Gender, Work & OrganizationEngendering Leadership Conference 2008

Paper

Stream: Developing Leaders

Title: “Perfect Match”: what makes formal mentoring successful?

Author: Claire Webb

Institution: The University of Western Australia

Contact Details: Claire WebbStaff Development OfficerOrganisational and Staff Development Services (M400)The University of Western AustraliaTel: 6488 3986Fax: 6488 1156Email: Claire.Webb@uwa.edu.au

ABSTRACT

Formal mentoring programmes have become popular in advancing minority groups within

the workplace, including women, providing them with access to support networks not

normally available, and encouraging their personal, professional and leadership

development. Formal mentoring is assumed to be mutually beneficial to both mentors and

mentees, but there has been relatively little exploration of this in the literature. It is unclear

whether formal mentoring can successfully replicate the mentoring that occurs informally.

This paper reports on a formal mentoring programme for women operating at the

University of Western Australia for the past thirteen years, and explores the following

issues:

What impact does a formal mentoring programme have on mentors and mentees?

What influences the success or otherwise of mentoring partnerships, and what

strategies can be put in place to support them?

What impact does the gender of the mentor have on the mentoring experience for

mentees and mentors?

How effective is mentoring as a leadership development strategy?

1

Given that mentor matching is often highly individualised and time-consuming, and that

those participating in mentoring programmes often invest many hours engaging in the

process, it is vital to ensure that the experience is as productive as possible for all

concerned.

Key words: Mentoring, Gender, Universities, Development, Leadership

“Perfect Match”: what makes formal mentoring successful?

Introduction

Formal mentoring programmes have become a popular development tool in the last two

decades, adopted by organisations for multiple purposes. Such programmes have been

used to advance minority groups within the workplace, including women, providing them

with access to support networks not normally available, and encouraging their personal,

professional and leadership development (Chesterman, 2001). A review in 2007 of staff

development for women initiatives in higher education identified that mentoring

programmes were operating in at least 17 Australian universities1. Several of these

programmes have been operating over a number of years, and many have been

evaluated (Butorac, 1998; Devos, 2003; Gardiner, 2005; Gustavson, 1997, McCormack,

2006).

The benefits of mentoring highlighted in the literature include greater career satisfaction,

increased promotion, retention, publications, research grant income, confidence, self-

esteem, networking, job involvement, and reduced stress (Blake-Beard, 2001; Gardiner,

2005; Ragins, 1999; Ragins and Cotton, 1999). On the negative side, mentoring can be

time consuming, result in doubt on part of mentees and mentors, and some mentoring

partnerships never develop.

Formal mentoring is assumed to be mutually beneficial to both mentors and mentees, but

there has been relatively little exploration of this in the literature (Blake-Beard; 2001, Cox,

2005; Kram, 1985). There is also some doubt as to whether formal mentoring can

1 Data available on the UWA web site at http://www.osds.uwa.edu.au/about/activities/ldw/sdfw

2

successfully replicate and accrue the same benefits as mentoring that occurs informally

(Blake-Beard, 2001).

This paper reports on a formal mentoring scheme which has been in place at the

University of Western Australia (UWA) for the past thirteen years, and forms part of its

one-year Leadership Development for Women (LDW) programme. Through feedback

from individual mentors and mentees participating in the 2001 – 2006 programmes, and

from comparative data collected as part of the programme’s tenth anniversary in 2005, I

will explore the impact of mentoring on those involved, what factors have influenced the

success or otherwise of mentoring relationships, what strategies have been implemented

to support the process, what impact the gender of the mentor has had on the mentoring

experience, and what effect mentoring has had as a leadership development strategy.

UWA Case Study

Background

The Leadership Development for Women programme was introduced by the University of

Western Australia in 1994. It was established to address the continuing under

representation of women at senior levels within the organisation, to increase women’s

involvement in leadership and decision making processes, and to contribute to a culture

change within the University that would value women’s contributions and encourage more

inclusive management and leadership styles. Now in its fourteenth year, sixteen

programmes have been run, with 445 women having participated. Each programme

combines leadership skills development workshops, peer learning groups, career-related

workshops and information sessions on how the University works.

