Reciprocal Mentoring (Routledge EMCC Masters in Coaching and Mentoring) 1032298855, 9781032298856

Citation preview

“Reciprocal Mentoring is a resource for anyone interested in building strong and supportive communities of learning. This book provides an overview of what reciprocal mentoring is and how it might operate in a variety of organisational contexts. Through real-world examples and practical advice, the editors have put together a collection of case studies that feature three types of reciprocal mentoring experiences. What I appreciate most about Reciprocal Mentoring is its emphasis on the mutual benefits of this approach.” Laura Gail Lunsford, Ph.D., Professor, Psychology, Assistant Dean, School of Education and Human Sciences, Campbell University “This excellent book examines not only the theory and hypotheses of reciprocal mentoring but also the reality of how it is applied in practice and how its impact is measured. The case studies explore the challenges and solutions individuals and organisations face across multiple sectors, illustrating personal, professional, and business growth and transformation. To see examples of how EMCC Global-accredited organisations, like the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women, ODTÜMİST, and Resilient Pilot, are exploring and leading developments is a testament to the professional integrity and commitment of all involved.” Denise Whitworth, EMCC Global Executive Board Director and EMCC Global Vice President Accreditation “If you are looking for a way to understand the inputs and outputs required to achieve a successful mentoring initiative that yields reciprocal benefits, let this book be your guide. Through case studies across sectors, you will find helpful examples, insights, and action steps that will inform your work and guide you to success.” Lisa Z. Fain, CEO, Center for Mentoring Excellence “Reciprocal mentoring is the central theme of this book. Analysing 26 contemporary mentoring case studies across a variety of sectors including health care, education, and the charitable/third sector, the authors provide three lenses: reciprocal by design, default, and emergent to examine the context and purpose in which each mentoring programme has been designed. While we have known for some time that mentoring can benefit both parties, these case studies and their analysis afford us rich insight into the benefits and outcomes for both the individuals and organisations involved through examples such as inclusion in health care and the

development of medical professional as beautifully captured in the schemes aspirational title ‘From Roots to Wings’. Importantly, this book represents a new and significant contribution to understanding the value of reciprocal mentoring programmes, providing lessons for practitioners and academics alike, in how we design and evaluate mentoring schemes in the future.” Dr Mary Hartog, FCIPD, CM (CMI), Member EMCC. Programme Leader Coaching Professional, Director, Organisation and Leadership Practice, Middlesex University Business School

Reciprocal Mentoring

Reciprocal mentoring represents an approach to mentoring in organisations that is both timely and of critical importance in the context of diversity, inclusion, equity, and the power shift in mentoring practice. This book provides insight into how reciprocal mentoring programmes can strengthen mutual learning and encourage true partnership between participants. This approach to mentoring places participants on a level playing field; people with disparate expertise, backgrounds, and experience levels are placed in relationships in which they act as both mentor and mentee, generating a range of benefits for all involved. This book explores the design, development, and evaluation of reciprocal mentoring programmes in six different contexts: entrepreneurial, healthcare sector, third sector, education sector, membership organisations, and private sector organisations. Three different approaches to reciprocal mentoring programmes are set out: reciprocal by design, reciprocal by default, and reciprocal as an output. Each chapter describes a number of different case studies that adopt a variety of approaches to reciprocal mentoring programmes, their contextual relevance, and overall impact and contribution. This book will be useful for any individuals and teams involved in the development of mentoring programmes. The range of approaches and frameworks presented in this book will benefit mentoring and coaching practitioners, managers, consultants, professionals in a variety of organisational contexts, and researchers. Julie Haddock-Millar is Associate Professor of Human Resource Development at Middlesex University and Visiting Professor at the International University of Monaco. She is the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) Global Work Group Lead for the International Standards for Mentoring and Coaching Programmes and a Master Practitioner coach and mentor. Paul Stokes is Associate Professor of Coaching and Mentoring at Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom. He is a Master Practitioner within the European Mentoring and Coaching Council and an experienced consultant, researcher, coach, mentor, and coach-supervisor. Nora Dominguez, Ph.D., is the director of the Mentoring Institute at the University of New Mexico (UNM) and president emeritus of the International Mentoring Association (IMA). Dominguez earned her Ph.D. in Organizational Learning and Instructional Technologies from the UNM.

Routledge-EMCC Global Masters in Coaching and Mentoring Series Editors: David Clutterbuck and Julie Haddock-Millar This series is published in collaboration with the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC Global).

Routledge-EMCC Global Masters in Coaching and Mentoring provides critical perspectives in coaching and mentoring. It aims to avoid the overcrowded basic coaching/mentoring textbook market and focus instead on providing a toolkit for topics outside of core theory but are necessary to become a mature practitioner. The series will appeal to those studying to obtain certificates, diplomas, and masters in coaching and mentoring, alongside experienced practitioners who wish to round out their practice using selected essential reading as part of their continuous professional development. Coaching and Mentoring in the Asia Pacific Edited by Anna Blackman, Derrick Kon and David Clutterbuck Coaching Supervision Advancing Practice and Changing Landscapes Edited by Jo Birch and Peter Welch The Art of Listening in Coaching and Mentoring Stephen Burt Coaching and Mentoring for Work-Life Balance Julie Haddock-Millar and Eliot Tom The Digital Coach Stella Kanatouri Reciprocal Mentoring Edited by Julie Haddock-Millar, Paul Stokes and Nora Dominguez

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ Routledge-EMCC-Global-Masters-in-Coaching-and-Mentoring/book-series/REMCC

Reciprocal Mentoring

Edited by Julie Haddock-Millar, Paul Stokes, and Nora Dominguez

Designed cover image: © Getty Images / Yuri_Arcurs First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Julie Haddock-Millar, Paul Stokes, and Nora Dominguez; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Julie Haddock-Millar, Paul Stokes, and Nora Dominguez to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-29885-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-29891-7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-30253-7 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003302537 Typeset in Galliard Pro by codeMantra

We would like to thank colleagues, teams and organisations who contributed to the book, giving readers an insight into the many and varied mentoring programmes across the globe. We would also like to thank Routledge and EMCC Global for their sponsorship of this book series: Routledge – EMCC Global Masters in Coaching and Mentoring. Julie, Paul and Nora would like to thank Professor David Clutterbuck for his mentorship and friendship over many years. Having given birth the idea, we are grateful for his mentorship and guidance with this publication, the sixth in the Routledge EMCC Global Masters in Coaching and Mentoring. Dr Julie Haddock-Millar would like to thank her husband, James, for his patience and support, and her exuberant and loving children, Isabella and Tyler. She would like to thank Professor David Clutterbuck for his mentorship and generosity over the last 10 years.

Dr Paul Stokes would like to acknowledge the support of his partner, Jenny, and indulgence of his daughters Lowri, Savannah and Bobbie whilst completing this project. He also wishes to thank Sheffield Hallam University for allowing him time to complete it. Finally, he would like to recognise the role that the late Professor David Megginson played in getting him involved in mentoring, nearly 25 years ago. Nora would like to acknowledge the following. To. Dr. Patsy Bovery for introducing me to the mentoring world. To Kathy Kram, David Clutterbuck, Lois Zachary (decd), Brad Johnson, Fran Kochan, and Joe Pascarelli (decd) for their lifelong career dedicated to mentoring and their unconditional support. To Juan, Gaby, and Iván Pineda, the pillars of my life. To my parents, Juan and Carmen Domínguez, for being exemplary role models.

Contents

List of Figures List of Tables List of Editors and Contributors Foreword

xi xiii xv xxxi

PROFESSOR DAVID CLUTTERBUCK

Acknowledgements  1 Introduction

xxxv 1

PAUL STOKES, JULIE HADDOCK-MILLAR AND NORA DOMINGUEZ

  2 Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector

10

JULIE HADDOCK-MILLAR AND DAVID CLUTTERBUCK

  3 Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector

30

RITA SYMONS

  4 Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector

51

BOB GARVEY AND JUDIE GANNON

  5 Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 education sector

79

NORA DOMINGUEZ

  6 Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education

103

NORA DOMINGUEZ

  7 Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education

135

NORA DOMINGUEZ AND JULIE HADDOCK-MILLAR

  8 Mentoring in membership organisations PAUL STOKES AND MELISSA RICHARDSON

165

x Contents   9 Reciprocal mentoring in private sector organisations

187

SUE ROUND

10 Conclusions: towards a theory of reciprocal mentoring

205

JULIE HADDOCK-MILLAR, PAUL STOKES AND NORA DOMINGUEZ

Index219

Figures

  4.1 NIRH matching process   4.2 Number of mentoring matches in 2015–2022   4.3 Mentoring programmes’ stages   5.1 Ten components of a co-mentoring circle   6.1 Leadership Lounge participants’ self-described career stage   6.2 CIO gender and race/ethnic identity   8.1 The reciprocal mentoring process map   9.1 Mao’s reciprocal mentoring process   9.2 Reciprocal mentoring programme benefits   9.3 Reciprocal mentoring as a key tool 10.1 A programme-level model of reciprocal mentoring

63 69 71 95 125 126 167 196 201 202 211

Tables

  4.1 Mentoring programme evaluation 72   4.2 Themes across the three third-sector reciprocal mentoring cases 75   8.1 Benefits for mentees and mentors 168   8.2 Mentees’ outcome scores 168   8.3 Mentor outcome scores 169   8.4 Mentees and mentors’ frequency scores 170   9.1 Definitions of reciprocal mentoring 189   9.2 Female mentors’ perspective during reciprocal mentoring programme193   9.3 Male mentors’ perspective during reciprocal mentoring programme193   9.4 Distinctive mentoring definitions 194 10.1 Summary case study analysis 206 10.2 Detailed case study analysis 214

Editors and Contributors

Editors Julie Haddock-Millar is Associate Professor of Human Resource Development at Middlesex University and Visiting Professor at the International University of Monaco. She is the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) Global Work Group Lead for the International Standards for Mentoring and Coaching Programmes. Julie is an EMCC Global EIA Master Practitioner Coach and Mentor, EMCC Global IPMA Master Practitioner Coaching and Mentoring Programme Manager, and EMCC Global ITCA Practitioner Team Coach. Julie completed her Coach-Mentor Supervision training with the Tavistock Institute in Human Relations. Julie is an experienced consultant and researcher undertaking significant global programme impact evaluations with organisations such as Médecins Sans Frontières, Youth Business International, and Cherie Blair Foundation for Women. She has published many book chapters and peer-reviewed journal articles, co-edited The SAGE Handbook of Mentoring, and co-authored Coaching and Mentoring for Work-life Balance in 2020. Paul Stokes is Associate Professor of Coaching and Mentoring at Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom. He is a Master Practitioner within the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) and an experienced consultant, researcher, coach, mentor, and coach-supervisor. He has published many book chapters and peer-reviewed journal articles on coaching and mentoring and has also co-written two best-selling texts on coaching and mentoring – Mentoring in Action (together with Professor David Clutterbuck, Bob Garvey, and David Megginson) and Coaching and Mentoring Theory and Practice (together with Professor Bob Garvey). In 2002, he co-founded one of the first Masters programmes in Coaching and Mentoring in the UK, which is accredited at the Master Practitioner level by the EMCC. Nora Dominguez, Ph.D., is the director of the Mentoring Institute at the University of New Mexico (UNM) and president emeritus of the International Mentoring Association (IMA). Nora has more than 30 years of

xvi  Editors and Contributors experience holding academic and management positions in banking and higher education institutions and providing consulting and programme evaluation services both in the United States and Mexico. Nora is a member of the Editorial Board of the International Journal for Mentoring and Coaching (Emerald, UK), co-author of the book Mentoring: Perspectivas Teóricas y Prácticas (2010), co-editor and chapter contributor of the SAGE Handbook of Mentoring (2017), chapter contributor of the Wiley International Handbook of Mentoring (2020), co-editor of the book Making Connections: A Handbook for Effective Formal Mentoring Programs in Academia (2022), author of several articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and chief editor of the online journal The Chronicle of Mentoring and Coaching. Contributors David Clutterbuck is one of the original pioneers of coaching and mentoring, the co-founder of the European Mentoring and Coaching Council, an EMCC Master Practitioner, the author of more than 70 books, and a Visiting Professor at four universities. David is the practice lead for Clutterbuck Coaching and Mentoring International Limited – a global network of research-trainer-consultants specialising in coaching and mentoring across 100+ countries. Nora Dominguez, Ph.D., is the director of the Mentoring Institute at the University of New Mexico (UNM) and president emeritus of the International Mentoring Association (IMA). Nora has more than 30 years of experience holding academic and management positions in banking and higher education institutions and providing consulting and programme evaluation services both in the United States and Mexico. Nora is a member of the Editorial Board of the International Journal for Mentoring and Coaching (Emerald, UK), co-author of the book Mentoring: Perspectivas Teóricas y Prácticas (2010), co-editor and chapter contributor of the SAGE Handbook of Mentoring (2017), chapter contributor of the Wiley International Handbook of Mentoring (2020), co-editor of the book Making Connections: A Handbook for Effective Formal Mentoring Programs in Academia (2022), author of several articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and chief editor of the online journal The Chronicle of Mentoring and Coaching. Judie Gannon leads the Doctoral programmes in Oxford Brookes Business School at Oxford Brookes University. She is a member of the International Centre for Coaching & Mentoring Studies (ICCaMS) and teaches on the M.A. and Ph.D. in Coaching and Mentoring. Her doctoral research focused on the development of managerial talent amid international hotel industry expansion and led her to develop the Bacchus Mentoring scheme. Her research interests, publications, and consultancy cover the areas of coaching, mentoring, talent, and management development. Judie serves

