Workplace mentoring: Organising and managing effective practice

Organising and managing learning in the workplace

Stephen Billett1, Faculty of Education,Griffith University

Nathan 4111

Phone (07) 3875 5855Fax (07) 3875 6868

Email [email protected]

1 Research assistance was provided by Andrew McCann and Kerrie Scott Centre for Research, Planning and Development, Wodonga Institute of Technical and Further Education

Guided learning in the workplace

Abstract

This paper reports the finding of an investigationinto how learning in the workplace might be bestorganised and managed. Selected learning strategieswere trialled in five workplaces over six monthperiods. Throughout, regular critical incidentinterviews were conducted to determine linkagesbetween the mentoring strategies and knowledge thathad been learnt. Also identified were factorsassociated with the organisation and management ofguided learning in the workplace. These include thepreparation required by both guides and learners, theneed for the tailoring of strategies to the particularworkplace, and organisational requirements within theenterprise.

Billett S (1999) Guided learning in the workplace In D Boud & JGarrick (eds) Understanding Learning at Work London: Routledge

2 Aims and method of the study

The aim of the research was to inform the development and

implementation of workplace learning strategies based on

guided learning. It is anticipated that such understandings

may assist the development of a pedagogy for the workplace.

These strategies comprise mentors’ use of Modelling, Coaching,

Questioning, Diagrams and Analogies. It was intended that

through a process of identification of and trials of these

strategies that key principles could be established through

which the organisation and management of workplaces as

effective learning environments can best be realised.

The questions addressed in this investigation were:

1. How can guided learning in the workplace be used to best organise and

sequence activities to take the leaner from novice to expert?

2. How can mentors best assist learners develop the knowledge required for

workplace performance through guided learning techniques such as modelling

and coaching?

3. How can mentors work with learners to provide access to knowledge that would

be difficult for learners to access unaided?

The study commenced by considering the various definitions of

mentoring within the literature to clarify what mentoring

means in the context of strengthening workplace learning

provisions able to develop the knowledge required for

workplace performance. From this, a view about mentoring as

guided learning was identified as being the most appropriate

for the purposes of this study. Next, a review of the

literature identified particular strategies for use in the

workplace by mentors. Initially, approaches to mentoring and

specific strategies for guided learning in the workplace were

identified from a review of relevant literature (e.g. Collins,

Brown & Newman 1989, LeFevre, Greenham & Waheed 1993, Pea,

1993). Strategies were selected on the basis of their

predicted ability to maximise the potential of the workplace

as a learning environment, which includes addressing the

shortcomings identified in earlier work. The suitability of

these strategies includes an ability to be used in the

workplace as part of everyday work practice. The strategies

selected for this investigation were: (i) questioning

dialogues; (ii) the use of diagrams and; (iii) analogies,

which were to be deployed within a guided approach to

workplace learning which emphasised (iv) modelling and (v)

coaching.

From the mentoring literature, and taking into account the

focus of this project, the following are proposed as key

characteristics of workplace mentors. Workplace mentors

should:

have expertise in the work area - be an expert other

(can handle novel problems) - has knowledge to share

and must be viewed as being credible;

understand the goals for performance - understands

what is required for successful performance in the

workplace;

value mentoring, see a need for it and the knowledge

to be learnt by mentees;

have a willingness to share knowledge with learner;

and

be a guide for learners rather than teaching (making

learners do the thinking and acting).

In overview, the data gathering and analysis comprised two

programs of staged inquiry in workplaces (see Figure 4.1). The

first program was a pilot investigation involving two

workplaces with three mentors and four mentees. It was used to

‘de-bug’ the mentoring and strategy implementation and the

data-gathering methods. This provided the opportunity to

address refinements in the second program. This program, which

involved four workplace sites, 17 mentors and 24 mentees,

comprises the key data source. The sites were located in

Victoria, NSW and the Australian Capital Territory. In both

programs, diverse kinds of workplace sites were selected as

sites. The differences were, in terms of their functions,

products/services and organisational structures. These

workplaces comprised a large food processing company with

mentoring occurring in a range of work areas (e.g. production,

occupational health and safety, administration and

laboratory), a public sector agency associated with social

service provisions, a textile manufacturing company, again

with mentoring activities occurring in a number of workplace

areas (warehouse, spinning, milling, consumer products,

mechanics, quality assurance), a recently corporatised power

distribution company and a retail setting. As foreshadowed

earlier, each enterprise’s program of trialing and

investigation was of six month’s duration.

