The Power of Informal Mentoring.

Abstract

Organizations are gradually acknowledging the benefits of mentoring relationships. More than 70% of Fortune 500 companies use mentoring to attract, develop and good retain employees (Kovnatska, 2014). It has also become increasingly popular in teacher education and school administrator development (Zerzan, Hess, Schur, Phillips, & Rigotti, 2009) and has been recognized as a significant component of faculty development (Tareef, 2013), career advancement, in addition to educational and personal development. Mentoring relationships involve a more skilled and knowledgeable professional serving as a supportive and guiding example for another professional that is less practiced in the field (Tareef, 2013). Mentoring relationships are reciprocal (Ambrosetti, 2014), take place over time, and involve repeated interactions (Haggard, 2012). Research suggests numerous positive outcomes to the protege, such as job satisfaction, career outcomes (Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBoise, 2008), and increased opportunity. Organizations also benefit from mentoring relationships by reduced turnover (Washington, 2010), enhanced productivity, and creating a resilient workforce (Aora, 2014). The of mentoring is not a new concept. Its origin date back at least 3000 years to Greek mythology in Homer's Odyssey (Kovnatska, 2014). was a teacher and friend of King Odysseus who was entrusted to care for his son Telemachus while he fought in the Trojan War. During King Odysseus's absence, educated and guided Telemachus. Mentor is commonly referred to as being a wise and kindly elder, a surrogate parent, a trusted advisor, an educator and guide (Colley, 2002, p. 260). Today, mentoring is simply a process in which a more experienced person supports and aids a less experienced person in his/her professional and personal growth (Kiltz, Danzig & Szecsy, 2004). It is a reflective practice that requires engagement, time and ongoing dialogue. (Parker, Hall, & Kram, 2008). However, constraints of time, culture and geography leads to traditional mentoring falling short on accomplishing the deeper, multiple demands required for career growth and development (Mullen, Whatley, & Kealy, 2000). It may even be considered a lost art (Mullen, 2009). The practice of mentoring has evolved to the point where conventional one-to-one mentoring is only one item on the list of structural options (Zachary, 2011) that fit in today's high paced international environment (Kovnatsa, 2014). This article will focus on three commonly used forms of informal mentoring: peer mentoring, family members as mentors and collaborative mentoring. Research suggests informal approaches to mentoring can be just as valuable as formal mentoring for personal and professional growth (Gorman, Durmowicz, Roskes & Slattery, 2010). Particularly for women who may often find it difficult to develop formal mentoring relationships. Formal vs. Informal Mentoring Mentoring can be distinguished into two specific forms: formal and informal. Some researchers argue that a formal mentoring program is preferred (Mullen & Hutinger, 2008) in which an established mentor-protege relationship has been assigned. Formal mentoring programs are managed and endorsed by the organization. It involves matching a senior employee with a less skilled junior colleague (Dunbar & Kinnersley, 2011). However, a more informal approach to mentoring has become popular and more common. Informal mentoring relationships form by chance, without any rearranged schedule or agenda (Cox, 2005). They are less structured, spontaneous, self-directed and not recognized by the organization (Herrbach, Mignonac, & Richebe, 2011). The main difference between formal and informal mentoring is the intensity, commitment, duration and structure of the relationship (Ragin & Cottin, 1999). Informal mentoring relationships are an approach that can offer more benefits than formal mentoring relationships (Gorman et. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 69 citations exist upstream.