There's an interesting discussion this month in the print version of CONSULTING magazine about mentoring programs in consulting firms. What's notable is how diverse the programs are. Some are highly structured, while others are based on encouraging mentees to seek out their own mentors among the senior staff.
One common element is the claim that senior people are evaluated on how well they develop their mentees. I wonder how real this is, and how much is just paying lip-service. I'm sure it's on the list, but I don't know how much weight is actually given to it. After all, senior people have lots of other things they are evaluated on.
Do any of you have experience being effectively mentored inside your firm? What were the key elements that made the mentoring program work well in your organisation?
6 comments:
I'm a bit sceptical myself, but like you, Richard, I'd be delighted if there actually is a growing trend toward encouraging and evaluating quality mentoring.
It's such a crucial piece of any serious effort to develop talent, especially leadership talent.
Wally Bock has been making this point for awhile now.
We need to take seriously the recognition and rewarding of leadership aptitude.
Mentorship has been known forever as a key element in the upward trajectory of individual success at work.
It's both teaching and emotional support in the context of work performance, and squares with all we've come to understand about the way humans actually function.
Mentoring takes time, energy, doesn't always pay off immediately, and is difficult to measure quantitatively -- but most senior managers know how valuable it is.
I share your curiosity about how it actually plays out in performance evaluations, and I imagine it can get sticky trying to establish the success -- or not -- of mentoring efforts.
Which is why there's lip service, but usually far less reinforcement of actual mentorship.
Richard:
One brand name consulting firm had two levels of partner.
In order to reach the senior level, a partner had to identify five colleagues that they had mentored into promotions to partner.
The five partners named were asked to validate the claim.
Those senior partners who remember this process, all nearing retirement now, thought that had been a wonderful for building the firm as an institution.
Sadly, the process has lapsed.
Richard,
In a career that has spanned several consulting firms, I've experienced lots of "mentorship programs".
To your point, however, these programs have rarely measured the performance, effectiveness, or results of these programs in a systematic way.
At Fitzgerald Analytics, my teammates & I have been wrestling with the question of how we can take a more results-oriented approach to mentoring.
Thanks for sharing these insights towards our thinking on this subject.
With admiration,
Jaime Fitzgerald
At my old firm, two things were done which really changed the culture.
Once a year, every person in the firm was sent a survey with a simple question.
Of the partners, which one would you nominate as your mentor.
After the first year, everyone knew it would happen, but not when.
The top 25 (of 400 or so partners) were feted at the partners conference, with a formal award for the top person.
The partners with small numbers were counselled and told to pull their socks up by a senior person.
And all the new partners were filmed saying who had been the partner most responsible for them making partner.
It didn't formally lead into remuneration, but it certainly sent a message about what was important.
MENTORING HAS BEEN USED SUCCESSFULLY BOTH AT OUR FIRM AND OUR CLIENTS NOW FOR OVER 24 YEARS.
HERE'S WHY IT WORKS:
1. IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE JOB.
2. THE PERSON DOING THE MENTORING HAS THE COMPENTENCIES AND ATTITUDE TO DO IT.
3. THEY ARE FINANCIALLY REWARDED FOR BOTH THE YOUNG PERSON'S PERFORMANCE AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT.
4. WHERE EVER POSSIBLE, THE MENTOR IS FULLY INVOLVED IN THE RECRUITING AND HIRING PHASES -- AND AGAIN IS FINANCIALLY REWARDED FOR THE NEW HIRE'S SUCCESS.
NOW MENTORING WORKS -- OTHER APPROACHES SUFFER FROM A VARIETY OF BUSINESS DISEASES: "THE GONNA DO DISEASE", "THE FRANK SINATRA DISEASE" (I DID IT MY WAY), ETC.
KEEP UP THE GREAT DISCUSSIONS!
HARRY ALEXANDER
Richard, I am not sure that objective measurement of the effectiveness of mentoring is necessarily a positive goal as it pre-supposes two common misconceptions:
1. that there is an objective measure of success in a mentoring relationship
2. that the mentoring relationship is part of the management system of the firm and therefore the firm has some proprietory rights over the relationship
As we have discussed recently I am firmly of the view that firms should view mentoring as part of the remuneration structure and that the relationship is intensely personal between the mentor and the mentee.
While this is a leap of faith that most firms are not prepared to take there are some steps that will give them more confidence:
1. they should identify and appoint people to the role of mentor on the basis of their allignment to the firm's employer brand and their interpersonal skills.
2. they should provide the appointed mentors with fee relief so they can provide the appropriate focus to this vital activity.
3. the mentors should be trained in mentoring by professional psychologists and the most important element of this training should be the identification of the limits of the relationship (ie where external assistance should be sought).
Ultimately the firm should trust that the mentor will represent the interests of the firm in carrying out the role and they certainly never measure the success of the role on how many mentees make it to partnership.
Why?
Because how else will the mentor feel confident to have the toughest conversation of all with their mentee: "I don't think this is the firm for you?"
Post a Comment