Five workplaces where involved in the investigation, with a

total of 19 mentors being prepared and working with a total of

27 mentees2. Some mentors had more than one mentee, although

typically one mentor worked with one mentee. A diversity of

workplace sites was invited to participate in the project

through local contacts. The two settings accessed in the first

program, comprised a food processing plant and an agency

providing social and youth services. The first site, which is

in close proximity to a major provincial centre, manufactures

food products and distributes these throughout the country. It

draws its workforce primarily from the nearby district. At

this site, a mentor from one plant was selected to work with

one mentee who was a newstarter at another plant. Both were

employed in positions of a similar designation and level. As

the mentor and mentee worked at different plants they did not

necessarily meet on a face-to-face basis everyday. However,

regular contact was still maintained.

2 Not all of the mentees and mentors completed the program, however.There was a particularly high drop out rate in one organisation whichwas experiencing wide scale restructuring.

The second setting was located in a capital city and provides

welfare, social and youth services in that city. Two mentors

were selected at this site. One worked with two mentees and

the other with one mentee. The relationship between the

mentors and mentees was supervisor to subordinate. However, in

one pairing there was a physical distance between the work

location of the mentor and mentee. Again, this meant they did

not meet in face-to-face everyday. However, regular contact

was maintained by telephone calls and meetings weekly and as

required.

Participating enterprises were selected to incorporate

diversity of activities to understand how mentoring might

proceed in different types of tasks and workplaces. The

selection of staff to be nominated as mentors was subject to

the enterprise’s discretion. Criteria were provided for the

enterprise to select mentors. Expertise in the area they were

to mentor in was a premium requirement. In most situations,

contacts were made through the enterprise’s human resource

section that was usually supported by meetings between some of

the researchers and enterprise staff.

The settings selected for the second program included the food

processing company involved in Phase 1 (5 mentors with 5

mentees), a textile production company (6 mentors with 11

mentees), a power distribution company (4 mentors with 5

mentees) and a retail outlet (1 mentor with 1 mentee). At the

food processing company, the mentoring program was extended

into different work areas including laboratory and in

administrative roles in the food production plant. The

relationships in these arrangements were generally those with

the mentor being the supervisor of the mentee. All the mentors

and mentees had regular opportunities to interact with their

mentors usually working quite closely with them on a daily

basis. The diversity of tasks at this workplace included

consumer testing, laboratory activities, product development

and database administration. In the textile plant, the

relationships were usually supervisor to subordinate; although

in some cases the mentors were not officially designated as

having a supervisory position. Work areas in the textile plant

included warehouse operations, spinning, textiles mechanic,

machinist, milling and quality assurance activities. In this

workplace, opportunities varied for close interaction of a

face-to-face kind that could be used in the mentoring process

are a shift-based operation. In this site, unlike others, some

mentors had up to three mentees.

In the power distribution company, the work areas comprised

administrative roles of different kinds. Many workers were

quite remote from the head office and each other. This

workplace offered a combination of mentoring arrangements,

from those that could provide regular close interaction

through to those who were quite separate from their mentors

and, in at least one case, separated by hundreds of

kilometres. In this enterprise some mentor-mentee

relationships were supervisor - subordinate relationship,

whilst others were co-workers. It was this site, from which

was experienced a high rate of drop out. Finally, the retail

setting had a mentor working in close daily interaction with

the mentee in a supervisor - subordinate relationship.

Following this, empirical work comprising a two staged

programs of interventions, occurred in selected workplaces.

The first was a pilot study to trial the mentoring and

strategy implementation and the data-gathering methodologies.

The second program comprised the preparation of mentors and

the data collection from a number of workplace sites over a

six-month period. Both programs involved workplace sites that

were diverse in terms of their functions, goals and

organisational structures. These workplaces comprised: (i) a

large food-processing company with mentoring occurring in a

range of work areas (e.g. production, administration and

laboratory); (ii) a public sector agency associated with

social service provisions: (iii) a textile manufacturing

company, again with mentoring activities occurring in a number

of workplace areas (production, warehouse, weaving shed); (iv)

a recently corporatised power distribution company and; (v) a

small retail business. The program of trialing and

investigation within each enterprise was of six month’s

duration.

Findings

5.5 Mentors' perceptions of the approach and strategy useAt the end of the six-month period, the mentors were asked in what ways had the mentoring process had been useful, not satisfactory and what improvements are required. They were also asked about the efficacy or otherwise of the strategies. The mentors' responses are summarised in Table 5.8. This tablehas three columns that are aligned to the questions about the

utility, limitations and suggested improvements for the mentoring approach. The data here was gathered from the mentors, not the mentees. In this table, the mentors are identified by the mentee(s) for whom they are the mentor. For example, the reference to A1 in this table (and those that immediately follow) is not the mentee but A1's mentor. Equally, where the code refers to two mentees (e.g. E26-27) this identified the mentor who has responsibility for the mentees E26 and E27.

