
stage, the mentee actively cooperates with the mentor in his/her professional
development.
The Confirmative mentoring relationship is suitable for
mentee’s with many specific experiences but requires the mentor’s
insight into global sport policies and procedures. In this stage, the
mentor acts mainly as a sounding board or sympathetic listener.
During the stages of the mentoring relationship, both mentor and mentee may encounter challenges that could hinder a developing relationship. A mentor should be aware of the following challenges:
As mentoring is a two-way process, the mentee may also confront obstacles,
including:
Mentoring works best when the need is the acquisition of wisdom and
knowledge that cannot be found in books or in courses. Wisdom in this
context means the ability to relate what has been learned to a wide
spectrum of situations in the department. Successful mentoring allows
an individual to demonstrate appropriate patterns of thinking which
establish that the mentee is ready to take on new or larger tasks. Mentoring skills
Mentors do not possess superhuman qualities. They are experienced, well-balanced
professionals who have already demonstrated that they have interest
in developing others. The greatest mentors are often those who know
how to motivate others to succeed, stay focused, believe in themselves
and overcome disappointments. All faculty members do not necessarily
make effective mentors. Certain individuals are more effective in the
role of mentors than others. Whether an individual in a higher education
context is suited to the role of mentor may depend on his/her own stage
of development and experience. The mentee is an active partner in the
mentoring relationship and should prior to entering into such a relationship
assess the mentor’s potential effectiveness. Effectiveness as
a mentor can be assessed by evaluating the mentoring skills and qualities
of the potential mentor.
A successful mentor is, therefore, someone who:
Not all of these characteristics are found in all mentors, but that
does not mean that he/she cannot be a successful mentor. It simply means
that the mentor needs to strengthen those characteristics and skills
that appear less strong.
From a perusal of the literature (Stroot, et al., 1998; Weaver and Chelladurai,
1999; Wright and Smith, 2000), there appears to be three basic categories
of skills needed for mentoring:
The possession of these skills can allow mentors to widen their circle
of influence and be recognized for contributions to the future. Those
who have participated in successful mentoring programs have had positive
effects on mentees; specifically, those involved tended to be more loyal,
experience more job satisfaction, and become higher achievers (Fagenson,
1992; Newby and Heide, 1992). Roles and Responsibilities of Mentors
The following table represents some of the roles
that have been attributed to mentors along with the objectives of each
role (Scandura, 1992). Mentors may engage in these roles as various
times:
Womentoring?
Mentoring, particularly in its traditional sense, enables an individual
to follow in the path of an older and wiser colleague who can pass on
knowledge and open doors that otherwise would not be open. During the
1970s and 1980s, the older and wiser colleague usually referred to as
a senior male executive, anointed a younger version of himself as his
protégé. Mentoring, then, was about the chemistry between
two people who had much in common. The mentor was able to direct the
mentee toward a career with fantastic research and grant opportunities,
key positions on committees and strategic alliances with administrators.
Today, women have arrived as valuable counterparts as leaders. Many,
however, may not be comfortable with the 1980s version of mentoring.
They may not be willing to socialize in 21th Century decision making
on the golf course or forming personal bonds with a male mentor through
the participation of sporting activities. Dahle (1998) has stated that
women poured into the world of work (including higher education as researchers)
and found that they could not depend on being mentored in the old style,
so they have changed the mentoring rules, invented formal practices
where none existed before, thereby making mentoring more organized and
focused. According to Dahle (1998), womentoring is more about commitment
than chemistry. It is about personal growth and development rather than
about promotions. It is more about learning than about power. It is
about empowerment and the investment in human capital for the benefit
of humanity. Womentoring is an integrated, empowering, accountable way
of building community through building women’s skills, confidence,
and networks. Womentoring is a new world of mentoring, a world where
the old rules written and practiced largely by men mentoring men and
have been redrafted by women mentoring women. The new rules of womentoring
claim that:
The Womentoring process also includes the following interpersonal characteristics:
The Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women in Sport and
Physical Activity (CAAWS) (2003) has developed a list of benefits and
challenges to mentoring. They include:
Benefits to the Mentor
Opportunity to share their knowledge and skills Satisfaction in helping another Satisfaction in supporting the next generation of leaders Revitalized enthusiasm and commitment to their own work Chances to review and update their knowledge Reduced feelings of professional isolation Challenges to their own perspectives and new ideas Benefits to the Mentee
Opportunities to learn new skills and acquire new knowledge Opportunities to ‘get known’ and build networks Career enhancement Training in organizational politics Support and reinforcement for their development Someone with whom to discuss ideas and difficulties Confidence and empowerment Benefits to the University
Higher skilled faculty
Ability to meet mission, goals and objectives of department, college and university Increased communication and support for upcoming leaders Support network More effective decision making and delivery of services with more skilled individuals Successful mentees often become mentors and better people managers Challenges to Successful Mentoring Inability of the mentee to clearly articulate needs and expectations Amount of time and effort involved Access difficulties if geographically separated Mentor domination and ‘always right’ attitude Inability by mentor or mentee to change or accept change Negative organizational culture; not supportive of learning and mentoring. Effective Management of A Mentoring Program
Effective mentoring programs are highly dependent on how the relationships
are managed and maintained. A conducive learning climate has to be created
to ensure that mentoring initiatives offer a vehicle for analysis, reflection
and action that ultimately enable both mentors and mentees to achieve
their full potential in one or more areas of their work. The following
guidelines could facilitate the effective management of a mentoring
program:
Establish clear goals and a program design which meets the personal
and development needs of both mentor and mentee
The roles of mentor and mentee should be agreed but opportunities for
contact and individual choice particularly across hierarchical and cultural
boundaries should exist
Allow for reciprocity so that the mentee can assist the mentor through
reverse exercise of knowledge and skills
Privacy and confidentiality in the mentoring relationship is of paramount
importance, particularly to discuss informal of an organization or to
engage in critique
The “health” of the mentoring relationship should be evaluated
regularly to determine if expectations are met and if both parties are
satisfied
The mentoring relationship should last for a mutually agreeable time
period, whereupon it can be terminated or continued. Both mentor and
mentee should share responsibility for the smooth winding down of the
relationship once it has achieved its purpose
Constructive feedback is a key performance area of the mentor while
the mentee should attempt to address areas for development one another
ensuring mutual respect and understanding of the conclusion
Either party in the mentoring relationship should be free to terminate
the relationship after discussing the matter with on another E-Mentoring
Face-to-face mentoring is traditionally regarded as the ideal learning
environment to achieve the outcomes of mentoring. When, however, face-to-face
mentoring is not possible because of distance difficulties, limited
availability of mentors or mentees, e-mentoring could be a viable alternative.