Mentoring has always formed part of LDW and has provided a one-to-one component in

contrast to the group aspects of the programme. It has also been integral to involving

other UWA staff with the programme. Between 1994 and 2007 more than 410 women

(193 academics and 217 general staff) have been matched with some 219 mentors from

across the institution for a period of up to nine months.

Who Mentors?

Both female and male mentors have been involved in LDW since the programme’s

inception. This strategy was favoured by the then female Vice-Chancellor, Professor Fay

3

Gale, who saw it as important to encourage male supporters and champions of the

programme, allow opportunities for men to hear women’s stories, and to change their

understanding of gender issues. It also avoided too much load being placed on the few

women holding senior positions. This approach differed from some other women’s

mentoring schemes, where there was concern that men would not understand women’s

issues and would offer inappropriate advice. Mentors are drawn from all areas of the

University, and participants are usually matched with someone outside their work area or

discipline group. Care is taken to ensure that direct reporting lines are not compromised.

Of the 219 mentors involved in LDW from 1994 - 2006, 67% have been female and 33%

male. This is in part because some participants have specifically requested a female

mentor, and also because past LDW participants have gone on to mentor more junior

women in the programme. More academic than general staff mentors have been involved

- 130 academics (59%) compared with 89 general staff (41%) - which is surprising given

that there have been more general staff mentees (53%) than academics (47%). This

difference is primarily due to the number of general staff mentees who have chosen to be

matched with an academic mentor.

The programme has been fortunate in having strong support from the top, with 76 of the

219 mentors (35%) being at very senior levels within the organisation. Of this group, 71%

are senior academics, including members of the executive, deans and heads of schools,

and 29% are senior general staff, including members of the executive and directors. The

gender breakdown for senior staff mentors is 58% male and 42% female, indicating that

although LDW has a higher proportion of female mentors, the male mentors are often at

more senior levels. Involvement of senior male mentors has been one of the strengths of

the programme, building strong and supportive relationships that have certainly

contributed to the programme’s longevity. Of the very junior mentors involved in the

programme, 95% are female and only 5% are male.

Matching Process

Mentoring occurs part way through the LDW programme, with each participant being

offered the opportunity to be matched with a more senior staff member, who can assist

them with their professional and career development. All but a few participants take up

the option to have a mentor. The matching process is highly individualised, based on

goals, needs and criteria identified by each participant. Participants are asked to suggest

4

possible mentors who might meet their needs, and the LDW coordinators approach

potential mentors on their behalf. Mentors are drawn from all areas of the University,

including past LDW participants. Once matched, written confirmation is sent to each

mentor and mentee, with accompanying guidelines, including tips on how to begin the

relationship and suggested activities to engage in. The process is driven primarily by the

mentees, who are asked to organise and set the agenda for their meetings.

Experience has shown the importance of offering support and guidance to mentoring

partners, and this level of support has been refined over time by the LDW coordinators.

Separate workshops are provided for mentees and new mentors, giving them the

opportunity to clarify roles and expectations and assist them in making the most of their

mentoring partnerships. Follow-up emails are also sent to mentors and mentees at

various stages during the nine months to gauge how the relationships are progressing,

with a final questionnaire being sent at the end of the nine month mentoring period.

LDW Data

In exploring the impact and effectiveness of the LDW mentoring programme, data has

been drawn from two main sources. Initial research was conducted in 2005 as part of the

programme’s tenth anniversary evaluation (de Vries, 2005). This included a survey on

mentoring that formed part of an overall programme review. Questionnaires were sent to

293 women who had participated in LDW between 1994 and 2003 and 128 responses

were received. The research also included in-depth interviews with 15 experienced

mentors, who had mentored multiple times in the programme (de Vries, Webb and

Eveline, 2006).

A further review of mentoring has been conducted in 2008, using feedback obtained from

mentors and mentees over 8 programmes from 2001 - 2006. The feedback comes from

responses to questionnaires independently completed by mentors and mentees at the

end of their mentoring partnerships. These informal questionnaires were designed to give

LDW coordinators general feedback on the mentoring experience and to assist in

improving the programme. Questions asked included whether the mentoring partners

were still meeting, how often and for how long they had met, how useful they had found

the experience, what benefits they had gained, any goals achieved (mentees only), and

what experience they felt they had been able to contribute (mentors only). Respondents

5

were also asked to identify any problems or concerns they had about their mentoring

experience and any suggestions for improving the scheme.