Table 5.8 - Mentors' overall perception of the mentoring process.

Utility Limitation Improvements Assisted with

inducting employees to workplace (A1)

Precipitated conscious, structured and reflective approach to mentoring (A2, A3,A4, A5, B8/10)

Provision of a wider range of strategies (A6, B7)

Provision of learning experiences for both mentor and mentee (C11, C12)

Provided an opportunity to structure learningof mentee (D16)

Provided an opportunity to motivate mentees (E17-19)

Pressed mentee into thinking for

ainly used for induction purposes(A1)

Thorough preparation and specific focus on application to mentors' area of work (A3)

Found it hard to change to using techniques (A5, B7, B8/10)

Feedback and monitoring required for mentors (A6)

Remoteness inhibited use of strategies and access to expertise (B7, C12)

Separation from mentee (D16)

Time was not the best - not busy period (E17-19)

Too busy - unprepared (E23)

Appropriatenessof timing and selection of those involved (A1)

Reinforcement of and follow up with strategies (A2,A5)

More flexibility with strategiesand resources (A3)

Provision of a structured checklist for tasks (A6)

Locating mentorand mentees in same physical environment (B7)

Should become part of job - job description(C11)

Thorough preparation and

herself and mentorto reflect on workpractice (E23,E24, E25)

Provides other sources of advice for mentees (E26-27)

Uncooperative mentees (E26-27)

Mentees ill at ease with process (E23)

tighter focusing of preparation (E17-19)

Have time available to dotasks (E20-22)

The utility of the mentoring arrangements were held to includethose associated with structuring or 'formalising' a learning process that already occurs 'informally'. This was seen as having benefits for both the mentors and mentees. For the mentors, it pressed the need for some formalisation and structure, presented an opportunity to reflect on practice andfurnished a vehicle to interact with workers for the purposes of their development (e.g. induction). For the mentees, the process is seen as engaging them in knowledge constructing activities, advancing discretion to mentees, structuring experiences for them, addressing motivational issues and assisting them to another source of advice. So, the perceived utility of the mentoring program was mainly focused on the learning and the development of both the mentors and the mentees. This had been the aim of the program. The need for a thorough preparation, monitoring for the mentors and feedback on their performance emerged as a key concern. This was evident in not only gaining skilfulness in the use of the approaches but in switching from other approaches upon which the mentors currently rely. Equally, the lack of initial involvement with mentees in such a program was seen as detrimental to the mentoring process and its outcomes in some work sites. This situation led to some of the mentees being ill at eased or not trusting the process. As is reported in the mentees' feedback (see Table 5.11) these concerns were notjust the mentors' perceptions.

The other key limitation was physical separation of the mentorand mentee. This separation included different offices, working in different parts of plant or the enterprise, being

in the same location but on different shifts or separation by many kilometres and, hence, infrequent opportunities for face-to-face meetings. In addition, the timing and selection of individuals for mentoring programs was held as a key determinant for some mentors. Timing related to particular periods in production processes, induction of new employees orcoincidence with important changes. Considering the factor of proximity in mentoring, it is noteworthy that a number of the mentors at Site A share the same physical environment and probably have the opportunity to meet and discuss their mentoring activities. This situation probably furnishes a formof peer mentoring which is analogous to the 'learning curriculum' referred to earlier.

Building on the reported strengths of the mentoring process and addressing the aforementioned concerns, it is proposed: (i) that a thorough preparation for mentoring which includes

some tailoring to the particular requirements of the workplace would be desirable;

(ii) that mentors' initial preparation be followed up by support and feedback on progress;

(iii) structuring work tasks so that mentoring is part of the job to make thereby legitimating the time expended on this task; and

(iv) mentees are also thoroughly briefed on the program.

So, it seems from this data that, overall, the utility of the program was focused on its impact on learning, its weaknesses where in refining the mentoring approach to the needs of the enterprises and the individuals within them. This deduction isbased on the differing needs being expressed by mentors at different enterprises which seems based on either their readiness or the structure and organisation of the enterprise.For example, some mentors wanted greater sophistication of approach than others, apparently premised on their prior knowledge of and involvement in developing skilfulness. Yet, for other sites the concerns were structural associated with isolated workers and those not able to provide access to those

to whom they were mentors. Also detailed below, in the sectionon techniques, are data that indicate more fully the need for strategies and approaches to address the particular requirements of the type of activity being conducted. Hence, from this analysis, the needs of a workplace curriculum approach for the workplace begins to emerge.

