Kathy Wentworth Drahosz opened this quarter’s mentoring
roundtable by talking about an increase in conversations around modern mentoring, and people trying to
come to terms with the shift in mentoring. "We have been seeing a shift in mentoring for the last decade, and many
organizations are tapping into what we have coined as dynamic mentoring,” Kathy said.
She explained that dynamic mentoring incorporates formal,
informal, situational, virtual, and all other types of mentoring. It allows organizations to carefully tailor
mentoring to fit the specific needs of the organization and its employees. She
described the various types of mentoring and pointed out the value and
application of each type such as informal mentoring’s self-initiated and self-directed
process, the facilitated and structured elements of formal mentoring, and the
specific tactical applications of group, situational, and peer-to-peer
mentoring.
She noted that mentoring is no longer "just a nice thing to
do,” but rather, it is a business decision that provides proper resources and
planning to help employees connect to the organizational mission, while
providing opportunities for growth and development. Kathy pointed out that helping retain
employees and transferring institutional knowledge are good examples of ROI–key
aspects that demonstrate why mentoring is a good talent management decision.
After a brief discussion of the mentoring process, Kathy
introduced the day’s speakers, inviting them to share their mentoring successes
and best practices to show how mentoring (formal, informal, situational,
reverse) has been applied within their organizations.
Ivana Miranda with USPTO
started off the presentations by describing her first mentoring
experience. "When I first began my
journey with mentoring, I was terrified,” she said. "And once it was recommended that I pick
someone very different from myself I thought, "ooh, that’s even scarier. But I took a leap of faith, I followed the
guidance anyway, and I’m absolutely thrilled with the results.”
Ivana said that personally, she needed a formal structured
program to help keep her on track and connected with people. "I like to work on projects, role up my
sleeves and get working,” she said, noting that she was okay working in groups
and with others, but equally fine working on her own. Connecting more with people is something she
knew she needed; especially finding someone to help her navigate the nuances of
the organization.
Her mentor was from a different generation, of different
ethnicity, and had different personality styles. She worked in finance, and her mentor in
trademarks. Although they were very
different, they quickly realized that their personality differences
complemented each other, and they learned that they had a lot to talk
about. After learning more about what
their specific jobs entailed, they discovered that they shared an interest in
learning more about procurement, so their program focused on this common goal.
Ivana’s story provided an excellent example of how
differences can be leveraged to the mutual benefit of a mentoring partnership,
and how following a structured formal program helped her get in touch with new people
to facilitate her desire to explore new areas in the organization.
Mike Kelley from NASA took the stage next and talked about
his experiences with group and one-on-one mentoring. Describing his early experiences with group
mentoring, he reflected on his participation on a panel that helped new
supervisors transition into their roles. He recalled challenges and difficulties he had over the years working
for a large organization, learning about the job and culture, and identifying
resources available to help with the tasks and responsibilities of becoming a
supervisor. He said that he also discovered
how–as a supervisor–you can learn new things from those you mentor, emphasizing
the value of being willing to learn as well as teach. "Sharing both ways is my message,” he said.
His presentation turned to one-on-one mentoring experiences,
for which he advocated a more formal structure to provide the guidance
needed. He also addressed the value of
having mentees drive the relationship. "I ask the mentees to come with a short agenda, and send that to me
beforehand, so we both understand what they want to talk about rather than just
showing up in the office and just talking.”
Mike advocated regular meetings, and other
resources might be needed. Mike said, "From
there we come up with a list of employees at the center that I think they
should talk to. Basically, I become like
a broker for them.” An excellent
analogy, mentors serving as brokers for situational mentoring.
Mike said that from there, either the mentee would meet
one-on-one with the situational mentor, or they would meet together for about
an hour to discuss how the situational mentor could contribute to the mentee’s
growth and development. He reiterated
that he turns the driving over to the mentees to set up meetings and prepare
agendas to define what they want to get out of the meetings. He said that the best results come when they
really put thought into the process to make their meetings most productive.
Cevilla Randle of USPTO picked up the mic next and told
attendees that she was looking for a new direction after serving 21 years in
the military. She described her mentor as
being her total opposite and her trepidation when learning about her
match. "At first, I thought, okay,
realistically what can I learn from this guy? He’s young enough to be my kid, what can I learn from him? Other than the fact that he is in a different
career from the path I chose.”
She said that when they first got together, she learned that
they actually had a lot in common. "We both like doing things for others,
helping out in the community. So that
was a big plus for us.”
As their partnership progressed, she learned that she wanted
to become a trainer. Her mentor said
that training was not his area, but that he would put her in touch with the
right people. Cevilla then recalled how her
mentor served as a broker to get her time with professionals in her
newly-chosen area; and not just anyone, but those who were "at the top of the
food chain,” as she described them.
She then described how this "young guy” helped keep her
accountable, holding her to her objectives, and regularly checking in with her
to see if she was tracking her objectives for that day or that week. She acknowledged that by availing herself to
the advice offered by her mentor, she learned how to drive their partnership,
schedule and follow-up with meetings, and stay on top of her commitments.
Cevilla’s story illustrated how she and her mentor applied several
types of mentoring including formal, situational, and reverse mentoring. The latter was implemented at opportune times
when she could share experiences from her previous career with a person who had
astutely demonstrated his own capabilities. It also showed that he was willing
to learn as he continued to develop in his own career.
Chris Melkonian of MCSC stepped up next and said, "As far as
mentoring, what it boils down for me is: helping, whatever help happens to look
like.”
Chris said that he has been involved in all of the forms of
mentoring introduced, and described several of his personal experiences. In one, he was engaged in a remote
partnership that included a fair amount of exchange using alternative meeting
options, along with recommendations for situational mentoring. Without ever meeting in person, Chris found
ways to help his mentoree address networking and personal marketing issues that
were thwarting career development.
In another experience, he worked with a high-energy and
talented individual who worked in a different career field. Though sharing his experiences with what he
had done to get where he is, the exchange was appreciated, but deemed to have
little relevance. So, he described how
he served in the broker role, setting her up with situational mentors who could
help with the specific elements of her career progression goals.
Chris next described working with a mentoree who was at a
crossroads in his career. Over the
course of the year, they went back and forth on the issue and in the end, they
both agreed that looking for another opportunity would be best for the
mentoree. Chris told the mentoree,” I
feel bad because if it turns out that you end up getting another job outside
the command, we’ve lost an incredible asset. But it’s the right thing for you.” The help in this case was helping his mentoree come to terms with
something he had already been thinking about, along with helping him find a
position that was a better decision for the mentoree in the long run.
In the last example offered, Chris described a person
dealing with change and uncertainty in the current job. His advice for this mentoree was to make the
most of the current job by getting as much experience as possible, and to
leverage the networking opportunities that his current job afforded. Through these efforts, Chris believes that
his partner could position himself better for the next job opportunity.
Chris said that almost everything he’s tried in mentoring
has worked to some degree at one time or another. He supported the TTC approach of recommending
matching by differences, saying that he believes in "Trying to stretch people
outside their comfort zones, and get a different perspective on themselves.” Among his reflections on applying mentoring
skills, serving as a situational mentoring broker, and advocating for the best
fit for his mentoring partners, Chris also advocated sharing responsibility for
driving the partnerships, because sometimes mentorees need a little help to get
things going, or back on track.
Without question, this quarter’s roundtable was filled with
an excellent mix of experiences and insights that can be applied to any type of
mentoring process. We appreciate the
involvement, reflection, and advice offered by all our featured presenters, and
we invite you to share your experiences with us by email or perhaps as a
featured speaker in a future session.