Of 215 pairs who were matched from 2001 - 2006, feedback was received from 166

respondents: 79 from mentees (37% of those matched) and 87 from mentors (40% of

those matched). Of the mentees who responded, 63 had a female mentor (80%) and 16

had a male mentor (20%). Of the mentors who responded, 69 were female (80%) and 18

were male (20%). There were slightly more general staff mentors (54%) than academic

mentors (46%). Forty-one of the mentors (47%) were very senior staff, e.g. executive,

deans, heads of schools or directors, and of this senior group, 26 were female (63%) and

15 were male (37%). Female mentors are therefore proportionately over-represented in

our sample, both as respondents to the questionnaire and as mentors of those who

responded to the questionnaire.

An analysis of the results of these evaluations is outlined below.

How useful is mentoring?

There are many indicators that the mentoring experience has benefited LDW mentors and

mentees. Feedback from the 128 respondents to the tenth anniversary survey indicated

that 16% of participants regarded mentoring as the most influential component of the

programme. In this same survey, 74% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the

time spent with their mentor was useful to their development as a leader.

Data from the 2001 – 2006 programmes asked mentors and mentees to rate how useful

they had found their mentoring experience. As indicated in the table below, 83% of

mentees and 83% of mentors rated their mentoring experience as either ‘very useful’ or

‘moderately useful’ (mentors were not asked to give a usefulness rating in either of the

programmes run in 2001).

Table 1: Usefulness of mentoring experience (2001 – 2006)

Usefulness Rating by Mentors/Mentees

Very Useful Moderately Useful Not Very Useful

Mentees (n = 78) 59% 24% 17%Mentors (n = 71) 44% 39% 17%

6

While the majority of respondents found the experience beneficial, it is of concern that

17% of both mentees and mentors did not rate the experience as being very useful to

them. Possible reasons for this will be explored later.

There are 33 matched pairs in the 2001 – 2006 data, where feedback was received from

both the mentor and the mentee. Of this group 21 out of 32 pairs (66%) independently

agreed on the usefulness of the experience, with 17 pairs rating it as ‘very useful’ or

‘moderately useful’ and 4 pairs rating it as ‘not very useful’. Of the 11 matched pairs that

did not agree on the usefulness rating, 6 mentees rated the experience as more valuable

than their mentors, and 5 mentors rated the experience as more valuable than their

mentees. In this same group, there was a direct correlation between the benefits and

goals identified by mentees, and the knowledge, skills and experience mentors felt they

had been able to offer - 19/33 partnerships (58%). This suggests that in many cases,

formal mentor matching provided a good match with mutually beneficial outcomes.

Benefits

Mentees were asked to indicate what they had learned and what benefits they had gained

from their mentoring experience. The benefits they most frequently identified are

summarised below:

Table 2: Benefits of mentoring identified by mentees (2001 – 2006)

Benefit % responses(n = 103)

Career related (e.g. promotion, secondments, new jobs, study leave) 14%New/different perspectives and strategies 14%People management/communication skills 14%Better understanding of the organisation 13%Support, encouragement, sounding board 12%Greater confidence in self and abilities 11%Networking 9%Clarifying goals and priorities 6%Importance of humour – don’t take things too seriously 4%

There is much overlap between these results and those identified in the tenth anniversary

evaluation, where the top ranked benefits were encouragement, increased confidence,

networks, feeling less isolated, and better understanding of the University. In the 2001 –

2006 data the most frequently identified benefits were career issues, different

perspectives and people management/communication. These were not strongly identified

7

in the tenth anniversary results, presumably because the earlier evaluation used set

rather than open ended questions.