The mentors also provided responses to similar questions abouteach intended strategy. They were asked about any variation inthe frequency of use, the utility of each strategy and its limitations. Table 5.9 provides a summary of the data on the utility and limitations of each strategy and the data on the variations of frequency is added to the discussion of these data. The left-hand column states the strategy being referred to, the middle column contains summary statements about the utility of these strategies and the right hand column lists summary statements about their limitations. Again, the subjects referred to in this table are the mentors who are identifiable by their nomenclature. The discussion about this data is augmented by that from Tables 5.5 and 5.6 about the frequency of strategy use and also that from Table 5.10 (below) which presents data on the predicted future use of thestrategies by the mentors. In Table 5.10, the left-hand columnstates the strategy and the others to the right of it indicatewhether the mentors predict the likelihood of their future useof the strategy.

Table 5.9 - Mentors' perceptions of strategiesStrategy Utility LimitationQuestioning

determining learners' needs (A1), understanding (A2, A3, B8/10, E26-27), and progress (A5, C11)

engages learners to contribute (A4)

looking at options (B7) first part of instruction

(D16) immediacy of response

(E17-19) learner does the thinking

(E24, E26-27)

could be threatening if used insensitively (A2, A3)

forgetting to use it (A4)

has to be based on trust (A5, A6)

not always appropriate(B7)

other strategies more appropriate (E25)

Analogies making comparisons (A1) descriptive image

requiring consideration ofwhat's to be explained (A2, D16, E25)

makes it everyday (A3), relevant (A4) and likely to be retained (B8/10, E17-19, E24)

explains complex ideas (A5, A6)

some examples obvious (B7)

requires lots of thought (B7, B8/10)

difficult to get the analogy right (A2, A3,A5)

not always best (A3) or appropriate strategy (C11, E23, E26-27)

meaning might be shared by mentor/mentee (A6)

Diagrams explaining things - flow charts (A1) (A5, B7) - equipment workings (E23)

provides quick understanding (A2, B8/10),overview (B8/10)

thought out on paper, involving mentee with drawing and questioning (A3)

strong mental image (A4, B7, D16)

explain complex ideas (A6,E25)

inducting new employees E17-19

not always appropriate(policies and practices (A1), team building (C11, - E24, E26-27

simplicity and precision (A2)

quality of drawing (A3, A5, E25)

limited opportunity - separate offices (B7)

takes too much time (E23)

Modelling developing good rapport with mentees (A2) and gets

inappropriate (A1, A2,C11)

them involved (E24, E26-27)

understanding of task by mentees (A2)

hands-on (A3, B8/10), for hands-on tasks (A5)

observe both good and bad performances (A4)

real examples (A6, B7) monitoring of tasks

(B8/10) another approach to

address different needs (D16)

difficult to model technological applications (A3)

mentee in passive role- has to be followed by task engagement (A6)

separate locations (B7)

time consuming (B8/10)

Coaching adjusting to new role (A1) instils confidence and

provides challenge (A2, D16, E23, E26-27)

trouble-shooting (A3) and review of work (C11)

observe both good and bad performances (A4, E24)

happens anyway - good reinforcement - support (A5, A6)

structure to share knowledge (B7)

mentors can do own work mentees can pace themselves (B8/10)

both mentor and mentee learning (E17-19)

another strategy (E25)

knowing when best to use it (A2)

can be time consuming (A3)

if relationship is tense may be inappropriate (A5)

knowing how best to use it (A6)

distance causes accessproblems (B7)

requires sound relationships between mentor and mentee (B8/10)

5.5 Mentors' perceptions of the approach and strategy useAt the end of the six-month period, the mentors were asked in what ways had the mentoring process had been useful, not satisfactory and what improvements are required. They were also asked about the efficacy or otherwise of the strategies. The mentors' responses are summarised in Table 5.8. This tablehas three columns that are aligned to the questions about the utility, limitations and suggested improvements for the mentoring approach. The data here was gathered from the

mentors, not the mentees. In this table, the mentors are identified by the mentee(s) for whom they are the mentor. For example, the reference to A1 in this table (and those that immediately follow) is not the mentee but A1's mentor. Equally, where the code refers to two mentees (e.g. E26-27) this identified the mentor who has responsibility for the mentees E26 and E27.

Table 5.8 - Mentors' overall perception of the mentoring process.