Editors and Contributors  xvii on the editorial board of numerous academic journals and regularly contributes to coaching and mentoring publications. Bob Garvey, Professor (Emeritus) Ph.D., FRSA, is one of Europe’s leading academic practitioners of mentoring and coaching. He is an experienced mentor/coach working with a range of people in a variety of contexts. Bob Garvey works internationally, and he subscribes to the “repertoire” approach to mentoring and coaching. He is in demand as a keynote conference speaker, webinar facilitator, and workshop leader. He is an active researcher and very widely published. His latest book, with Dr Paul Stokes, Coaching and Mentoring: Theory and Practice, was published in 2022 as a 4th Edition. Julie Haddock-Millar is Associate Professor of Human Resource Development at Middlesex University and Visiting Professor at the International University of Monaco. She is the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) Global Work Group Lead for the International Standards for Mentoring and Coaching Programmes. Julie is an EMCC Global EIA Master Practitioner Coach and Mentor, EMCC Global IPMA Master Practitioner Coaching and Mentoring Programme Manager, and EMCC Global ITCA Practitioner Team Coach. Julie completed her Coach-Mentor Supervision training with the Tavistock Institute in Human Relations. Julie is an experienced consultant and researcher undertaking significant global programme impact evaluations with organisations such as Médecins Sans Frontières, Youth Business International, and Cherie Blair Foundation for Women. She has published many book chapters and peer-reviewed journal articles, co-edited The SAGE Handbook of Mentoring, and co-authored Coaching and Mentoring for Work-life Balance in 2020. Melissa Richardson is one of Australia’s mentoring experts, having worked in the field for over 25 years. She has designed and implemented mentoring programmes across hundreds of public, private, and non-profit sector organisations. She is a member of the global assessment team for the EMCC Global’s ISMCP Award (International Standards for Mentoring and Coaching Programmes) and has postgraduate qualifications in organisational coaching, counselling, and marketing strategy. Sue Round has more than 25 years’ experience in the full spectrum of people development across multiple sectors, including Aviation, Telecoms, Retail, Financial Services, and Energy. She has led large, complex global teams with responsibility for Learning in all its aspects, Leadership Development, Talent Management, and Diversity Equity and Inclusion. She has a master’s degree from the University of Surrey, is a qualified coach trained in the use of multiple psychometrics, is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, and has recently earned a Ph.D. from Oxford Brookes University. Sue has served on the UK Government’s Employee Engagement Task Force and on the Boards of the Learning Skills

xviii  Editors and Contributors Improvement Service and Working Chance and has been a Silver Line Friend since 2015. In 2021, she was appointed to the Board of the CIPD. She is a founding partner in Lodestar Talent – a boutique Organisational Development Consultancy. Paul Stokes is Associate Professor of Coaching and Mentoring at Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom. He is a Master Practitioner within the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) and an experienced consultant, researcher, coach, mentor, and coach-supervisor. He has published many book chapters and peer-reviewed journal articles on coaching and mentoring and has also co-written two best-selling texts on coaching and mentoring – Mentoring in Action (together with Professor David Clutterbuck, Bob Garvey, and David Megginson) and Coaching and Mentoring Theory and Practice (together with Professor Bob Garvey). In 2002, he co-founded one of the first Masters programmes in Coaching and Mentoring in the UK, which is accredited at the Master Practitioner level by the EMCC. Rita Symons is a coach, mentor, and leadership development specialist. She was an internal coach in the NHS and held numerous posts, including in commissioning, community, and mental health services, for ten years at the Board level. She has lived experience of being a BAME Chief Officer. In 2016, she left her role as a CCG Chief Officer and established a Coaching and Leadership Development practice. She has undertaken research commissioned to inform the national strategy, a focus of which was looking at how coaching can be more inclusive, in terms of the diversity of coaches and individuals who are accessing coaching. Rita provided expert input by co-leading the development of the Reciprocal Mentoring for Inclusion programme, and she mentors women who are vulnerable, having worked with Oxfam and Growing Points. Between late 2019 and summer 2021, she was the UK President of EMCC UK. Case study contributors Sandy Baba, Ph.D., Twelfth Mentee. Baba believes that authentic learning comes from the learner’s intrinsic motivation. In order to provoke the learner’s inner desire and drive the inquiring subject matter, it is imperative for the teacher to teach with compassion, intentionality, and accountability. Baba has degrees in Asian Studies (B.A., University of California, Davis), Education (M.A., San Francisco State University), and Transformative Studies with Education Focus (Ph.D., California Institute of Integral Studies). She developed a family engagement framework to support lowincome Asian American immigrants that was recognised and published by the U.S. Department of Education. Baba is an advocate in promoting learning environments for children and adults with diversity, equity, inclusion,

Editors and Contributors  xix and belonging (DEI+B). In 2018, Baba was invited to become a mentee in Pacific Oaks College’s programme under the mentorship of Dr. Dionne Clabaugh where she has and will continue to develop her higher education teaching apprenticeship. Caroline Bamford is an equality and diversity practitioner by profession and coach, with over 25 years’ experience working with both public and private sector employers. For over ten years, Caroline has been in her current role as Head of Diversity and Inclusion for Leeds and York Partnership Foundation Trust, leading the development and implementation of equality and diversity programmes in line with legislation, NHS guidance, and good practice to achieve meaningful change. She leads and supports equality and diversity staff engagement, for example, through the development and promotion of internal staff networks and the delivery of improvement programmes. Caroline is an active member of equality and diversity networks at local, regional, and national levels, driven by her passion and commitment to working collectively and co-creating solutions that deliver positive change. Harjit K. Bansal is Head of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion at NELFT. She was born in East Africa and came to England in the 1980s. She started her first job as a clerk assistant at the Newham Council for Racial Equality, where she heard for the first time the impact of racism in the police and the council, and of health inequalities. She has since worked in equality, diversity, and inclusion. She remains strongly committed to using her voice to work towards eliminating racism and discrimination against all protected characteristics. Cathy Bates is Associate Partner at Vantage Technology Consulting Group and is programme sponsor for the Leadership Lounge Mentoring Program. As a former higher education CIO with over 32 years of experience in higher education, she continues to elevate and prioritise efforts for mentoring emerging leaders. Cathy also provides thought leadership for higher education on topics such as IT and data governance, strategic planning, and information security programmes. She has a history of inter-institutional collaborations at the state and national levels, as well as leadership in higher education organisations. Cathy earned a master’s degree in Education in Secondary Education and a bachelor’s degree in Applied Computer Science, both from Plymouth State University. Lisa Bayliss-Pratt is Professor and Programme Director, Nursing Now Challenge. She has worked in healthcare in both the private and public spheres for over 20 years. In her role as Chief Nurse at Health Education England, Lisa transformed nurse education and championed the development and implementation of the Nursing Associate role. She has been and continues to be integral to the development of modern nursing both in the UK and on an international scale. Today, she is the Pro-Vice Chancellor for

xx  Editors and Contributors Health and Life Sciences at Coventry University and leads the Nursing Now ­Challenge – a global movement to provide leadership development training for early-career nurses and midwives, which has successfully recruited over 53,000 people globally. Stuart Beech is CEO and Founder of Resilient Pilot. Resilient Pilot is a volunteer-­run not-for-profit initiative created to help pilots and cabin crew supported, keep current, and stay connected with the airline industry. As a British Airways Senior First Officer, Wellbeing Officer, CRMT and CBTi, and qualified Mentor/Coach, Stuart has shown a keen interest in CBTA/ EBT and resilience development methodologies since its introduction to pilot training and CRM in 2013. Born during the Pandemic, Resilient Pilot pioneered introducing The Resilience Development Programme, a virtual blended mentoring, coaching, and training competency-based approach to continuous personal and professional development. Christine Carducci, Ed.D., is Adjunct Professor in Human Development at Pacific Oaks College and has lived a kaleidoscope of opportunities for 30 years. She provides direct services in the education and care of infants, children, families, and communities. She has expertise in inclusive practices with children with special needs and teaching adult learners in person and virtually. Chris earned an A.A. in ECE (San Bernardino), B.A. in Child Development/Psychology (Chico State), M.A. in ECE Special Education/Infant Intervention (San Francisco State), and Ed.D. in Education Leadership in ECE (Mills College). Study tours inspire Chris to Reggio Emilia (Italy) and Aotearoa (New Zealand). She is a board member for Supporting the Advancement of Learning Stories in America (SALSA) and advocates for strength-based formative assessment that promotes learning and identity formation. Chris believes growth happens through lifelong teaching and learning experiences, thoughtful observation, curiosity, intentionality, and openness to multiple perspectives. It is all about relationships. Dionne Clabaugh, Ed.D., Programme Director, believes deep learning happens when people are invested in each other’s growth through autonomous engaged relationships. For over 30 years, she has taught across the lifespan (early education, youth programmes, teachers, parents, faculty, and board members) and developed/facilitated an Adjunct Faculty Peer Mentoring Program. Her work in mentoring and resiliency informs how she designs and facilitates engaging learning environments for adult learners. In her educational consulting practice, she mentors to develop teachers, administrators, faculty, and board members. Dionne earned degrees in Music Therapy (University of the Pacific), Organization Development (University of San Francisco), Learning and Instruction (Ed.D., University of San Francisco), and Social Innovation (Diploma, University for Peace, Costa Rica). She recently co-developed The Human Learning System™, a curricular framework grounded in SDT that responds to each learner’s context for education by satisfying their need for autonomy, relatedness, and competence

Editors and Contributors  xxi using a multi-faceted approach that integrates high-impact practices with learner self-mastery, metacognition, self-efficacy, and resilience. Kathleen M. Cowin, Ed.D., is Associate Professor (Career Track) of Educational Leadership at Washington State University – Tri-Cities, where she teaches, mentors, and co-mentors aspiring PK-12 school leaders. Her research focuses on developing effective relational co-mentoring practices for PK-12 educational leader formation and creating co-mentoring circles among current and former educational leadership students. Kathleen served as a teacher and elementary and middle school principal for over 25 years and completed her Superintendent Certification. Kathleen is the past Chair of the American Educational Research Association Mentorship and Mentoring Practices Special Interest Group, and in 2020, she was selected as a member of the Washington State University President’s Teaching Academy. Angela da Silva joined the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women in June 2022 as the Programme Manager for the Mentoring Women in Business Programme. She has over ten years’ experience in mentoring and coaching in diverse communities in the UK and in Latin America. She holds an MSc in Globalisation and Latin American Development from the School of Advanced Study. Angela is especially passionate about women’s empowerment, and in her free time, she ran a social enterprise working with smallscale cooperatives in low- and middle-income countries around the world. Frances Dodd is Business Psychologist and Associate Director for People Experience within the Trust. Frances leads in areas of Wellbeing, Inclusion and Diversity, Engagement, and Communications to improve the daily working experience of all colleagues. Her recent doctorate examined the impact of leadership incivility within the NHS and developing organisational interventions. Shannon Dunn is Strategic Consultant at Vantage Technology Consulting Group and programme manager for the Leadership Lounge Mentoring Program. Previously a practising archaeologist, Shannon’s passion for delivering high-quality educational experiences re-routed her career into a return to higher education to support faculty and educational development and then ultimately into information technology. She now supports institutions throughout the United States in strategic planning, campus and educational space planning, and governance efforts via consulting practice. She finds joy in supporting development practices such as mentoring as well as advocating for diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging across practice areas. Shannon earned a Certificate in University Teaching, M.A., and Ph.D. in Anthropology from Syracuse University after completing a B.A. in Anthropology and Art History at New College of Florida. Amanda Edwards is Leadership Development Specialist and Coach working to create inclusive cultures that nurture talent at all levels. She has more than 20 years’ experience in personal, team, and organisational development.