Mentors were also asked to indicate what they had learned and what benefits they had

gained from the experience. The benefits they most frequently identified are summarised

below:

Table 3: Benefits of mentoring identified by mentors (2001 – 2006)

Benefit % responses(n = 99)

Increased awareness and learning about another work area/another’s issues 31%Self-reflection 20%Helping others/seeing them achieve 19%Networking 14%Sharing and collaboration 11%Developing and improving listening and coaching skills 5%

These results are similar to the findings from interviews conducted with mentors as part of

the tenth anniversary evaluation. It is interesting to note how many mentors identified self-

reflection as a benefit. They talked about the value of “reflecting on my own approach to

many aspects of work, life, management, etc.”, “revisiting my own fundamental

principles”, rethinking “how I see myself coping with certain issues/problems”, and

realising that “I do have something to offer”. We tend not to think of mentoring as a

developmental tool for the mentors, yet many of the benefits identified above are

important skills for leaders to have. It has also become apparent from incidental feedback

received that many LDW mentors actively promote their mentoring experience when

seeking career advancement, e.g. applying for jobs or promotion, and that such

experience is recognised and valued by those higher up in the organisation.

One indicator of the positive impact of mentoring is the proportion of mentors who have

taken on the role more than once. Of the 219 LDW mentors, 98 (45%) have mentored

multiple times, with 35% having done so two or three times, and 10% having mentored

four times or more. Two female mentors have mentored eight times, and the current male

Vice-Chancellor has mentored nine times. Many LDW participants have also gone on to

become mentors, with 53% of the female mentors having been past participants, and

47% of this group having mentored more than once. More than 18% of all LDW

participants have become mentors. The benefits readily identified by mentors, coupled

with their preparedness to mentor on multiple occasions are strong indicators of the

8

programme’s success from the mentors perspective. This has led to a ripple effect, with

more staff in the organisation valuing mentoring, and creating a mentoring culture.

Many mentoring partners are continuing to meet beyond the formal nine-month period.

The feedback from 2001 – 2006 respondents indicates that 48% of the mentees and 51%

of the mentors continued to meet beyond nine months. This is in comparison with 39%

reported in the tenth anniversary evaluation. It is probable that those who responded to

the end of mentoring questionnaires from 2001 – 2006 are more likely to be the ones for

whom the experience was working well, so the data from the tenth anniversary evaluation

may be a more accurate reflection of what is really happening. However, it still suggests

that a significant proportion of mentors and mentees are finding the mentoring partnership

beneficial and want to continue.

Those involved in the 2001 – 2006 programmes reported meeting between 1 – 25 times,

with the average number of meetings being 5.9 for mentees and 6.0 for mentors. Those

involved in the tenth anniversary evaluation reported meeting between 0 - 20 times, with

5.2 as the average.

The downside of mentoring

As mentioned previously, formal mentoring does not work for everyone. As part of the

2001 – 2006 feedback, respondents were asked to identify any problems or concerns

they had about their mentoring experience. The questions were open ended and

responses varied, but the following common concerns were raised:

Table 4: Concerns about mentoring (2001 – 2006)

Issues/Concerns Mentee Responses(n = 90)

Mentor Responses(n = 85)

Time/workload 32% 19%Differing/unclear expectations 7% 23%Leave commitments/left UWA 10% 12%Unclear goals/ideas on what to do 10% 10%Differing backgrounds/experiences 10% 7%Lack of confidence 6% 6%Relevance of advice given/sought 4% 7%Relationship wasn’t two-way 6% 4%Insufficient commitment 4% 1%

Not surprisingly, time and workload was most frequently identified as a problem, but more

often by mentees than mentors. Specific difficulties mentioned included mentees or

9

mentors being too busy, mentees reluctant to take up their mentor’s time, and difficulties

such as one or both partners being away, not booking meetings in advance, etc. In the

case of differing/unclear expectations it was mentors who expressed greater concern than

mentees. For a few mentors this was because they were “unsure how to contribute most

effectively”, unclear “what mentees want”, or unsure how best to advise their mentees on

specific issues, perhaps indicating the need for further training for mentors. Others talked

about their mentees being unclear what they wanted, seeking advice but unwilling to act

on it, or having very different approaches. These along with unclear goals and differing

backgrounds/experiences mirror the major concerns identified in the tenth anniversary

review.