Utility Limitation Improvements Assisted with

inducting employees to workplace (A1)

Precipitated conscious, structured and reflective approach to mentoring (A2, A3,A4, A5, B8/10)

Provision of a wider range of strategies (A6, B7)

Provision of learning experiences for both mentor and mentee (C11, C12)

Provided an opportunity to structure learningof mentee (D16)

Provided an opportunity to motivate mentees (E17-19)

Pressed mentee into thinking for herself and mentorto reflect on workpractice (E23,

ainly used for induction purposes(A1)

Thorough preparation and specific focus on application to mentors' area of work (A3)

Found it hard to change to using techniques (A5, B7, B8/10)

Feedback and monitoring required for mentors (A6)

Remoteness inhibited use of strategies and access to expertise (B7, C12)

Separation from mentee (D16)

Time was not the best - not busy period (E17-19)

Too busy - unprepared (E23)

Uncooperative mentees (E26-27)

Mentees ill at

Appropriatenessof timing and selection of those involved (A1)

Reinforcement of and follow up with strategies (A2,A5)

More flexibility with strategiesand resources (A3)

Provision of a structured checklist for tasks (A6)

Locating mentorand mentees in same physical environment (B7)

Should become part of job - job description(C11)

Thorough preparation andtighter focusing of preparation

E24, E25) Provides other

sources of advice for mentees (E26-27)

ease with process (E23)

(E17-19) Have time

available to dotasks (E20-22)

The utility of the mentoring arrangements were held to includethose associated with structuring or 'formalising' a learning process that already occurs 'informally'. This was seen as having benefits for both the mentors and mentees. For the mentors, it pressed the need for some formalisation and structure, presented an opportunity to reflect on practice andfurnished a vehicle to interact with workers for the purposes of their development (e.g. induction). For the mentees, the process is seen as engaging them in knowledge constructing activities, advancing discretion to mentees, structuring experiences for them, addressing motivational issues and assisting them to another source of advice. So, the perceived utility of the mentoring program was mainly focused on the learning and the development of both the mentors and the mentees. This had been the aim of the program. The need for a thorough preparation, monitoring for the mentors and feedback on their performance emerged as a key concern. This was evident in not only gaining skilfulness in the use of the approaches but in switching from other approaches upon which the mentors currently rely. Equally, the lack of initial involvement with mentees in such a program was seen as detrimental to the mentoring process and its outcomes in some work sites. This situation led to some of the mentees being ill at eased or not trusting the process. As is reported in the mentees' feedback (see Table 5.11) these concerns were notjust the mentors' perceptions.

The other key limitation was physical separation of the mentorand mentee. This separation included different offices, working in different parts of plant or the enterprise, being in the same location but on different shifts or separation by many kilometres and, hence, infrequent opportunities for face-

to-face meetings. In addition, the timing and selection of individuals for mentoring programs was held as a key determinant for some mentors. Timing related to particular periods in production processes, induction of new employees orcoincidence with important changes. Considering the factor of proximity in mentoring, it is noteworthy that a number of the mentors at Site A share the same physical environment and probably have the opportunity to meet and discuss their mentoring activities. This situation probably furnishes a formof peer mentoring which is analogous to the 'learning curriculum' referred to earlier.

Building on the reported strengths of the mentoring process and addressing the aforementioned concerns, it is proposed: (i) that a thorough preparation for mentoring which includes

some tailoring to the particular requirements of the workplace would be desirable;

(ii) that mentors' initial preparation be followed up by support and feedback on progress;

(iii) structuring work tasks so that mentoring is part of the job to make thereby legitimating the time expended on this task; and

(iv) mentees are also thoroughly briefed on the program.

So, it seems from this data that, overall, the utility of the program was focused on its impact on learning, its weaknesses where in refining the mentoring approach to the needs of the enterprises and the individuals within them. This deduction isbased on the differing needs being expressed by mentors at different enterprises which seems based on either their readiness or the structure and organisation of the enterprise.For example, some mentors wanted greater sophistication of approach than others, apparently premised on their prior knowledge of and involvement in developing skilfulness. Yet, for other sites the concerns were structural associated with isolated workers and those not able to provide access to thoseto whom they were mentors. Also detailed below, in the sectionon techniques, are data that indicate more fully the need for

strategies and approaches to address the particular requirements of the type of activity being conducted. Hence, from this analysis, the needs of a workplace curriculum approach for the workplace begins to emerge.