xxii  Editors and Contributors Danielle Feeney is Assistant Professor of Instruction in Special Education. She earned a B.S. in Early Childhood Education from Kent State University and an M.Ed. in Special Education from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She received Ph.D. in Special Education from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, with areas of expertise in Learning Disabilities, Emotional Behavioural Disorders, and Teaching English as a Second Language. Feeney teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in OHIO’s Special Education Program with a focus on assessment, intensive interventions, methods for students with high-incidence disabilities, and Universal Design for Learning. Her major research interests include humanising pedagogy in PK-12 and higher education, self-monitoring interventions to improve academic and behavioural outcomes, and student autonomy and ownership of learning. Hannah Finch is Director of External Relations and Nursing Now Challenge, while studying for her master’s degree in International Relations – ­International Security at Sciences Po, Paris, Hannah discovered a passion for global health and innovation in health care. Since then, Hannah has worked for several international NGOs, developing and implementing communication campaigns to promote the prevention of malaria, tuberculosis, and non-communicable diseases. Hannah’s in-country experience includes Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, and Nigeria. In April 2019, Hannah joined the Nursing Now team to manage the development and implementation of the Nursing Now and Nightingale Challenge communications. Hannah is now the Director of External Relations for the Nursing Now Challenge. Bob Garvey, Professor (Emeritus) Ph.D., FRSA, is one of Europe’s leading academic practitioners of mentoring and coaching. He is an experienced mentor/coach working with a range of people in a variety of contexts. Bob Garvey works internationally, and he subscribes to the “repertoire” approach to mentoring and coaching. He is in demand as a keynote conference speaker, webinar facilitator, and workshop leader. He is an active researcher and very widely published. His latest book, with Dr Paul Stokes, Coaching and Mentoring: Theory and Practice, was published in 2022 as a 4th Edition. Emma Glanvill is Partner Success Manager at Vygo. She graduated from the University of Exeter in 2018 with a first-class bachelor’s degree in Business Economics. She has a wide array of professional experiences, including an overseas volunteer placement with VSO supporting development projects in Nigeria, roles in the charity sector managing the Enterprise Programme at The Prince’s Trust, and more recently transitioning to the Higher Education sector, joining Coventry University in 2020. Emma is passionate about mentoring, and during her time at Coventry, she established the highly successful “Talent Mentoring” programme that connects final-year students with industry professionals to enhance graduate outcomes. It was

Editors and Contributors  xxiii in this role that Emma first came across the Vygo platform, and in January 2022, she joined the Ed-Tech start-up as a Partner Success Manager and is responsible for supporting Vygo’s UK partner institutions with designing and scaling their mentoring initiatives. Catherine Gorman Cordova is Associate Director of New Student Programming at Florida Southwestern State College. In her position, she promotes mentoring practices by overseeing the Peer Mentor Program and its incorporation in a first-year seminar course. She has been creating and directing mentoring programmes for the past ten years. Through her oversight, Peer Mentor Programs were initiated in three living-learning communities, three academic programmes, the student-athlete learning centre, and the Library Support Program at Florida Gulf Coast University. Catherine earned a Ph.D. from the University of South Florida in Curriculum and Instruction and concentrated on Career and Workforce Education. Dianne Gut-Zippert is Professor in Special Education. She holds a B.S.  in Education from Cleveland State University and an M.Ed. in Special Education from Notre Dame College of Ohio. She received a Ph.D. in Special Education and Learning Disabilities from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She currently serves as Assistant Department Chair of Teacher Education in the Patton College of Education and Coordinator for the Special Education Graduate Programs. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in Special Education and Teacher Education. Her major research interests include mentoring for educators at all levels, social and academic interventions for students with learning differences, and integrating 21st-century skills into the curriculum. Johanna Hooper is retired Commander who, since leaving the Royal Navy in 2014, has had a career in management consultancy and now runs her own business. Working with both small business leaders and executives in larger organisations, Johanna provides strategic workforce planning, group and 121 coaching/mentoring, teaching, and mediation services. Johanna has over 500 hours of one-to-one and group coaching/mentoring of senior executives and small business owners, including on the national Help To Grow: Management Programme. Johanna is also a TEDx speaker who regularly talks at events and conferences about leadership style, stress, and resilience. Johanna holds a CMI Level 7 Diploma in Strategic Leadership and Management and an ILM Level 7 Certificate in Master Practitioner Coaching and Mentoring, and she is a Chartered Manager. She is also an accredited Senior Practitioner with the EMCC Global and an accredited mediator with the CMC. Sarah Howarth joined the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) in February 2021. She is the Development and Support Manager, with overall responsibility for the NIHR leadership and mentoring offer. Sarah gained her bachelor’s degree in Public Relations from Exeter

xxiv  Editors and Contributors University. She recently co-authored a chapter for the forthcoming Pavilion Mentoring Handbook: Approaches in Health and Social Care (2023), a handbook for mental health and allied support services, practitioners, academics, and others interested in mentoring approaches. The chapter explores the NIHR postdoctoral Academy Members mentoring programme. The programme supports postdoctoral researchers from a broad range of professional and disciplinary contexts across our diverse health and social care communities to mentor others and to seek a mentor. Sarah and her team adopted the EMCC Global International Standards in Mentoring and Coaching Programmes to provide structure, clarity, and rigour to the mentoring programme. Aslı Kandemir is Interdisciplinary Researcher in the School of Education at the University of Birmingham. She holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the Liverpool Hope University and researches about the politics of “race”/ ethnicity, social and education policy, and inequalities. Her current focus is on state power, symbolic borders, and cultural racism with a developing interest in freedom of expression in UK schools and decolonisation of mentoring. Aslı writes, teaches, and tweets and also mentors students, scholars, and professionals. She is a former DJ and now a capoeirista. Hande Karabatak-Binns is Psychologist with a master’s degree in Social Psychology. She works as a Global High-Performance Coach, Consultant, and Mentor with 30 years of international Human Resources Management experience. She has MCIPD. Working to understand, develop, and assist people and companies has taken her all over the world. As a result, she has lived and worked in many countries such as Norway, Romania, UAE, and the UK. She has been working with cultural intelligence, diversity, and inclusion for over 15 years. Her work led her to write a chapter on People and Culture in a recently published book, Secrets of Working Across 5 Continents. Frances Kochan is Distinguished Professor Emeritus from Auburn University, Alabama, where she also served as Dean of the College of Education. She has been active in numerous mentoring organisations and is widely published. Her research focuses on the relationship of mentoring and personal, organisational, and cultural change. She was the founder and editor of the Mentor and Mentorship series for Information Age Press. Kochan presently serves as President of Kochan Consultants, which seeks to enhance the use of mentoring to foster positive personal and organisational change. Andrea Latham is Project Officer, Nursing Now Challenge. Andrea is an MSc graduate from Warwick Business School with expertise in project management tools and methodologies, having supported the successful completion of a variety of projects. Through completing the Future Leader Experiences Common Purpose Programme and having travelled widely across Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, and America, she is passionate about promoting the

Editors and Contributors  xxv importance of leadership development for student and early-career nurses and midwives to improve health systems globally. Catherine R. Mao, Management Consultant and Executive Coach, is committed to helping individuals to bring out the very best of self and “flourishing as a whole person”. As a CFO and HR Director, Catherine has extensive experience in managing complex international organisations from USA, Europe, Australia, and China. She is a Senior Practitioner with EMCC, a fellow of CIMA, and a fellow of CPA Australia. She holds a master’s degree in Commerce from USYD. Catherine applies her business background to release the pain in the system across a wide variety of functions and industries. She coaches in the areas of executive presence, global mindset and intercultural intelligence, and performance management to enable leaders to clear a path for success. Catherine’s coaching clients say that “her Digital DNA, coaching experience and expertise make her top rated”. She is on the leading edge of bringing team coaching into Asian region. Lisa Matthewman is Principal Lecturer and Chartered Occupational Psychologist. She is registered with the Health Care Professions Council, is an Accredited Coach, and is a Certified Principal Business Psychologist of the Association for Business Psychology. Lisa is also an Academic Member of the CIPD. Her areas of research and practice are in leadership, personal development, business psychology, and coaching, particularly for management development and leadership enhancement, as born out of doctoral research. Lisa is the course leader for the M.Sc. Business and Organisational Psychology and has extensive teaching experience, including teaching on the M.A. HRM and M.B.A. She has worked as a private consultant with individuals, teams, and organisations in the public and private sectors. Lisa was also an Administrator and Librarian for the European Mentoring and Coaching Council during the professional body’s inaugural years. Efe Olokpa joined the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women in 2019. She is a Senior Programme Manager – Mentoring Intakes. Efe was previously with Ambition Institute as a Programme Manager; she led on recruitment and delivery of their Governance Leadership Programme in partnership with the Confederation of School Trusts. Before that, Efe worked for causes supporting trafficked women and human rights activists. She is passionate about women’s empowerment as well as youth and community development work. Michele A. Parker is from Brooklyn, NY. She earned a bachelor’s degree at SUNY Stonybrook. Encouraged by the mentoring, she pursued a master’s degree in Higher Education and Student Affairs Administration from the University of Vermont. Later, she graduated with a Ph.D. in Research, Statistics, and Evaluation from the University of Virginia. Since joining UNCW, in 2007, Parker’s responsibilities have included teaching research

xxvi  Editors and Contributors courses within the Educational Leadership department. As the recipient of the 2020 Chancellor’s Teaching Excellence Award and the 2020 Graduate Mentor Award, Parker’s commitment to student and faculty mentoring was recognised. Her passions are educational research and faculty development. She is fond of answering questions that lead to positive change in people’s lives. Mirna Ramos-Diaz is Chief Diversity Officer, Associate Professor of Paediatrics, Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences. Mirna has been Director of “Roots to Wings” Transformative Co-Mentoring Programme since 2014. The programme creates pathways for underrepresented youth living in the Homelands of the Yakama Nation to enter the health sciences. The programme pairs 6th–12th graders from Mount Adams School District and Yakama Nation Tribal School with first- and second-year osteopathic medical students throughout the academic year. The model of transformative co-mentoring, based on the work of Howlett and Austin, forms the matrix of the programme: it is collaborative and egalitarian; each person must come from a place of not knowing which leads to humility and must be open to learning. This model is adaptable to other Tribal Nations and programmes. Melissa Richardson is one of Australia’s top mentoring experts, having worked in the field for over 25 years. She has designed and implemented mentoring programmes across hundreds of public, private, and non-profit sector organisations. She is a member of the global assessment team for the EMCC Global’s ISMCP Award (International Standards for Mentoring and Coaching Programmes) and has postgraduate qualifications in organisational coaching, counselling, and marketing strategy. Dwan V. Robinson is Associate Professor in Educational Administration, holds a B.A. in Government from Oberlin College and an M.A. in Public Policy from the University of Chicago, and has earned a Ph.D. in Educational Administration from The Ohio State University. She is currently a facilitator for the Mentor Leader Program and serves as the Programme Coordinator for the online Education Public Policy Leadership Certificate. She teaches graduate courses in educational leadership, educational policy and politics, and school and community relations. Her major research interests include education policy and leadership, school, community relations, mentoring and supporting faculty and students, and the educational experiences of marginalised groups. Sue Round has more than 25 years’ experience in full spectrum of people development across multiple sectors, including Aviation, Telecoms, Retail, Financial Services, and Energy. She has led large, complex global teams with responsibility for Learning in all its aspects, Leadership Development, Talent Management, and Diversity Equity and Inclusion. She has a master’s degree from the University of Surrey, is a qualified coach trained in