Issues around leave commitments (study, long service, parental leave) or mentoring

partners leaving the organisation part way through their partnership were also rated highly

in the 2001 – 2006 data. Concerns mentioned less frequently were around mentees being

too introverted/shy, prior relationship with their mentoring partner or proximity of work

areas impacting on the nature of issues discussed, and goals or priorities having

changed. With regard to this last concern, it has been noted in the literature that

mentoring relationships are not static, that the needs of mentees may change, and that

mentors may require training on what to do when the unexpected happens (Cox, 2005).

An analysis of feedback from the 25 respondents who rated the experience as ‘not very

useful’ gives slightly different results. Thirteen mentees - 12 with female mentors and 1

with a male mentor - rated the mentoring experience as ‘not very useful’. In addition to the

concerns discussed above, this group rated more highly concerns around

differing/unclear expectations (13%) and relevance of advice given/sought (9%). Bad

timing, e.g. illness, family illness, work changes and job changes were also raised.

Twelve mentors - 10 female and 2 male – also rated the mentoring experience as ‘not

very useful’. Again, the most frequently reported concern was around differing/unclear

expectations (42%), followed by time/workload (16%), and relevance of advice (11%).

The issue of differing/unclear expectations is one the programme coordinators have tried

to address through clearer guidelines, training and follow-up, and while identified less

often in recent years, it still appears to be a concern for some. Perhaps it is more of a

problem for LDW where mentoring is part of a larger programme and where those

involved do not specifically enrol for mentoring. Some mentors expressed concern that

the relationship was not two-way (11%), although it was less of an issue for mentees

10

(only 4% expressed concern). Not only does this suggest that mentors are keen to gain

from a shared experience, but contrasts with the idea of the expert mentor imparting

wisdom, but learning nothing in return.

With regard to differing backgrounds/experience comments included “mismatch”, “didn’t

speak the same language”, “didn’t click” and “not sure we were a good match”. This

perhaps indicates the greatest challenge facing those who coordinate formal mentoring

programmes: how to match on the basis of personality, shared values, and common

ground that tends to occur with informal mentoring. The literature suggests that less

personal development may occur when people with similar personalities are matched

(Clutterbuck, 1998; Cox, 2005), but that too much contrast can make it hard for

relationships to develop and may lead to irreconcilable differences (Hay, 1995). Finding

the right balance is not easy.

Interestingly, 10 of the 25 respondents (40%) who rated the experience as ‘not very

useful’ indicated positive outcomes from their experience, including:

o “Found talking with my mentor useful. Gained another more detached perspective”

o “Enriching experience, but no real goals achieved” (mentee)

o “Mentor was supportive” (mentee)

o “Hit it off really well, but serious illness prevented things from progressing” (mentor)

o “… best part – forming a good relationship with another member of staff” (mentor).

Perhaps these respondents viewed the benefits they gained as something other than

mentoring, or had very specific ideas about what they wanted from the relationship, which

were not met.

As might be expected, the frequency of meetings for those who rated the experience as

‘not very useful’ was lower than for the overall group. Mentees met between 1 – 9 times,

with the average number of meetings being 2.7 (compared with 5.9 overall). Mentors met

between 1 – 10 times, with the average number of meetings being 3.4 (compared with 6.0

overall). Surprisingly, a small number of respondents who rated the experience as ‘not

very useful’ met as many as 9 – 10 times. This would suggest that these participants were

still gaining some benefit from the experience, or perhaps that they had difficulty ending

the relationship.

11

Mentees were asked to identify what goals they had achieved through their mentoring

experience. Twelve of the 79 mentees (15%) did not identify any goals. In addition to the

concerns already discussed, one concern identified by some in this category was around

lack of trust, reluctance to share/reveal information or be open to new ideas. Comments

from these mentees included:

o “I am difficult to get to know well as I am quite guarded. I am not very open to

situations that I feel are not what I am looking for”

o “Unsure how much my mentor wants to let me know about her and how much I

want my mentor to know about me”

o “Wanted to know more about my mentor's background, but this was not

forthcoming. Didn't like some of his suggestions/tasks”.

As suggested by Hale and Whiltam (1999), this issue of ‘unwillingness or inability to self-

disclose’ can inhibit open communication, giving and receiving of feedback, and

development of trust and learning.

Of greatest concern is the fact that some LDW mentoring relationships never get started.