The mentors also provided responses to similar questions abouteach intended strategy. They were asked about any variation inthe frequency of use, the utility of each strategy and its limitations. Table 5.9 provides a summary of the data on the utility and limitations of each strategy and the data on the variations of frequency is added to the discussion of these data. The left-hand column states the strategy being referred to, the middle column contains summary statements about the utility of these strategies and the right hand column lists summary statements about their limitations. Again, the subjects referred to in this table are the mentors who are identifiable by their nomenclature. The discussion about this data is augmented by that from Tables 5.5 and 5.6 about the frequency of strategy use and also that from Table 5.10 (below) which presents data on the predicted future use of thestrategies by the mentors. In Table 5.10, the left-hand columnstates the strategy and the others to the right of it indicatewhether the mentors predict the likelihood of their future useof the strategy.

Table 5.9 - Mentors' perceptions of strategiesStrategy Utility LimitationQuestioning

determining learners' needs (A1), understanding (A2, A3, B8/10, E26-27), and progress (A5, C11)

engages learners to contribute (A4)

looking at options (B7) first part of instruction

(D16) immediacy of response

(E17-19) learner does the thinking

(E24, E26-27)

could be threatening if used insensitively (A2, A3)

forgetting to use it (A4)

has to be based on trust (A5, A6)

not always appropriate(B7)

other strategies more appropriate (E25)

Analogies making comparisons (A1) descriptive image

requiring consideration ofwhat's to be explained (A2, D16, E25)

makes it everyday (A3), relevant (A4) and likely to be retained (B8/10, E17-19, E24)

explains complex ideas (A5, A6)

some examples obvious (B7)

requires lots of thought (B7, B8/10)

difficult to get the analogy right (A2, A3,A5)

not always best (A3) or appropriate strategy (C11, E23, E26-27)

meaning might be shared by mentor/mentee (A6)

Diagrams explaining things - flow charts (A1) (A5, B7) - equipment workings (E23)

provides quick understanding (A2, B8/10),overview (B8/10)

thought out on paper, involving mentee with drawing and questioning (A3)

strong mental image (A4, B7, D16)

explain complex ideas (A6,E25)

inducting new employees E17-19

not always appropriate(policies and practices (A1), team building (C11, - E24, E26-27

simplicity and precision (A2)

quality of drawing (A3, A5, E25)

limited opportunity - separate offices (B7)

takes too much time (E23)

Modelling developing good rapport with mentees (A2) and gets

inappropriate (A1, A2,C11)

them involved (E24, E26-27)

understanding of task by mentees (A2)

hands-on (A3, B8/10), for hands-on tasks (A5)

observe both good and bad performances (A4)

real examples (A6, B7) monitoring of tasks

(B8/10) another approach to

address different needs (D16)

difficult to model technological applications (A3)

mentee in passive role- has to be followed by task engagement (A6)

separate locations (B7)

time consuming (B8/10)

Coaching adjusting to new role (A1) instils confidence and

provides challenge (A2, D16, E23, E26-27)

trouble-shooting (A3) and review of work (C11)

observe both good and bad performances (A4, E24)

happens anyway - good reinforcement - support (A5, A6)

structure to share knowledge (B7)

mentors can do own work mentees can pace themselves (B8/10)

both mentor and mentee learning (E17-19)

another strategy (E25)

knowing when best to use it (A2)

can be time consuming (A3)

if relationship is tense may be inappropriate (A5)

knowing how best to use it (A6)

distance causes accessproblems (B7)

requires sound relationships between mentor and mentee (B8/10)

Summary

It is proposed from the data that when the strategies are used

frequently two types of evidence confirming their utility.

Firstly, the ranking obtained during the critical incidents

and, secondly, the increases in the conceptual links.

Where there is evidence of low frequency of strategy use there

is a corresponding low level of utility reported and even

negative responses to the conceptual links. However, as there

is a common association between reported levels of strategy

use, perceptions of their potency and increases in conceptual

links this evidence seems to stand. There is, as always, a

possibility that those subjects who respond enthusiastically

to the interviews, concept maps and critical incidents are

being represented here. This is discounted in part by the

corresponding data provided by the mentors.

It does seem that both organisational and personal factors areat work in realising the efficacy of the mentoring processes. Take the findings from two apparently contrasting sites; A andE. These sites might crudely characterised by having a strong and weak propensity for mentoring to be successful. Yet at Site A there is evidence of mentoring not being successful and, despite the odds, it being successful in a few cases at E.