Editors and Contributors  xxvii the use of multiple psychometrics, is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, and has recently earned a Ph.D. from Oxford Brookes University. Sue has served on the UK Government’s Employee Engagement Task Force and on the Boards of the Learning Skills Improvement Service and Working Chance and has been a Silver Line Friend since 2015. In 2021, she was appointed to the Board of the CIPD. She is a Founding Partner in Lodestar Talent, a boutique Organisational Development Consultancy. Lindsay Rushworth is Coordinator of Mentoring Programs in the Office of First Year Experience at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) where she develops and implements university-wide student success initiatives focused on peer mentoring and student leadership development programmes. Since joining the university in February 2020, Lindsay also directs FGCU’s Honors Mentor Program. Prior to her time at FGCU, Lindsay served as the Coordinator for the University of Central Florida’s Quality Enhancement Plan, a university-wide five-year initiative to prepare undergraduates to achieve their professional goals and to be engaged, empowered citizens. Lindsay’s reach interests include integrative-learning pedagogies, digital storytelling, interdisciplinary ePortfolios, and identity construction. She earned her master’s degree in Literary, Cultural, and Textual Studies from the University of Central Florida. Chandana Sanyal is Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Development at Middlesex University and Fellow Member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and Higher Education Academy. She is the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) Global Accreditation Lead for individual coaching, mentoring, and supervision accreditations. Chandana is an EMCC Global EIA Master Practitioner Coach and Mentor and EMCC Global ITCA Senior Practitioner Team Coach. Chandana completed her Coach-Mentor Supervision training with the Tavistock Institute in Human Relations in 2022. She teaches on several postgraduate programmes and her specialist teaching areas include individual, team and organisational learning, professional practice, organisational behaviour, coaching, mentoring, action learning, and leadership development. Her recent consultancy and research projects include longitudinal research on entrepreneurship mentoring with Youth Business International (YBI), impact evaluation of coaching with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), and National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Academy Mentoring Programme evaluation. Nicki Seignot has over 35 years’ experience in the field of people management, leadership development, coaching, and mentoring. She has worked closely with senior leaders and executive teams across a wide variety of organisations to design and implement mentoring programmes and lead flagship leadership and diversity programmes.

xxviii  Editors and Contributors Samantha Sloan is Director of Training and Development and Specialist Resilient Pilot Mentor. As a passionate developer of people with over 15 years coaching, facilitation, design, and training experience across a wide range of sectors, from financial services, contact centre to retail. Through her love of aviation, Sam had the opportunity to join Resilient Pilot in the very early stages of the organisational setup as a specialist mentor, working with individuals who required some specialised support; this quickly developed into Sam being an integral team member who developed the Mentors and Accredited the members through the EMCC programme, Coaching with Purpose. This provided the springboard for the ISMCP organisational accreditation, which was gained on Resilient Pilots second birthday on May 2022, achieving the GOLD standard, an incredible achievement in under two years for the organisation! Rita Symons is Coach, Mentor, and Leadership Development Specialist. She was an internal coach in the NHS and held numerous posts, including in commissioning, community, and mental health services, for ten years at the Board level. She has lived experience of being a BAME Chief Officer. In 2016, she left her role as a CCG Chief Officer and established a Coaching and Leadership Development practice. She has undertaken research commissioned to inform the national strategy, a focus of which was looking at how coaching can be more inclusive, in terms of the diversity of coaches and individuals who are accessing coaching. Rita provided expert input by co-leading the development of the Reciprocal Mentoring for Inclusion programme, and she mentors women who are vulnerable, having worked with Oxfam and Growing Points. Between late 2019 and summer 2021, she was the UK President of EMCC UK. Wendy Ann Tangen is a mental health nurse by profession, with extensive experience in various clinical and system leadership roles. Her current role is a Clinical Services, Inclusion Lead with a remit of Health Equity. Wendy is a Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) Expert and Coach. She chaired her trust’s workforce race equality network, creating a safe space to amplify the voices of colleagues, raise cultural awareness, and address concerns. Wendy is an ally and a member of other staff networks internally and externally to her organisation at both regional and national levels and has a commitment and passion to working together to draw on each other’s strengths to deliver positive change. Aaron Taylor is Head of School for HRM at Arden University. He has been involved in teaching and higher education (HE) for over 20 years in both the UK and overseas. He has published on a wide range of subjects, including articles on the flipped classroom, online international learning, international HRM, the impact of employability in facilitating student technology acceptance, conducting teaching observations, and emotional labour in HE lecturers.

Editors and Contributors  xxix Beth VanDerveer is Associate Professor in the Department of Recreation, Sport Pedagogy and Consumer Sciences (RSPCS) at Ohio University. She currently serves as the Coordinator for the Patton College of Education, Mentor Leader Program. Her scholarship focuses on international and domestic faculty mentoring, models of mentoring, and faculty development and leadership in higher education. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in administration; leadership; fundraising and sponsorships; and diversity, equity, and inclusion. She received her Ph.D. in Recreation Administration with a minor in Government from Texas Woman’s University.   Suji Venkataraman is a compassionate and accomplished Early Childhood Educator. Suji’s quest to advance in education, took her to Pacific Oaks College. Here, she earned her master’s degree in Human Development, with a specialisation in Leadership in Education and Human Services. Suji chose the topic as “Building a Bridge of Cultural Respect” between Teachers and Parents in a Childcare/Preschool Environment for her thesis. She is passionate about learning different cultures, parenting styles, and empowering parents with new ideas or topics relevant to infants and toddlers’ growth and development. During her graduate work, Suji realised that she had a new passion: to teach adults, and this became her dream. Within a year of graduation, Suji accepted Adjunct Faculty positions at both Skyline College and at her Alma Mater, Pacific Oaks College. Now, Suji enjoys both teaching young children and future generation of Early Childhood Educators. Valerie Vogel is Strategic Consultant at Vantage Technology Consulting Group, a programme manager for the Leadership Lounge Mentoring Program, and a community builder. Valerie has more than 20 years of experience in higher education information security and privacy, focusing on programme development and management, awareness and education campaigns, and governance planning initiatives. Prior to joining Vantage, Valerie served as the Senior Manager of the EDUCAUSE Cybersecurity Program and provided project management support for the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant, Advanced Networking with Minority Serving Institutions (AN-MSI). Her work at EDUCAUSE included developing and coordinating volunteer opportunities across institutions and creating a mentoring programme for the higher education information security community. Valerie is passionate about fostering strong, sustainable, and vibrant communities and helping people make valuable connections. Valerie received her B.S. in Psychology from James Madison University. Jeffrey W. Wimer, Ph.D., ATC, LAT, is Associate Professor in the Department of Wellness and Sport Sciences at Millersville University, where he teaches a mix of undergraduate and graduate courses in wellness, athletic training, sport management, and research methods. He is co-founder of

xxx  Editors and Contributors Project Teacher Development (PTD) with Dr. Miriam Witmer, a partnership programme that seeks to inspire and motivate students of colour to pursue careers in education. Miriam Marguerita Gomez Witmer, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in the Educational Foundations department at Millersville University. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in social foundations of education and issues in secondary education. She co-founded Project Teacher Development (PTD), which includes the Color of Teaching Mentoring Program, Side-by-Side in-school seminars, and the Summer Academy. PTD is a pathway programme for high school students to obtain teacher certification. She is also co-founder of the Social Justice Collective at Millersville University, serving educators with culturally relevant and sustaining growth. Her research interests focus on mentoring, social justice in education, and diversifying the teacher workforce. She is an international mentor trainer and the Connect magazine editor for the International Mentoring Association.

Foreword Professor David Clutterbuck

The great debate in mentoring happened in the 1990s. When Kathy Kram, in the previous decade, conducted her seminal study of informal career support relationships, she lumped together a number of different roles and activities under the convenient heading of “mentor” (Kram, 1985). The American discovery of mentoring was blissfully unaware of the long history of mentoring in Europe – and, under different names, in other cultures around the globe. The United States (US) perception of a mentor was grounded in “overseeing the career of a young man” (Levinson, 1978). Power and hands-on use of the mentor’s influence on behalf of the mentee figured large. (It is now increasingly recognised that sponsorship is a different social construct to mentoring and to some extent incompatible with it.) In Europe, the history of mentoring has a much greater association with the development of wisdom. The archetype mentor, Fenelon, was a humble cleric, who had far less power than his mentee, the Dauphin. He used his wisdom to help his young mentee to become a wiser, gentler, more thoughtful person – and therefore a better future leader. When we read the phrase “traditional mentoring”, therefore, it’s relevant to ask: Which tradition? The weight of early academic literature on mentoring depicted the relationship as one where learning was primarily or totally one way. After all, the heroic mentor knew it all already! Very little attention was given to the learning that the mentor gained from interacting with someone from a different generation, or different background, or both. In Europe, this notion was challenged, for example, by a study of a mentoring programme aimed at helping women aspiring to become directors of public companies. Mentors (mostly men to begin with, because of the shortage of female exemplars) not only reported new insights about gender diversity but also gained greater confidence in their own capabilities as directors. The concept of single-direction learning in mentoring also began to be challenged by diversity-focused programmes. The senior mentor provided the mentee with insights into how the internal political and career management processes worked; helped them recognise potential career opportunities; and encouraged their self-belief and ambition. In return, the mentor began to

xxxii  Professor David Clutterbuck understand the world as seen through the eyes of a more junior person from a less privileged background and/ or culture. This led inevitably to the introduction of reverse mentoring programmes. At first, the intention was to provide technophobic middle-aged executives with a young technical expert, in a safe environment, where the executive could gradually become more comfortable with the digital world. What the junior person got out of it was hard to define, other than a friend in a high place. Where the relationships worked well, they morphed into a combination of personalised tech support and a hierarchical mentoring relationship. The next evolution was to make the junior person the mentor and the more senior person the mentee. The focus was an expanded perspective on diversity, which now included beyond race and culture various forms of disability. More recently, this has expanded again to encompass various forms of neurodiversity and cognitive diversity. The problem with this approach was that it nudged people back towards one-way learning, albeit in the opposite direction from standard hierarchical mentoring. However, as case studies that follow illustrate, where the relationship gels, they often automatically become reciprocal. When we use the term reciprocal, it has multiple interpretations. In the context of American mentoring, there is often an exchange of career sponsorship from the mentor and loyalty (fealty) from the mentee, who is typically called a protégé (meaning someone, who is protected). In such a transactional exchange, each party offers the other something different. In reverse mentoring, by contrast, each party offers and receives the same kind of gift – learning about how the world works from another person’s perspective. There may additionally be other benefits – for example, the more senior person may have wider and more influential networks they are able to open to the more junior – but these are generally subordinate to the primary objective of co-learning. More recently, the term reciprocal mentoring has taken on a new meaning. While mentoring has undoubtedly made an impact on diversity and inclusion, traditional hierarchical approaches and reverse mentoring both have limited impact. Both focus on changing the mindsets of individuals, but don’t impact the systems, which create inequality and hidden discrimination. They may even reinforce existing systems, by creating examples of people who have “worked the system”. In its current metamorphosis, reciprocal mentoring aims to change those systems. It brings together senior and junior employees in co-learning partnerships, which identify barriers to equality and diversity. The pairs come together as a cohort to address those barriers at an organisational level, bringing about change from both above and below. As a result, senior and junior co-learners work together to stimulate deep and lasting change both for themselves and for the organisation. Mentoring programme managers and mentoring educators have typically placed little emphasis on mentoring as a social exchange. Yet, it can be argued that all successful mentoring relationships involve some degree of ­reciprocity – a sense that both parties gain from the relationship. Psychosocial benefits apply

Foreword  xxxiii to both mentor and mentee, ranging from being valued to kinship. Relationships built around one-way giving tend to be unsustainable. There is a need for a deeper understanding of reciprocity in all types of mentoring. The impact of mentoring on programme objectives is moderated by the mentee experience, the mentor experience, and the relationship. If the mentoring relationship is a learning partnership, then shared learning takes on a greater importance. In the most recent forms of reciprocal mentoring, learning is shared across the whole cohort. That’s what makes it such a powerful engine for bringing about systemic change. The cases in this book illustrate many themes that occur in mentoring generally, but which assume particular significance in the context of reciprocity. These include: Power. All relationships have a power dimension. In hierarchical mentoring, the mentor typically holds more power than the mentee. In some types of mentoring, they may use that power instrumentally on behalf of the mentee. Reciprocal mentoring typically involves a relative equality of power. The more senior person needs to understand the power they have and work actively to create equality of power in the relationship. For example, they must learn to listen more than they talk. The more junior person may need to develop greater self-confidence in the value of their own experience and opinions, along with the confidence to challenge. Creating a climate of equality is a responsibility for both parties. Co-learning. The starting point for co-learning is mutual curiosity – being genuinely curious about how the other person sees their environment. How will interacting with this other person make me a better person? How will it help me to be more effective in my role as a leader, how I manage myself and my career, and so on? The social exchange. In the research for my Ph.D., a decade or two ago, I identified four outcomes of mentoring, which applied to both mentors and mentees: • • • •