Feedback from the tenth anniversary evaluation indicated that 5 respondents (4.6%) had

never met with their mentors, although the reasons for this are unclear. We are also

aware that a few of the matches from the 2001 - 2006 programmes did not get

established, primarily due to changing circumstances of either the mentor or mentee. This

is disappointing given the amount of effort that goes into the matching process and the

potential benefits lost.

From the feedback above, it is clear that arranging the “perfect match” in formal

mentoring programmes is not an easy task. In common with others, we have discovered

that mentoring is not always successful or rewarding, and in a few cases can have a

negative impact on those involved. For example, one female mentor who had an

unsuccessful mentoring relationship was unable to identify any benefits and commented

that the experience “made me feel quite inadequate”. Fortunately this particular individual

has taken on subsequent mentoring roles, with much greater success.

Strategies introduced to support mentoring partnerships

12

Through a process of ongoing refinement the LDW coordinators have sought to address

some of the problems associated with formal mentoring schemes. Strategies

implemented have included:

encouraging mentees to be clearer about their goals and mentoring requirements from

the outset;

providing more detailed written guidelines to mentors and mentees once matched,

including tips on how to get started and manage the first few meetings, and

suggestions of practical activities they might engage in;

refining workshops for mentees and new mentors to assist them in clarifying

mentoring roles and expectations, and identify ways to make the most of the

experience;

providing more regular and personalised follow-up with mentoring partners;

encouraging mentors to be proactive about managing the relationship if mentees are

reluctant to do so;

sending reminders to both partners at the end of nine months, encouraging them to

review the experience, provide feedback to the organisers, and draw their formal

relationships to a close;

encouraging mentees to maintain existing informal mentor relationships, in recognition

of the fact that no single mentor may be able to meet all of their needs;

providing the opportunity for those who are reluctant to have a mentor to opt out of the

scheme.

No formal assessment of the impact of these strategies has been conducted. However,

feedback from the 2001 – 2006 respondents indicates that there have been fewer

requests in recent years for guidance on how to get started or suggested activities to

engage in with their mentoring partners. There have also been more positive responses

from mentors and mentees to follow-up emails reviewing how the mentoring is

progressing, and a higher response rate from mentors to the end of mentoring

questionnaires since the introduction of personalised follow-ups.

Based on feedback from the tenth anniversary evaluation, plans are in place to offer

advanced training to the more experienced mentors, providing them with an opportunity to

share experiences, discuss concerns and consider strategies for dealing with the

unexpected.

13

Gender differences in the mentoring experience

It has been suggested that there are ‘critical gender differences in men’s and women’s

experiences of mentoring’ and that ‘women often have to work harder to establish

relationships that cross lines of gender’ (Blake-Beard, 2001). I was interested to explore

this issue in relation to the LDW programme.

Feedback from the tenth anniversary evaluation highlighted slight gender differences in

the way mentees and mentors experienced mentoring, depending on the gender of the

mentor. Participants reported male mentors as meeting slightly more frequently, for

longer, and as more likely to continue meeting after the nine months. They were also

perceived by mentees to be slightly more committed to the process. A similar analysis of

the 2001 – 2006 data has been conducted on the basis of gender. Taking into account

the fact that the sample size (79 mentees and 87 mentors) is relatively small, that only 16

of the mentees (20%) had a male mentor, and that only 18 of the mentor responses

(20%) were from male mentors, the following differences emerged.

Usefulness: mentees with male mentors were more likely to rate the experience as ‘very

useful’ (69%) compared with those who had female mentors (56%). In addition, none of

the mentees who had a male mentor rated the experience as ‘not very useful’, compared

with 21% of those who had a female mentor. The results for mentors were less clear cut.

An equal proportion of male and female mentors (44%) rated their experience as ‘very

useful’, but fewer male mentors (13%) rated their experience as ‘not very useful’

compared with 18% of female mentors.

Frequency of meetings: mentees with male mentors met between 3 – 17 times, with the

average number of meetings being 6.5. This was slightly higher than for those with female

mentors, who met between 1 – 25 times, but with the average being 5.9. Mentor

responses also indicate that male mentors met slightly more often than their female

counterparts, with the average being 6.75 for males, compared with 5.9 for female

mentors.