3.2 Mentoring arrangements determined by the workplace

Secondly, mentoring arrangements need to differ according to

workplace requirements. The workplaces in this investigation

had diverse goals, functions and organisational structures

making questionable any simple prescription for learning in

workplaces. Gladstone (1988 cited in Garvey 1994) captured

this diversity in suggesting that mentoring is “as variable as

the organisation in which mentors and proteges find

themselves, and as idiosyncratic as the people involved”. The

diversity of work practices, tasks, work areas within

enterprises meant that processes such as modelling and

guidance needed to be conceived quite differently. Moreover,

the nature of mentoring itself was shaped by workplace

characteristics. For instance, the frequency by which

interactions between mentee and mentors could occur differed.

Hence, opportunities for the use of guided learning strategies

in face-to-face encounters differed across sites. Factors

influencing these differences were identified (see Figure 1).

3.3 Thorough preparation required

Thirdly, preparation for the mentoring role needs to be

thorough and rigorous. Mentor preparation is required that is

more rigorous and of longer duration than was possible to be

organised for this project. Establishing and managing rigorous

workplace learning arrangements requires enterprise

commitment, which includes time and resources to prepare

workplace mentors. Reluctance by employers to release

employees for extended periods of time for mentorship

preparation will likely inhibit the comprehensive development

of the skilfulness required for their role. The preparatory

process should include opportunities for monitoring, review

and refining their application of skills seems required.

Equally, mentees should be informed of the processes in which

they are to participate. Expertise external to the

organisation, such as that provided by vocational educators,

might be required to develop, manage and maintain the guided

approach to learning in workplaces.

The particular requirements of enterprises and, indeed

individual work areas within enterprises, means that

approaches to mentoring and the use of particular strategies

are necessarily going to be quite different. Consequently,

approaches to guided learning are shaped by the

characteristics of the particular workplace. For instance, the

mentee may not share the same physical location as their

mentor, because they work in separate parts of plants, offices

or locations, thereby making close guidance more problematic.

Equally, the knowledge in a particular workplace might be more

or less hidden due to the vocation activities or technologies

that are employed in the workplace. That is, the knowledge is

difficult to learn. This impasse requires the use of a

particular combination of mentoring strategies to make

accessible and secure the knowledge for mentees.

So in sum, the evidence from this investigation indicates, in

different ways, that mentoring in the form of guided learning

assists learning. That is, when the strategies are used

frequently there is evidence of the kinds of development that

are required for workplace performance. Moreover, as mentors

become more skilful with the strategies, their use becomes

more integrated and sophisticated. Some factors that underpin

the successful deployment of mentoring include the following.

1. Positive relationships between mentors and mentees are

important, which has consequences for the selection of and

induction of both mentors and mentees

2. Clear goals are required for and expectations of the

mentoring program with both mentors and mentees should be

appraised of and involved in the determination of outcomes.

3. Mentees access to mentors is essential, albeit through

regular meetings, face-to-face encounters, or more distant

means such as through telecommunication.

4. Where the workplace’s culture of practice is open and used

to developmental processes such as mentoring it is more

likely to be successful than where these conditions are not

present.

5. Both mentors and mentees have responsibilities to engage in

interactions which enhance collaborative relationships.

3.1 Mentoring as part of everyday practice

Fourthly, the findings indicated that everyday activities in

the workplace (the learning curriculum) have the capacity to

develop much of the knowledge required for workplace practice.

This is known from earlier work. Elements of learning through

everyday activity which approximate the ‘learning curriculum’

(Everyday activity, Other Workers, Observing and listening,

the Workplace, Mentor support) were rated highly. It seems

that when mentoring practices reach the stages of being talked

shared and discussed, observed by other mentors etc - that

they are used more richly and maturely as in the ‘learning

curriculum’. That is, when the attributes of the learning

curriculum are applied to the development of mentoring skills

the outcomes become particularly potent.

4. Organising and managing effective practice.

Key considerations for the organisation and management of

mentoring in the workplace can be considered under the

headings of Readiness, Fittedness and Organisational

structure.

4.1 Readiness of the mentors and mentees

Individuals who are about to become either mentors or mentees

need to be ready for the task. That is, they need the

understandings and techniques required for their role. It was

evident in the findings that not all individuals were ready to

engage in either mentoring or mentee roles. Nor was there

uniformity in their readiness. Whereas some mentors wanted a

more sophisticated approach than was being trialed, others had

difficulty dealing with the requirements of the techniques and

approaches being appraised. Consequently, mentors’ preparation

and mentees’ briefing are important for successful

implementation. Moreover, different levels of mentor

preparation are likely to be required in different settings

(or within settings) depending on their readiness. For

example, at those sites familiar with training arrangements,

there seemed to be a greater readiness for and acceptance of

the mentoring processes, than at sites which little in way of

existing culture of training and development. In the latter

there was evidence of suspicion about the mentoring process

and the data-gathering associated with it. The quality of

relationships between mentors and mentees was a key

determinant of outcomes. The quality of interactions in the

mentoring process was important in terms of engagement.