While e-mentoring may be convenient, it does have limitations that must
be understood by both parties in the mentoring relationship. Limitations
may include:
Good mentoring relationships may take longer to develop due to the absence
of personal contact
The loss of benefits of facial expressions and body language
E-mentoring works best for those who have an open mind and are eager
to make it work
E-mentoring may work best in the collaborative and confirmative relationship
stages of mentoring Conclusion
The world of higher education is changing, with leaders being expected
to do more with less. These changes put new pressures and bring new
imperatives for faculty. It seems as if there is sufficient leadership
potential in higher education, but insufficient realization of this
leadership potential and formal value for its development, creating
a gap between supply and demand. Changed landscapes have brought a re-evaluation
of the way people learn the skills of the profession. Traditional methods
of leadership development need to be supplemented and formalized. Mentoring
might be a valuable tool in the leadership development process and formalized
into the evaluation process of senior faculty members. References and suggested readings:
Abraham, A. and Collins, D. (1998) Examining and
extending research in coach development. Quest 50, 59-79.
Bloom, G. A., Bush, N. D., Schinke, R. and Salmela,
J. H. (1998) The importance of mentoring in the development of coaches
and athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology 29,
267-281.
CAAWS Toolkit for Action. (2003). www.caaws.org.
Campbell, S. (1993) Coaching education around the
world. Sport Science Review 2(2), 62-74.
Canapini, G. (1999) Mentor or hero? National
and State Coaching Coordinators' Workshop. Australian Coaching
Council.
Charlton, G. (2002) Human habits of highly effective
organizations. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Dahle, C. (1998) Women’s ways of mentoring.
FastCompany, Issue 17:186-189.
Douge, B., Alexander, K., Davis, P. and Kidman,
L. (1994) Evaluation of the National Coach Accreditation Scheme.
Australian Coaching Council.
Fagenson, E. A. (1992) Mentoring – Who needs
it? A comparison of proteges’ and non-proteges needs for power,
achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior
41, 48-60.
Galvin, B. (1998) A guide to mentoring sports
coaches. The National Coaching Foundation.
Healy, C. C. and Welchert, A. J. (1990) Mentoring
relations: A definition to advance research and practice. Educational
Researcher 19(9), 17-21.
Hitt, W.D. (1988) The Leader-Manager. Champaign,
Ill: Sagamore Publishing.
Kieran, A. (1999) Mentoring reference group report.
International Coach Education Conference Proceedings. Australian
Coaching Council.
Kozel, J. (1997) Educating coaches for the twenty-first
century – a German perspective. The Sport Educator 9(3),
41-44.
Newby, T. J. and Heide, A. (1992) The value of mentoring.
Performance Improvement Quarterly 5(4), 2-15.
Scandura, T. A. (1992) Mentorship and career mobility:
An empirical investigation. Journal of Organisational Behavior
13, 169-174.
Schembri, G. (1998) The Australian Institute of
Sport – a catalyst for success. Coaching Focus 37, 6-8.
Schön, D. A. (1987) Educating the reflective
practitioner. London: Josey-Bass Inc.
Schweitzer, C. (1993) Mentoring future professionals.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 64(7),
50-52.
Stroot, S., Keil, V., Stedman, P., Lohr, L., Faust, R., Schincariol-Randall,
L., Sullivan, A., Czerniak, G., Kuchcinski, J., Orel, N., & Richter,
M. (1998). Peer assistance and review guidebook. Columbus, OH: Ohio
Department of Education
Thomson, B. (1998) The mentor coach and coaching.
Proceedings of Coach’98: Tomorrow’s World Today.
Glasgow: Scottish Sports Council.
Tinning, R. (1996) Mentoring in the Australian Physical
Education Teacher Education context: Lessons from cooking turkeys and
tandoori chicken. In M. Mawer (ed.) Mentoring in Physical Education:
Issues and Insights. Brighton: Falmer Press, 197-216.
Weaver, M. A. and Chelladurai, P. (1999) A mentoring
model for management in sport and physical education. Quest 51,
24-38.
Wright, S. C. and Smith, D. E. (2000) A case for formalised mentoring.
Quest 52, 200-213.
Darlene A. Kluka, Ph. D.,
Department of Health, Physical Education and Sport Science; Director Center for International Women’s Leadership and Sport Development Kennesaw State University, Georgia USA eyesport@aol.com Anneliese Goslin, D Phil. Department of Biokinetics Sport and Leisure Studies; Director Centre for Leisure Studies, University of Pretoria South Africa goslin@sport.up.ac.za  www.icsspe.org |