Continuing on: 63% of mentees who had male mentors reported that they were still

meeting after nine months, compared with 46% of those with female mentors. In contrast,

14

52% of female mentors indicated that they were still meeting after nine months, compared

with 44% of male mentors.

Benefits: the benefits mentees with female mentors most frequently identified were in

relation to people management/communication; clarifying goals/priorities; career-related

issues; and increased confidence in their abilities. Those with male mentors most

frequently identified support/encouragement/sounding board; better understanding of the

University; new/different perspectives/strategies; and the importance of maintaining a

sense of humour. For female mentors the benefits most frequently identified were

networking; self-reflection, and listening/coaching skills. For male mentors they were

helping others; sharing/collaboration; and learning about other areas/issues.

Goals achieved: mentees with a female mentor most frequently identified the goals they

achieved as relating to management issues; help with grants/research; and increased

understanding of the University. The most frequently reported goals for those with male

mentors were around networking; career issues; and increased confidence.

Repeat mentors: female mentors have been more likely to become repeat mentors than

males, with 47% of all female mentors involved with LDW taking on a mentoring role more

than once, compared with 41% of male mentors. Of the 2001 – 2006 respondents, 61% of

female mentors have mentored more than once, compared with 53% of male mentors.

This may be a reflection of the desire by participants to have female mentors, or perhaps

because there are fewer senior female staff available to draw from and so the same

female mentors are being approached repeatedly.

Concerns: of the concerns identified by the 2001 – 2006 respondents, time and workload

was the one most frequently identified by mentees, regardless of the gender of their

mentor, and by female mentors, but was rarely mentioned by male mentors. Quite why

this should be is unclear. Are the male mentors better at setting aside time for mentoring,

or seeing it as a legitimate part of the role, or could the female mentors have more

competing demands on their time than their male counterparts? Confidentiality was raised

more often as a concern by mentees with male mentors and by male mentors. In all

cases this was related to the fact that the mentoring partners worked sufficiently closely

that they felt uncomfortable discussing certain people or work issues, for example “both in

same professional area which made sharing office politics difficult”. Both male and female

15

mentors identified differing/unclear expectations equally often as a concern, but it was

less of a problem for mentees. Male mentors mentioned leave commitments as a concern

more often than mentees and female mentors. In all cases this was in relation to the

mentee having either left the University or gone on extended leave. Differing

backgrounds/experiences was mentioned by mentees and female mentors, but never by

male mentors. It is unclear whether this is because the men did not experience a

problem, they expected there to be differences on the basis of gender and did not think it

worth mentioning, or for some other reason.

From this data, there certainly appear to be some small gender differences depending on

the gender of the mentor. For the mentees it would seem that those with male mentors

found the experience more useful, met more frequently and were more likely to continue

meeting beyond the formal mentoring period. This confirms the findings of the tenth

anniversary evaluation. Such differences are not so clearly identified by mentors,

although male mentors also report meeting slightly more often than their female

counterparts. There appear to be differences in the benefits both mentees and mentors

gained from the experience, depending on gender. It is reassuring to note that, in all but

one LDW partnership, the concerns raised in the literature about men being unable to

understand women’s issues, reinforcing existing ways of operating, teaching the women

to “fit in” or offering inappropriate advice have not been borne out in our results. It must be

cautioned, however, that the seniority of male and female mentors is not equivalent and

that any suggested differences may be accounted for by seniority rather than gender.

This is a limitation of our data, and one that needs to be taken into account in any further

research.

Mentoring as a leadership development strategy

So how effective is formal mentoring as a leadership development strategy? The LDW

programme has certainly proved to be an important leadership strategy, but mentoring is

only one component, so it is hard to judge its effectiveness in isolation. In the tenth

anniversary evaluation, where specific questions were asked about the impact of

mentoring on leadership development, 68% of participants agreed that mentoring had

contributed to their leadership development and 74% agreed or strongly agreed that the

time spent with their mentor was useful to their development as a leader. In my analysis

of the feedback from the 2001 – 2006 programmes, where no specific questions about

16

leadership development were asked, very little reference was made to it. Only one

mentee mentioned developing leadership skills as a result of their mentoring experience.