Career progression Learning Enabling (e.g., having a better personal development plan or career plan) Emotional (e.g., increased self-belief)

The diversity connection. Whether intentional or not, reciprocal mentoring contributes to individual and collective awareness of difference as an asset to be nurtured and valued. The nature of the social exchange varies according to the type and purpose of the mentoring relationship. A new factor in reciprocal mentoring programmes that are aimed at change in the system is that the social exchange takes place not just between individuals within mentoring pairs but also between the pairs

xxxiv  Professor David Clutterbuck within the cohort. As yet, we have very little data on what this looks like – but it will be a fascinating area for future research! It can be argued that the higher the level of reciprocity, the higher the impact of the mentoring relationship and, by extension, the programme – ­although this is a theory yet to be extensively tested by empirical means. A primary reason mentors engage in mentoring is often referred to as enlightened self-interest. This can take many forms, including a mentor’s pride in the accomplishments of their mentee. The reciprocal nature of a mentoring relationship need not be articulated or documented; it may be at one and the same time transactional, educational, and emotional. Making the exchange explicit may paradoxically undermine the process of growing together (in both senses of the phrase). In contrast, awareness in mentoring partners about the need for and value of reciprocity may be a significant factor in relationship success. So, we have a lot still to learn about reciprocal mentoring. This book takes us a few steps on that learning journey. David Clutterbuck 2023 References Kram, K. (1985) Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Foresman. Levison, D.J. (1978) The Seasons of a Man’s Life. New York: Ballantine.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the colleagues, teams, and organisations who contributed to the book, giving readers an insight into the many and varied mentoring programmes across the globe. We would also like to thank Routledge and EMCC Global for their sponsorship of this book series: Routledge – EMCC Global Masters in Coaching and Mentoring. Dr Julie Haddock-Millar would like to thank her husband, James, for his patience and support, and her exuberant and loving children, Isabella and Tyler. She would like to thank Professor David Clutterbuck for his mentorship and generosity over the last ten years. Dr Paul Stokes would like to acknowledge the support of his partner, Jenny, and the indulgence of his daughters Lowri, Savannah, and Bobbie while completing this project. He also wishes to thank Sheffield Hallam University for allowing him time to complete this project. Finally, he would like to recognise the role that the late Professor David Megginson played in getting him involved in mentoring, nearly 25 years ago.

1 Introduction Paul Stokes, Julie Haddock-Millar and Nora Dominguez

In 2006, Megginson et al. (2006) published the second edition of their Mentoring in Action text. Within it, they offered a useful heuristic for thinking about mentoring in terms of levels. Their original schema involved thinking about mentoring across six levels: 1 Culture 2 Scheme 3 Relationship 4 Episode 5 Technique 6 Moment The intent of the schema was to provide an analytical lens with which to ‘zoom’ in and out of mentoring activity. At the time, they envisaged the development of a mentoring culture to be the broadest, most macro lens, zooming in slightly to look at the level of scheme or programme. Nested within schemes were the mentoring relationships, which consisted of episodes/sessions, which themselves were comprised of mentoring techniques and individual, transformational moments where shifts and changes would occur. In the intervening years, research into both mentoring and coaching has increased exponentially with thousands more books and peer-reviewed journal articles on mentoring alone. The terms used in Megginson et al.’s (2006) text have been augmented and, in some cases, superseded by other terms. In the 2017 SAGE Handbook of Mentoring (Clutterbuck et al., 2017), the editors refer to the different mentoring perspectives including the mentoring philosophy, context, dynamics, application and mentoring conversations. The mentoring philosophy refers to the contextual and cultural origins of mentoring, the narrative that influences our view of mentoring and the complexities that arise from philosophical traditions. The mentoring context considers the extent to which context – the micro and macro environment – influences mentoring programme design, implementation or the nature of mentoring relationships. Mentoring dynamics refers to the mentoring cycle or phases that might map out the evolution of the mentoring relationship and help to understand what is happening as the DOI: 10.4324/9781003302537-1

2  Paul Stokes et al. mentoring relationship transitions. Studies of the mentoring cycle or phases began in the late 1970s and early 1980s with Kram (1980, 1983), Clutterbuck (2007) and, more recently, Haddock-Millar (2017). These studies examine the interactions between mentors and mentees and seek to understand the aspects that influence the evolution of the mentoring relationship. Mentoring application explores the purpose of the mentoring relationship or context and the mentoring conversation focuses on the mentees and mentors internal and external context, to a lesser extent the structure of the mentoring conversation (Clutterbuck et al., 2017). In the SAGE Handbook of Mentoring, we see 26 case-study mentoring programmes that illustrate the mentoring perspectives in practice. The majority of case studies present mentoring as uni-directional – being offered by one (the mentor) to another (the mentee). Whilst there are clearly benefits to all stakeholders in the system, reciprocity and mutuality in mentoring dyads are not at the forefront of the case studies. In this text, we talk about programmes and processes more than we do about sessions, episodes and techniques. There has been an explosion in activity in terms of mentoring and coaching processes and genres (see Garvey & Stokes, 2022 for analysis of these) which offer mentors and coaches a plethora of choices in terms of the interventions they make with their clients. Nevertheless, we believe that there is still something useful in this schema because it provides a structure for focused inquiry. Whilst we would agree that there has been much useful work done on many of the other levels, it seems to us that more focused work is required at the programme/scheme level on a distinct approach to mentoring that addresses reciprocity and mutuality. Although much has changed regarding the context in which mentoring relationships and programmes sit (not least the development of coaching as the dominant discourse of the two), most of the literature still refers to mentoring as being uni-directional being offered by one (the mentor) to another (the mentee). Reciprocity and mutuality are not new terms in mentoring but have not truly taken centre stage as yet. Hence, reciprocal mentoring is not a completely new term but is arguably still in its infancy. Exploring reciprocal mentoring As we argue above, labels describing different modes of mentoring are not new and have been around for some time. That said, as Garvey and Stokes (2022) point out, mentoring labels tend to be about the mode of engagement – e.g., peer, co, reverse – as opposed to brands as they are in coaching. Amongst these labels sit terms such as traditional mentoring and developmental mentoring. These labels are no longer beyond challenge from newer researchers and commentators; however, for example, Round (2021) argues that traditional mentoring – where someone more senior/experienced mentors someone more junior – can be criticised for potentially perpetuating the status quo by cementing existing power relations. Arguably, this is also endemic in the language we use within mentoring, with the mentor being the ‘do-er’ or the one offering expertise, whilst the mentee is the ‘done to’ or recipient of said

Introduction  3 wisdom. The intent of reciprocal mentoring programmes – where mentoring is deliberately two-way – is to enable both participants to learn by engaging in the learning dialogue. In this book, we are interested in understanding and exploring reciprocal mentoring, as enacted in mentoring programmes. As we argued above, this involves us thinking about the mentoring programme design issues as we inquire into it, in Megginson et al.’s (2006) terms. Reciprocity itself has become part of the contemporary mentoring discourse in terms of mentor learning. In the second edition of his book on mentoring in the educational context, Daloz (1999: 45) says, of mentors, that “we find ourselves reframing our words and our knowledge over and over...{i}n that dialogue, the knowledge changes and we change”; Megginson et al.’s (2006) study on mentoring in action across a range of sectors points to a range of mentor benefits including opening up of new perspectives and challenge to the mentor’s thinking; Grima et al.’s (2014) article on mentor benefits found that mentors, across a range of studies, typically accrue both psycho-social (mentoring as rejuvenation and as rewarding intrinsically) and career benefits (improved job performance and recognition by others). Arguably, each of these examples implicitly positions mentor benefits as being synonymous with mentoring being reciprocal in nature. However, in this text, we choose to make a distinction between mentoring that has some benefits for both parties and reciprocal mentoring itself as a mode of mentoring. We propose that there are three types of mentoring scheme or programme that we see in organisations: 1 Reciprocal by design – this is where a mentoring programme has been deliberately set up so that participants work with each other in a reciprocal way where mutual learning and development are expected and encouraged. 2 Emergent reciprocity – this is where a mentoring programme has not been set up to be deliberately reciprocal, but participants naturally work together in this way and this becomes formalised as the way to participate in the programme. 3 Reciprocal as an output – this is where a mentoring programme has not been set up or designed as reciprocal, with the roles within the relationship continuing to be traditionally defined as mentor and mentee but where benefits are accrued for mentors and mentees. Our expectation was that, when we examined real mentoring programmes, we would find that the least common programme type would be reciprocal by design, followed by emergent, with the most common being programmes where reciprocity was demonstrated by benefit outputs for the programmes’ participants. We report further on this in Chapter 10. This is because, as Garvey and Stokes (2022) point out, traditional notions of mentoring have a long and established history, of over 3,000 years, where a mentor has been characterised as an adviser of thought, guiding the mentee through their life and work. In this traditional discourse, there has been little space for the notion that mentoring might be two-way or mutual in nature. More recently, with the advent of reverse mentoring programmes – where traditional notions of

4  Paul Stokes et al. power relations are turned on their head, with less experienced, younger mentors mentoring older, more senior mentees – such traditional approaches have been questioned. Nevertheless, whilst the intent of reciprocal and reverse mentoring initiatives may be similar – to challenge dominant power relations and orthodoxies – they are quite different in practice. Reciprocal mentoring legitimises mutual learning and such programmes are intended to encourage a true partnership between participants. Hence, reciprocal mentoring, in theory at least, challenges the very notion of having mentors and mentees as separately designated roles. Therefore, given the weight of history in terms of established custom and practice within mentoring programmes, we anticipated that the majority of established mentoring programmes, across all sectors, would not be reciprocal by design or would emerge. Nevertheless, we did have the sense that there was a growing need and desire for reciprocal mentoring and that there was currently a gap in understanding the nature of reciprocity in mentoring schemes that we were interested in filling. Drawing this together, we identified some key questions that we wanted to explore in doing this case-study research: 1 What does reciprocal mentoring programme design look like? 2 How does reciprocal mentoring differ from other modes of mentoring? 3 What practical design features do programme designers need to put in place to enable reciprocal mentoring to take place? 4 To what extent does reciprocal mentoring challenge traditional notions of mentoring scheme design? 5 What impact does the context in which the mentoring takes place (i.e., sector, culture, history) influence reciprocity? In order to explore these questions, we took a case-study analysis ­approach where we explored reciprocal mentoring across a range of sectors – ­entrepreneurship, healthcare, third sector organisations, education and higher education sector, membership organisations and private sector organisations  – and sought to distil answers to our questions from comparing and contrasting these cases. In doing so, we were particularly mindful of the contingent and multi-faceted nature of mentoring as an activity. We recognised that drawing cases from different parts of the world, from different professional groups and different sectors was likely to generate different and potentially conflicting answers to these questions. This is the case for broader understandings and notions of what mentoring is, so the field of reciprocal mentoring was unlikely to be different. Nevertheless, we believed that it would be possible and desirable to seek to draw out lessons for future mentoring programme design from examining reciprocal mentoring activity across the three dimensions described above. Our aim in writing this text is to inform the activity of the following key stakeholders: • Participants in mentoring programmes – by developing a rich picture of how mentors and mentees (as traditionally defined) might be defined in reciprocal mentoring programmes.