Learning is a social process and interpersonal interaction is

likely to be an important quality in the successful

implementation of mentoring. However, the responsibility for

relationships between mentors and mentees need to be shared.

While it is reasonable to expect mentors to perform certain

roles and exhibit certain characteristics there are also

expectations of the mentees in terms of their interactions.

However, it needs to be a reciprocal relationship. Hence,

induction and preparation for mentees as well as mentors is

required which will likely include discussion about and

agreement upon mutual roles and responsibilities. A common

understanding of some issues, such as initiating and

maintaining contact is needed so the relationship can develop

further.

Therefore, preparation needs to go beyond familiarity and

initial training in the use of techniques. The training also

needs to provide some guidance about how the mentoring

relationship can best be developed, including discussion of

the roles, responsibilities and expectations of mentors and

mentees. Each pair needs to reach a common understanding about

these issues. Monitoring of mentors’ progress, provision of

feedback and advice for refinement is likely to provide the

kind of ongoing developmental opportunities required for

building up mentoring skills. In terms of tailoring these

needs, the readiness of a particular cohort of workplace

employees is likely to depend on their prior knowledge of and

experience with associated developmental opportunities.

4.2 The fit between the learning arrangements to the

enterprise needs

There has to be a fit between the selected approaches to

guided learning and the requirements of the workplace in which

they are to be implemented. The use of strategies depends on

the circumstances in which they are being implemented. Even

procedures such as Modelling and Coaching are unlikely to be

uniform across enterprises where mentors and mentees are on

different shifts, separated by distance and direct

communication. Although, openness and persistence between

mentors and mentees were able to address some of these

shortcomings with the assistance of technology, there are

other complications. The use of strategies, their sequencing

and even appropriateness is likely to be mediated by the

requirements of the particular workplace. For example, one

work site may have production processes that are hidden behind

pipes and equipment. Hence, diagrams may make accessible what

is hidden. But diagrams may be a less likely aid where

counselling or negotiation is required - which may be more

suited to analogies or questioning. Therefore, there is a need

to seek fit between what guided learning can offer and the

needs of the particular enterprise.

4.3 Organisational structure

The structure of the enterprise offers another variable.

Perhaps too often, workplaces are conceptualised as an

organisation where all the employees are under one roof and

engaged in homogenous sets of activities. Yet, for some of the

enterprises in the study there were multiple sites and workers

engaged in different activities in different sites. Indeed,

for one of the enterprises there was little in the way of

direct interaction between employee because of their

fieldwork. Hence, considerations for approaches to and

strategies for guided learning or mentoring need to take into

account such factors.

Figure 1 Factors emerging as influencing mentoring in the workplaceRelationship factors disposition of mentors and mentees (e.g. Trust - enthusiasm,

caution, reluctance and personality) age and gender factors (e.g. mentees’ discomfort with a mentors

from another gender or who is younger readiness to participate (e.g. their existing knowledge and

motivation to engage) confidence to mentor (e.g. own skills and knowledge) standing in the workplace (is the mentor seen as being credible

Job factors appropriateness of strategies stages of employment (e.g. induction)Organisational factors culture of the workplace (e.g. accepting of the mentoring

process) distance between mentor and mentee (close or far) relationships (e.g. resistance) shift arrangements (e.g. how best can mentors and mentees

interact) preparation for and support of mentoring process within the

organisation work organisation and goals unit size technology

In Figure 1 are depicted some of the factors which influence

the likelihood of mentoring being successful. Many of these go

beyond what is considered part of the workplace arrangements

but in a real sense they contribute to the workplace

curriculum in influencing the activities, interactions and

guidance from which individuals learn.

This means that both a thorough preparation and some tailoring

is required to address the needs of each workplace. Depending

on the readiness within the enterprise, external expertise

might be required to assist with tailoring these arrangements.

If the enterprise staff have the wherewithal to tailor the

mentoring arrangements to their needs this will likely realise

more potent outcomes for the enterprise. If, on the other

hand, that expertise is lacking then it may be useful to get

outside assistance to establish, manage and monitor the

mentoring process until such times as the expertise exists

within the enterprise. Having said that, many enterprises do

not want to develop internal training expertise. They see this

being the business of others, such as TAFE institutes.