Although they did not talk specifically about leadership or leadership development, many

of the respondents did mention qualities which are considered important in good leaders,

such as self-reflection, sharing and collaboration, people management/communication

skills, and listening and coaching skills.

Conclusion

What does all this mean for programme organisers, mentors and mentees? The LDW

experience suggests that a formal mentoring programme for women works for the

majority of those involved and results in obvious benefits for both mentors and mentees.

For many it is a valuable, mutually beneficial experience that broadens networks,

enhances skills, assists career development, increases understanding of individuals’

circumstances and organisational operations, and offers new strategies and perspectives.

However, it is not always successful, has the potential to result in loss of confidence or

self-esteem on the part of those who have a negative experience, and represents wasted

time and opportunity for those partnerships that never get established. Unlike informal

mentoring, it often requires more effort to establish and maintain relationships, particularly

when the individuals are not known to each other. It is also hard to match on the basis of

personality and to ensure that the matched pairs will be able to find sufficient common

ground for effective learning to occur. Providing adequate guidance, training and ongoing

support can certainly assist the process, but whether the “perfect match” can be achieved

as a result of careful planning and judgement on the part of programme organisers, or

whether it is largely the result of serendipity (Cox, 2005) is questionable.

17

References

Blake-Beard, S. 2001, Mentoring Relationships through the Lens of Race and Gender, Centre for Gender in

Organizations (CGO) Simmons School of Management.

Butorac, A. 1998, Mentoring: Developing successful mentoring for women, ATN WEXDEV University of

Technology Sydney, Sydney.

Chesterman, C. 2001, Women and Mentoring in Higher Education Module 8, Association of Commonwealth

Universities and Commonwealth Secretariat, Management Development for Women in Higher

Education, ACU, London.

Clutterbuck, D, 1998, Learning Alliances, London, Institute of Personnel and Development.

Cox, E., 2005, ‘For better, for worse: the matching process in formal mentoring schemes’, Mentoring &

Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 13:3, 403-414.

de Vries, J. (ed.) 2005, More than the sum of its parts: 10 years of the Leadership Development for Women

Programme at UWA, Organisation and Staff Development Services, The University of Western

Australia, Perth.

de Vries, J., Webb, C. & Eveline, J. 2006, 'Mentoring for gender equality and organisational change',

Employee Relations, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 573-587.

Devos, A., McLean, J. & O'Hara, P., 2003, 'The potential of women's programmes to generate institutional

change', in Learning for an unknown future. Proceedings of the 2003 Annual International

Conference of Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) eds

C. Bond & P. Bright, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 143 - 151.

Gardiner, M. 2005, Making a Difference: Flinders University Mentoring Scheme for Early Career Women

Researchers Seven years on. Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

Gustavson, C. 1997, 'Women, opportunity and the gendered culture ... the Women and Leadersip Program

at the University of South Australia', in Women in Leadership Conference 1997: Vision in

Leadership: Women Redefining Power, ed. A. Kinnear, Edith Cowan University, Fremantle, pp. p 47

- 52.

Hale R. & Whiltam, P., 1999, Impact and Influence, Kogan Page, London

Hay, J., 1995, Tranformational Mentoring, McGraw-Hill, London

Kram, K. 1985, 'Mentoring in Perspective.' in Mentoring at work: developmental relationships in

organisational life., ed. G. S. Foresman, pp. 194-200.

McCormack, C. 2006, 'Do mentoring programs influence participants' longer-term career development? A

case study', in ATN WEXDEV Conference 2006: Change in Climate: Prospects for Gender Equity in

Universities, ATN WEXDEV, Adelaide: University of South Australia.

Ragins, B. & Cotton, J. 1999, 'Mentor Functions and Outcomes: A Comparison of Men and Women in

Formal and Informal Mentoring Relationships', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 84, no. 4, pp.

529 - 550.

Ragins, B. R. 1999, 'Where Do We Go From Here and How Do We Get There? Methodological Issues in

Conducting Research on Diversity and Mentoring Relationships.' in Mentoring Dilemmas, eds A.

Murrel, F. Crosby & R. Ely, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 227 - 247.

18