Introduction  5 • Mentoring Programme designers/organisers – by drawing out design principles embedded in reciprocal schemes, it might be possible to make more informed design choices when setting up and evaluating mentoring schemes. • Researchers in mentoring – by inducting a model/theory of reciprocal mentoring, this might enable future researchers to evaluate reciprocal mentoring initiatives in context. The structure of this book Following this introductory chapter, there will follow eight chapters that explore reciprocal mentoring in the context of the different sectors within which it is located, as briefly described above. Each chapter is written by different authors and contains slightly different numbers of case studies (but usually three or four). Each chapter contains cases written by different case-study contributors (some of whom are also the chapter authors). Each case, like each chapter, contains a particular view as to the nature of the reciprocity embedded in each programme. All twenty-six cases are reciprocal in nature – by this, we mean that reciprocity was key to those that designed and delivered each programme. Because of this, most case-study contributors have claimed that their programme is reciprocal by design. However, as we shall discuss in Chapter 10, our analysis suggests that our typology of design, emergent or outcome reciprocity has some legitimacy. In other words, we will argue that, in some of the cases, the reciprocity is emergent or outcome based in nature, in contrast to what is referred to in some of the cases. We still assert, however, that all of the cases included are reciprocal mentoring case studies, whether they be classified by design, outcome or emergence. Despite these differences in emphasis and perspective, all case-study contributors have taken a common analytical approach in that each case study covers the following aspects to varying degrees: • Purpose and objectives of the mentoring programme, including a description of the need to satisfy or problem to solve with the mentoring programme • Mentoring context, including a description of the organisational setting and population served • Infrastructure of the mentoring programme, including organisational support and communication plan • Recruitment, selection and matching strategies • Training and educational opportunities for mentors and mentees, including description of the learning objectives, curriculum, setting, length and evaluation tools • Strategies to monitor and support the relationships • Formative and summative evaluation of the mentoring programme and the mentoring relationships • Funding of the mentoring programme • Sustaining the mentoring programme and plans for the future

6  Paul Stokes et al. Each chapter synthesises the lessons learnt from each case study and seeks to distil the lessons from examining reciprocal mentoring in that context. Chapter 2 focuses on reciprocal mentoring initiatives in the entrepreneurial sector. The chapter draws on three case studies: Bharatiya Yuva Shakti Trust (BYST), Cherie Blair Foundation for Women (CBFW) Mentoring Programme and the Royal Academy of Engineering Leaders for Innovation Fellowships (LIF). The chapter authors, Haddock-Millar and Clutterbuck, explore the challenges faced by entrepreneurs and how reciprocal mentoring initiatives seek to address the challenges present in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. A common theme amongst all the case studies is the fact that whilst both mentees and mentors benefit from the mentoring relationship, at the heart of the mentoring is personal, professional and business growth and transformation. The three reciprocal mentoring cases presented highlight the concept of mentoring as a two-way process, where learning, development, transition and change work both ways in mentoring dyads. They also highlight how mentoring initiatives are designed with immediate and wider stakeholder benefits, including the wider entrepreneurial ecosystem. Chapter 3 explores reciprocal mentoring in the context of healthcare, with a particular focus on inclusion across four case studies: The Nursing Now Challenge, Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (LYPFT), North East London NHS Foundation Trust and Transformative Co-mentoring: Fostering Cultural Change in the Medical Profession focusing on the creation of “Roots to Wings” (RTW), a partnership programme. The chapter author, Symons, describes how the four case studies are examples of organisations that have embraced reciprocal mentoring as a tool to specifically address the issue of inclusion in the healthcare workforce. Chapter 4 focuses on reciprocal mentoring initiatives in the third sector. The chapter draws on three case studies: SAVE the Children, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and The Middle East Technical University (METU) Alumni Association in Istanbul (ODTÜMİST) Mentoring Programme(s). The chapter authors, Garvey and Gannon, identify three recurrent themes across the case studies: the role of shared values at the organisational and mentoring initiative levels, the opportunities for contemporary knowledge sharing and how these are underpinned by ‘generativity’ (Erikson, 1978). In Chapter 5, the chapter author, Dominguez, addresses the concept of reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector, its benefits and its impact. The chapter includes three case studies. The first two programmes examine Serendipitous Reciprocal Mentoring Effects on Black Male Mentors and Color of Teaching Mentoring Programme: Cultural Awareness as a Reciprocal Mentoring Outcome, focusing on the challenges faced by underrepresented students in middle and high school, and the positive outcomes of reciprocal mentoring in addressing those obstacles. The third case elaborates on an innovative model, the co-mentoring circles, to support the leadership aspirations of in-service teachers. These cases highlight the importance of a collaborative,

Introduction  7 two-way approach of reciprocal mentoring and strengthen the notion of a culture of support in which students and teachers increase their capacity to identify and solve shared problems for community building and societal change. Chapter 6 explores reciprocal mentoring initiatives for students and staff in higher education. It includes four cases highlighting the processes, benefits and outcomes of reciprocal mentoring relationships amongst undergraduate students, graduate students, prospective students and staff. The first case demonstrates how undergraduate honour students develop critical skills by establishing supported and structured reciprocal peer-mentoring relationships. Two cases in United Kingdom Business Schools emphasise the importance of reciprocal mentoring processes for doctoral students in enhancing students’ academic outcomes whilst providing critical feedback for the organisation to improve the quality of doctoral supervision and the impact of reciprocal peer mentoring as a career development intervention for prospective students in which mentors and mentees develop robust career-related skills. The final case focuses on the virtual experience of Chief Information Officers in developing reciprocal mentoring opportunities during the pandemic and its impact on overcoming professional and career-related challenges whilst creating networking opportunities in an engaging community of practice. The chapter author, Dominguez, identifies a common theme amongst all cases is the impact of reciprocal mentoring in increasing the participants’ self-awareness, selfconfidence and sense of belonging through dialogue, reflection and shared feedback. Chapter 7 focuses on reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education, describing reciprocal mentoring relationships, programmes and initiatives. The chapter includes four case studies portraying mentoring programmes that started promoting hierarchical, one-to-one relationships between junior and senior faculty that evolved into meaningful, high-quality, reciprocal relationships. The first case portrays a learning partnership amongst two faculty members in teacher education that started at a formal University mentoring programme; the second case depicts a formal mentoring programme for junior faculty that evolved into a rich community of practice; the third case explains a programme grounded in self-determination theory for adjunct faculty; and finally, the fourth case illustrates a team-based formal programme involving clinical tenure-track and tenured faculty. The chapter authors, Dominguez and Haddock-Millar, explain how the four cases share the view that reciprocal mentoring is a discovery journey in which dialogue, engagement and interaction lead to personal and professional growth whilst collaboratively building energetic communities of practice. Chapter 8 centres on reciprocal mentoring initiatives within membership organisations. The chapter draws on three cases (Australian Human Resources Institute, British Standards Institute and the Resilient Pilot Programme) and examines how reciprocal mentoring emerges from these programmes. Chapter authors, Stokes and Richardson, identify what has been learnt about the nature of reciprocity across the case studies. Core shared themes are examined

8  Paul Stokes et al. including voluntarism and its impact, professional integrity and the development of relational organising cultures. The chapter also explores the extent to which membership organisations are predisposed towards mutuality and reciprocity due to the voluntarist mindset within the sector. Chapter 9 delves into the use of reciprocal mentoring in two different private sector case studies. The first describes the use of reciprocal mentoring as a mechanism for increasing understanding of the issues surrounding women’s career equality within BP, at a time of significant change. This includes the individual and organisational learning that emerged as well as the resulting shift in perspectives. The second describes an approach named LOTUS that has been used extensively across the Far East highlighting the potential to challenge the prevailing culture and hierarchy. It includes some recommendations for others to use as well as pointing to the potential to leverage technology to drive further and more effective participation. The chapter author, Round, highlights how reciprocal mentoring has been used in large private sector companies intentionally as a progressive tool designed to disrupt patterns of thinking, remove hierarchy and enable change. Whilst there were differences in the approaches, the principles of open dialogue, deep listening and disrupting paradigms are present in both as was the perceived pressure on senior executives to operate as experts and advisers regardless of context. Finally, in the concluding chapter, we present an enhanced model for contemporary reciprocal mentoring and explore the answers to the research questions we set ourselves above. We do not intend or expect this text to be the ‘final word’ on reciprocal mentoring – on the contrary, we believe that this particular subset of mentoring activity is still in its infancy. Instead, what we hope we have achieved is the provision of a conceptual framework, inducted from case-study research, which will provide others some scaffolding as they seek to build a more complete picture of contemporary reciprocal mentoring activity. We also hope that it gives mentoring practitioners a different and distinctive lens through which they can think about their own practice at a programme level. References Clutterbuck, D.A. (2007). A longitudinal study of the effectiveness of developmental mentoring (Doctoral dissertation, King’s College London). Clutterbuck, D.A., Kochan, F., Lunsford, L.G., Dominguez, N., & Haddock-Millar, J. (2017). The SAGE handbook of mentoring. London: SAGE. Daloz, L.A. (1999). Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Erikson, E.H. (1978). Adulthood. New York: Norton. Garvey, B. & Stokes, P. (2022). Coaching and Mentoring: Theory and Practice, 4th Edition. London: Sage. Grima, F., Paillé, P., Mejia, J.H., & Prud’homme, L. (2014). Exploring the benefits of mentoring activities for the mentor. Career Development International, 19(4), pp. 469–490.

Introduction  9 Haddock-Millar, J. (2017). The mentoring cycle. In Clutterbuck, D.A., Kochan, F., Lunsford, L.G., Dominguez, N., & Haddock-Millar (eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring. London: SAGE, pp. 156–168. Kram, K.E. (1980). Mentoring processes at work: Developmental relationships in managerial careers. Proquest Dissertations publishing, Yale University. Kram, K.E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), pp. 608–625. Megginson, D., Clutterbuck, D, Garvey, B, Stokes, P & Garrett-Harris, R. (2006) Mentoring in Action: A Practical Guide, 2nd Edition. London: Kogan Page. Round, S. (2021). Can reciprocal mentoring as a progressive tool contribute to creating shared understanding of women’s career equality challenges? International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, S15, pp. 260–269. DOI: 10.24384/ a7fa-5w16.

2 Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector Julie Haddock-Millar and David Clutterbuck

Introduction This chapter focuses upon reciprocal mentoring initiatives in the entrepreneurial sector. The entrepreneurial sector encompasses small- and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs represent about 90% of businesses and more than 50% of employment worldwide and formal SMEs contribute up to 40% of national income (GDP) in emerging economies (World Bank, 2022). Furthermore, it is estimated that seven out of ten formal jobs are generated by SMEs. According to World Bank estimates, 600 million jobs will be needed by 2030 to absorb the growing workforce; therefore, the development of SMEs is a high priority for national governments and regional institutions. We draw on three case studies – BYST, CBFW Mentoring Programme and the Royal Academy of Engineering launched the LIF – to explore the challenges faced by entrepreneurs and understand how reciprocal mentoring initiatives seek to address the challenges. We also explore how mentoring initiatives are designed with immediate and wider stakeholder benefits. The entrepreneurial sector context Numerous studies show that the key constraints to entrepreneurial growth are access to finance, markets, education, technical training and professional networks, acquisition of skills and access to role models (Owen et al., 2019). This is particularly marked in emerging markets and developing countries. In recent years, mentoring as a developmental approach is evident throughout the entrepreneurship ecosystem. Evidence suggests that mentoring as a developmental tool can assist the entrepreneur to overcome significant barriers regardless of the size of business, stage of development, sector or discipline. Some mentees run micro enterprises from their homes, while others might be running international businesses with over 50 staff members. Some mentees might be just getting started, while the others have been in business for anywhere between 1 and 20 years (Clutterbuck & Haddock-Millar, 2016). There is significant added value in mentoring, nurturing skills development and access to networks and financial services which are all of vital importance DOI: 10.4324/9781003302537-2

Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector  11 (Owen et al., 2016). Mentoring also helps to break down barriers that prevent entrepreneurs from growing their businesses. Frequently, mentees become more aware of their potential; gain greater clarity about themselves and their ecosystem; and achieve greater self-belief, self-motivation, confidence and support to achieve their aspirations. Enabling identity transition and transformation through the development of entrepreneurial personality traits are key outcomes of mentoring, including a greater sense of self-efficacy, validation of one’s entrepreneurial self-image and a lowered sense of solitude and increased resilience (St-Jean & Audet, 2012). Typically, mentoring programmes in the entrepreneurial context do adopt a hierarchical model that is typically associated with mentoring (Ragins & Kram, 2007). Frequently, the mentoring is delivered on a one-way basis, where one person takes on the role of mentor and the other takes on the role of mentee and there is no deliberate decision to reverse the roles/divide the time between each participant in terms of their mentoring work. The focus of the mentoring relationship tends to be the mentees learning and development, the mentoring providing a range of support functions. However, there is a clear argument to make here to say that the mentoring process and conversation can impact almost as much on the mentor as the mentee, and that the mentor benefits are a reciprocal outcome from the benefits accrued by the mentee. There is clear evidence to suggest that mentoring is of mutual benefit to mentees and mentors. Frequently, mentors, regardless of background or position, gain awareness of how people from different backgrounds or situations perceive and experience the world around them. This frequently results in mentors recognising how they and others can both negatively and positively impact on individuals; ability to progress and achieve. As mentors gain a better understanding and appreciation of people, who are different from themselves, they develop their knowledge and skills to better support others. They can gain huge satisfaction is supporting others and are often energised by the experience to want to contribute more and become a life-long advocate and supporter within the mentoring community. In this chapter, we share three examples of organisations who have created mentoring programmes to support the development of entrepreneurs, where there are clearly mutual benefits to mentees and mentors; therefore, it can be said that reciprocity learning and development are outcomes of the mentoring programme. The first and second case studies clearly demonstrate reciprocity as intended and demonstrated as an outcome of the mentoring programme. The third case study demonstrates the shift from hierarchical mentoring to peer mentoring, whereby mentees and mentors switch roles fluidly, recognising the benefits of a shifting mentoring model. The first case study organisation, BYST, a non-profit organisation, was set up in 1992, inspired by HRH, The Prince of Wales to replicate the Prince’s Trust youth entrepreneurship support model to help disadvantaged young people in India to develop business ideas into viable enterprises with the

12  Julie Haddock-Millar and David Clutterbuck guidance and support of a mentor. BYST is an established locally led member of Youth Business International (YBI) which is as a global network made up of over 50 member organisations in 46 countries around the world providing mentoring programmes for young entrepreneurs. The network aims to support young, underserved young people to develop, start, grow and sustain their businesses to contribute to the entrepreneurial ecosystem through job creation, community interaction and people development. BYST, as a founding member of YBI, has developed a mandatory mentoring programme for disadvantaged entrepreneurs which commences from the time the entrepreneur makes a loan application with support from BYST and continues for next 2 years of business development. The recruitment, selection and matching of both mentors and mentees are clearly defined. The programme has also developed a robust tracking system for recording, maintaining and reporting the personal and project profile of an entrepreneur. The key focus is on skills development, typically in relation to sales and marketing, building confidence, developing business networks, fiscal management and technical trading issues and regulations. The mentors, in turn, widen their business expertise and a keen sense of contribution to the disadvantaged community. The second case study organisation, the CBFW, is a not-for-profit organisation that supports aims women entrepreneurs in low- and middleincome countries to release their potential and close the global gender gap in entrepreneurship. Since the Foundation’s inception in 2008, it has directly supported over 175,000 women across more than 100 countries. The Cherie Blair for Women Mentoring Programme launched in 2010 with the aim of matching experienced business mentors in any country with woman entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries for a cross-border. The programme supports women entrepreneurs to develop their business, goals, financial independence and security, professional skills, confidence and self-esteem. The programme helps to level the playing field for women entrepreneurs, who are at a disadvantage in business, creating major impact for communities and economies and driving towards positive, sustainable global development. Since the programme’s launch in 2010, almost 5,000 women entrepreneurs from more than 100 countries have participated as mentees, with over 4,000 business professionals donating their time and sharing their experience as mentors. The CBFW concept of mentoring is a two-way process where learning is a key outcome for both mentors and mentees. The approach empowers the mentee to define the parameters of the mentoring relationship while encouraging mentors to exercise selfawareness and humility. The third case study organisation, the Royal Academy of Engineering launched the LIF in 2015. The LIF programme brings together emerging leaders who have an engineering-based innovation that could contribute to the social and economic development of their country through commercialisation. Since 2015, LIF has worked alongside agencies in 17 official development assistance (ODA) eligible countries to produce a global network of over 1,100 innovators, each building their own businesses within a strong support

Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector  13 structure, nationally, regionally and globally. LIF participants have become influencers and decision-makers and developed a huge range of solutions to tackle various Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which have gone on to be produced, trialled and created more than 2,500 jobs. The LIF concept of mentoring is a two-way process where learning is a key outcome for both mentors and mentees. Launched in 2022, the LIF programme team have also created a Peer Mentoring Alumni Programme which aims to build capacity amongst LIF alumni to support each other in their innovation commercialisation journey and further develop their capabilities as entrepreneurial leaders. Case Study: Bharatiya Yuva Shakti Trust (BYST), India Authors: Chandana Sanyal, Julie Haddock-Millar and Lakshmi Venkataraman Venkatesan Entrepreneurship as a career choice has continued to strengthen globally and has been adopted as a strategy for tackling unemployment and poverty in many countries (Falco & Haywood, 2016; Gindling & Newhouse, 2014). However, the concept of entrepreneurship itself ‘remains nebulous, broadly conceived and open to a range of definitions and differently employed’ (Andersson et al., 2009: 127). In the recent decades, research has specifically focused on entrepreneurial intentions and behaviour (Kautonen et al., 2015; Van Gelderen et al., 2015). Several studies have identified personality traits, educational background, past work experience and family environment as factors on decisions of nascent entrepreneurs (Bowen & Hisrich, 1986; Laferrere, 2001; Raijman, 2001). Overall, scholars have situated the influences and intentions of the novice entrepreneur in different personal, social and situational factors (Baum & Locke, 2004; Cohen & Musson, 2000). Literature also highlights that micro-socially situated work-based interactions influence the entrepreneurial person and entrepreneurial identities (Down & Reveley, 2004) which are modified and developed during the business creation process (Morris et al., 2012; Sarasvathy, 2009). Here, from a socialisation perspective, entrepreneurship mentoring can provide important resources including information, knowledge and skills that are useful in adopting the entrepreneurial role (Krueger, 2007; Starr & Fondas, 1992). There is evidence that mentoring contributes to novice entrepreneurs’ personal development and self-efficacy (St-Jean & Audet, 2012, St-Jean et al., 2018) and business success in terms of start-up ­ edien-Collot, launch, funding and business growth (Radu Lefebvre & R 2013; Sullivan, 2000). Over the last 30 years, BYST India has helped young entrepreneurs across Indian cities, such as Delhi, Pune, Hyderabad and Chennai, as well as rural areas of Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Jharkhand and

14  Julie Haddock-Millar and David Clutterbuck Maharashtra. Unemployed or underemployed youths in the age group 18–35 years, with viable business ideas, along with the will and determination to succeed are encouraged to engage with BYST. Business proposals from potential entrepreneurs are welcome directly or through vocational schools, entrepreneurial training institutions and well-­established grass root and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). BYST assists to formulate these proposals which are screened by an Entrepreneur Selection Panel comprised of experts from the industry in marketing, finance and management. On approval of the proposal by the panel, BYST provides a wide range of business development services such as training, business plan development, networking and mandatory mentorship for 2 years to support personal and business development of the entrepreneur, enabling the young person to successfully transition into the role of a successful entrepreneur. By consistently bringing on board the Indian corporate sector in all aspects of its operations – financing, project evaluation and review, training and mentoring, BYST has created a model for corporate executives to accept their social responsibility and participate voluntarily in the process of nation building through volunteer mentoring. BYST’s Board of Trustees comprises leaders from the top business houses in India, and the corporate partners include national and multi-national organisations like Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), HDFC Bank, Bajaj Auto, J P Morgan India, J K Paper, Info Edge, IKEA Foundation, FCDO UK and YBI (Youth Business International). These partnerships contribute significantly to supporting, nurturing and empowering young dynamic, disadvantaged entrepreneurs, and integrate them to economic mainstream in eastern and southern regions in India. Mentoring programme purpose In the context of small businesses, involving an experienced entrepreneur (mentor) to support a nascent or novice entrepreneur (mentee) in their personal and professional development is considered good practice (StJean & Audet, 2012). The BYST Mentoring Programme is an integral part of the organisation’s Entrepreneurship Development Programme (EDP) aimed at supporting disadvantaged entrepreneurs to start, grow and stabilise their business. Mentoring is a pre-requisite; it starts during the loan application and is mandatory after loan disbursement followed by a 2-year ‘handholding’ period. An entrepreneur may have more than one mentor during this period. The traditional Indian ‘Guru-Shishya’ relationship is encouraged where the teacher or the ‘mentor’ not only teaches, but also guides and helps the mentee, in this case to develop the business discipline. Mentoring is seen as an essential and specialist support, requiring personalised guidance through regular contact, problem

Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector  15 solving, monitoring progress and helping to build and grow the business. The key focus is on skills development, typically in relation to sales and marketing, building confidence, developing business networks, fiscal management and technical trading issues and regulations. The mentoring programme is centrally managed and aims to be consistent in approach across all operational regions in India. Mentoring is clearly differentiated from other BYST business development services offered to the entrepreneur such as financial and professional advice, training and education. The mentor–mentee contacts are face-to-face, over the telephone and more recently online once a month or sometimes more frequent when required. Mentor–mentee contact in-between the monthly meeting can vary and is mainly driven by the entrepreneur’s business issues. Where mentees have limited education and exposure to the world of business and therefore lacking in confidence, the mentor takes the driving seat in the mentoring relationship, to give structure to the process and guide the entrepreneur to set up the business, at least in the initial stages. Thereafter, as the mentees begin to settle in their role as entrepreneurs, the relationship evolves into a two-way engagement, often dealing to the mentoring relationship continuing over several years, beyond the mandatory two-year requirement. Therefore, the active role of the mentors in these relationships, their commitment and dedication to their mentees and the passion to see their mentees succeed are key drivers of the relationships. The mentees also develop deep regard and respect for their mentors as their ‘gurus,’ and the successful mentees openly share the credit of their business success with their mentors. Recruitment, selection and matching of participants Through continuous outreach and counselling initiatives as well as engagement with vocational schools, entrepreneurial training institutions and well-established grass root and NGOs, BYST actively recruits and selects mentees on the programme. The process of selection is rigorous involving an Entrepreneur Selection Panel representing industry and financial institutes as well as successful entrepreneurs. Mentors are business volunteers and are recruited through social organisations, existing mentors’ references, business exhibitions, conferences, associations and professional networking sites. BYST has a structured committee, the ‘Mentor Advisory Panel,’ which is involved in the mentor screening process. The committee looks for basic requirements like time availability and the willingness to attend online and practical training and regular meetings; participate in chapter activities (at least 50%), serve on committees of responsibility, comply with the basic code of Conduct and Ethics, have business acumen and at least 5 years of entrepreneurial/ managerial experience. Alongside business expertise, attributes such as a

16  Julie Haddock-Millar and David Clutterbuck warm and caring demeanour, a good listener and an effective communicator are also essential criteria for selection. The approach to mentor–mentee matching is broadly similar across all regions. Mentors are matched with mentees considering geographical area, expertise, gender and occasionally religious beliefs. The role of the local mentoring manager/officer is vital in ensuring that the mentor– mentee matches are nurtured and supported in the beginning with early interventions if there are any signs that the matching may not work. Here, BYST has a clear process to support the local mentoring officers through the Mentor Advisory Panel who offer guidance and advice on managing and monitoring the mentor–mentee matches. More recently, an online Learning Management System has systemised the matching process and tracking of the ‘learner’s’ progress. Training and educational opportunities All BYST entrepreneurs selected to submit a loan proposal are offered the support of a volunteer mentor from this early stage. They receive a three-day training session, ‘Smart Training for Enterprise Promotion (STEP),’ that gives participants complete insight into entrepreneurship and strengthen their confidence level to set up and run a business unit. Another training offered at this stage in the Post Loan Training covering topics such as banking relationships, personal empowerment, entrepreneurial skills and business management. They also receive specific guidance on mentoring and their role and responsibility of being a mentee. Other than one-to-one mentoring, entrepreneurs have the advantage of taking advice from different mentors during the monthly chapter (mentors forum) meetings. BYST has an innovative ‘Mentor Online Learning’ (MOL) programme for mentors, comprising of key concepts, knowledge, behaviours and skills required as volunteer business mentors. The mentors are accredited with the internationally recognised ‘City & Guilds’ certificate after the completion of the MOL course and 10 hours of mentoring practice. Programme evaluation BYST has developed a robust tracking system for recording, maintaining and reporting the personal and project profile of an entrepreneur. The Business Performance Tracking System (BPTS) monitors the loan instalment structure and repayment entries, mentoring details and business performance of an entrepreneur on a regular basis. The application also generates various graphs and reports based on the data entered in the system, which helps in analysing the performance of the entrepreneurs

Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector  17 and the organisation over a period of time. These forms are completed and signed by the mentee, mentor and local programme manager/ co-ordinator. BYST participated in an impact evaluation research study between 2016 and 2019, commissioned by YBI for their global networks which highlighted the effectiveness of the programme and facilitated ongoing review and evaluation across the regions. Reciprocal mentoring outcomes The BYST mentoring programme benefits both the mentor and the mentee. The entrepreneurship mentoring is perceived to have enormous added value for the disadvantaged young entrepreneurs; at the same time, the mentors get a wide range of first-hand business experience and the satisfaction of helping a disadvantaged young person. From the mentees’ business perspective, the mentoring supports their understanding of the financial aspect of a business such as loan application/repayment, accounting and book keeping; business and product development; marketing and promotion, diversification, dealing with customers; contracts and licencing; competition and business processes. Personal benefits from the mentoring for mentees include enhanced commination skills, improved self-confidence and opportunity for networking. Overall, entrepreneurs attribute the growth and success of their business to the support and guidance of their mentors. The impact of the programme on the mentors is mainly qualitative. Mentors have stated that they had developed and grown as individuals and continue to learn from the process, building on their business expertise, including a better understanding of the challenges faced by entrepreneurs. Another personal gain several mentors referred to is a profound sense of achievement to be a part of the success of the entrepreneur. Summary The BYST mentoring programme in India clearly demonstrates the power of voluntary business mentoring in addressing the barriers experienced by young entrepreneurs, including access to institutional networks and alliances, acquisition of skills, information and professional advice to develop and grow their businesses. The mentors, on the other hand, widen their business expertise and experience sense of achievement and contribution through the entrepreneur’s success. BYST continues to build a mentoring programme that harnesses the ability and commitments of volunteer business mentors to benefit thousands of underserved young entrepreneurs.

18  Julie Haddock-Millar and David Clutterbuck Case Study: Cherie Blair Foundation for Women Mentoring Programme Authors: Angela da Silva, Efe Olokpa, Julie Haddock-Millar and David A. Clutterbuck The CBFW is a not-for-profit organisation that works with women entrepreneurs worldwide, so they can reach their full potential and eliminate the global gender gap in entrepreneurship. Since the Foundation’s inception in 2008, it has directly supported over 200,000 women across more than 100 countries. Mentoring programme purpose The Mentoring Women in Business programme matches experienced business people in any country with woman entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries for a cross-border, entirely online mentoring journey. The women entrepreneurs work one-on-one with a dedicated business mentor for one year, meeting online for 2 hours a month to work on personal and business goals. Mentees go on to achieve outstanding results, from revising business plans and strategies to launching products, gaining confidence, building skills, improving financial systems, growing networks and more. The pairs become invested in each other’s successes and combine their talents to make inimitable strides together. The mentoring programme also provides tremendous personal and professional growth opportunities for mentors, who bring to the programme a wealth of expertise in multiple business fields. Mentors have at least 7 years’ entrepreneurial experience and come from diverse sectors. Mentors and mentees work on an action plan that revolves around the mentee’s business and professional development needs, as well as the mentor’s own expertise and learning objectives. Recruitment, selection and matching of participants The one-on-one mentoring relationship is at the heart of this programme, and these relationships are carried out entirely through the bespoke online mentoring platform. The programme has a number of intakes per year. Applications usually open a couple of months before an intake kicks off. The mentoring team review each application to make sure it fulfils the application criteria. Once approved, applicants will receive a welcome message with information on how to access the online training. This training is mandatory for each new participant. Mentees may receive a phone call welcoming them onto the programme and making sure they understand their role and responsibilities. Mentors and mentees are

Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector  19 carefully matched to ensure the strongest, most mutually beneficial and impactful relationship. In some cases, the team may not be able to find a suitable match, as they match based on a number of criteria, such as time zone, mentee needs/mentor expertise, business stage and age. Training and educational opportunities Upon joining the programme and completing the mandatory training, the participants have access to the online platform. The platform enables participants to forge bonds across borders, collaborating on projects, brainstorming solutions to challenges and celebrating achievements. Recently redeveloped in order to harness the role technology can play in building connections, the platform centres bespoke experiences for participants, ease of use and strong integration with busy professional lives. Through the platform, participating pairs can set and track goals and tasks easily, schedule and hold Zoom meetings, communicate through instant messaging, upload files, create events, monitor progress and stay in touch with the Foundation. The platform syncs with individual’s calendars, and participants can also communicate as part of groups, meaning their experience really integrates with busy personal and professional lives. Every month, the Mentoring Programme team host valuable webinars that offer business advice on a range of topics, led by experts from within our network. Past topics have included protecting your business against cybercrime, communicating with confidence, balancing life and work responsibilities, and business to business selling. Typically, the mentoring pairs follow a mentoring cycle consists of four phases, each with distinct areas of focus: • Phase 1: Getting to know each other. Pairs use this time to build a trusting and efficient relationship by telling each other about themselves, their business and their experience. • Phase 2: Setting goals. The pair will focus on what the mentee wants to achieve over the course of the mentoring year and develop goals that they will work on together. • Phase 3: Progression. During these months, the mentee will work on the set goals, working closely together with their mentor to make sure that they stay on track and amend goals if necessary. • Phase 4: Wrapping up. During the final month together, pairs look back on what they have achieved and make plans for how the mentee will continue working on their business after the relationship ends. Because everyone works differently, mentors and mentees decide together exactly when to meet and for how long, though it does need to be for at least 2 hours a month, through the platform.

20  Julie Haddock-Millar and David Clutterbuck The programme’s ‘relationship support’ team provides dedicated support to each mentee and mentor, and closely tracks their progress during their year in the programme. The degree to which programmes use technology to support both programme teams and participants varies enormously. This includes the extent to which programmes use technology to support matching participants and undertake ongoing evaluation of their relationships. Matching individuals electronically, when they have never met, is one of the biggest challenges of online mentoring. The Mentoring Programme team uses a unique matching algorithm, supported with team insights, which helps improve the chances of a ‘relationship fit.’ The programme has also built its own user management system, which enables the team to closely track the progress of mentee–­ mentor pairs both during and after their time in the programme. The programme has a software developer on its team and refines the web applications it uses on an ongoing basis to optimise performance and expand functionality. The number of times programme teams check in with mentees and mentors varies. Many relationships last 12 months and most evaluation is monthly. This can prompt mentors and mentees to review their relationships and improve how they work together. In addition to the core one-to-one mentoring relationship, the programme offers mentees and mentors additional support through our wider network of current participants and alumni, and a range of online resources. Through the closed LinkedIn group, participants have the opportunity to network and connect with our vibrant online community of thousands of pioneering, ambitious entrepreneurs and professionals. Together, participants can collaborate, share ideas, build networks and support one another. Programme evaluation Few programme teams evaluate their mentoring programme as frequently and for as long as the CBFW Mentoring Programme, which requires mentees to complete tracking forms one, four and a half, and eight months into their mentoring relationships. These forms tell the team whether the pairs are meeting, how they are making progress on their action plan and if they need any additional resources. The team reads each response and follows up by email, Skype or phone, as needed. If mentees don’t fill in their forms, the team follows up to ensure that the mentoring process is on track and offer extra support. In addition, they check in with mentors by email three times during their mentoring relationships. They also have a ‘help desk’ staffed by relationship support officers who respond to queries from mentees and mentors on an ongoing basis. At the end of the 12-month relationships, the team asks

Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector  21 mentees and mentors to complete a final feedback form, which links back to baseline data taken at the application stage. Reciprocal mentoring outcomes Following a two phased evaluation of the programme, it was found that it yielded positive benefits and outcomes for both mentors and mentees. The programme has a significant impact on mentees, who: • • • • • • •

Increase their business profits or improved their communication skills Determine their own goals and work towards these with support Improve their self-confidence Gain marketing and communication skills Gain skills in business planning and strategy experience Increase their personal networks Enhance their businesses, going on to be better placed to provide for their families

The programme also provides a great learning and growth opportunity for mentors, which feeds back into and inspires their work at their own companies. Mentors: • Develop and deepen your leadership, active listening and communication skills • Grow professionally during these difficult times and while working remotely • Learn about different cultures, professional backgrounds, sectors or industries • Help level the playing field for women in business cultures and perspectives • Create impact by empowering and releasing the potential of women entrepreneurs at a time when they need it more than ever • Contribute to rebuilding economies post-COVID-19 • Understand the challenges that women entrepreneurs in low- and middle-income countries face In 2021, the programme evaluation data showed that 90% of mentors gained new skills which fed back into and enhanced their own work and 98% of mentors gained benefits to their personal and professional development. Mentoring is a supportive and inspirational relationship based on trust and mutual respect, and benefits accrue to both participants. Both mentees and mentors benefit from the mentoring relationship, as they build new skills, make new contacts and forge a bond with

22  Julie Haddock-Millar and David Clutterbuck someone in another part of the world. The benefits also extend beyond individuals. Women who are financially independent have greater control over their own lives and often a more influential voice in tackling injustice and discrimination. As stated at the beginning, this mentoring programme was not originally designed as a reciprocal mentoring programme. Rather, it was expected that the help and support would be predominantly uni-directional in nature and along traditional mentoring lines where the benefits of the process are principally accrued by the mentee. However, the evaluation of the programme suggested that there was a ripple effect emanating from it in terms of its impact on mentor behaviour, skills and competences as well on the mentees. Like many mentoring programmes, mentors reported on the challenge to their own thinking. Summary The mentoring programme clearly demonstrates the power of voluntary business mentoring in addressing the barriers experienced by women entrepreneurs, including access to financial capital, access to education and technical training, acquisition of skills, self-management including exploratory and exploitative learning, access to markets, networks and alliances and access to role models. The mentoring programme also provides tremendous personal and professional growth opportunities for mentors; the mentoring pairs become invested in each other’s successes and combine their talents to make significant strides together.

Case Study: Royal Academy of Engineering Africa Prize and Leaders in Innovation Fellowships Mentoring Programme Authors: Julie Haddock-Millar and David A. Clutterbuck The Royal Academy of Engineering is a not-for-profit organisation that champions excellence in all fields of engineering and honours the UK’s most distinguished engineers. Initially called the Fellowship of Engineering, it had the backing of HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who became its Senior Fellow. The new Fellowship met for the first time on 11 June 1976 at Buckingham Palace, where 130 of the UK’s finest engineers were enrolled – people who over the course of their careers had literally changed the world. The Academy’s goal is to harness the power of engineering to build a sustainable society and an inclusive economy that

Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector  23 works for everyone. The Academy believe that engineers can be influential agents of change in the drive for a more sustainable society, providing leadership both within and beyond the UK. They are also drivers of innovation and economic opportunity, leveraging advances in research to develop and deliver new products, services and enterprises that generate jobs and value to society. The LIF programme builds on the success of the Academy’s Enterprise Hub to expand this entrepreneurial ambition to a global scale, working with partners in the UK and in Africa, Asia and Latin America, to create a thriving global community of engineering innovators, each building successful businesses, while tackling the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals and supporting the economies of the UK and the partner countries. For the past five years, the LIF programme has been funded by the Newton Fund, managed by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). All activities are developed in collaboration with local governments and funders, which ensures that they meet local development priorities as part of the ODA eligibility. The Royal Academy of Engineering launched the LIF in 2015. The LIF programme brings together emerging leaders who have an engineering-based innovation that could contribute to the social and economic development of their country through commercialisation. Since 2015, LIF has been instrumental in developing a global network of over 1,100 innovators, each building their own businesses within a strong support structure, nationally, regionally and globally. Mentoring programme purpose The LIF programme is a year-long programme of bespoke support including: • • • •

expert mentoring ongoing support at the home institution access to an international network of peer innovators and mentors access to resources, webinars and opportunities on the LIF online community, in-country and regional events.

The training is highly tailored to each participant’s own goals and challenges. It lays the foundations for launching a product and emphasises skills such as negotiation, teambuilding, resilience and effective communication. Through training, mentoring and networking activities, the LIF programme helps researchers to adopt an entrepreneurial mindset, acquire new knowledge and skills, and grow their networks. The LIF Mentoring Programme aims to build capacity amongst LIF alumni to support each other in their innovation commercialisation journey and

24  Julie Haddock-Millar and David Clutterbuck further develop their capabilities as entrepreneurial leaders. The key objectives of the mentoring programme include: 1 Peer support community: To enable shared learnings and collaboration between LIF alumni, fostering an active community which supports (and increases) alumni to alumni engagement. 2 Entrepreneurial mindset: Help alumni further develop their entrepreneurial mindset and business practices for commercialising their innovations. 3 Expanded and diverse networks: Contribute to the development of LIF alumni’s innovations through facilitating new business connections and expanding networks. 4 Leadership capabilities: Enable and upskill LIF alumni to build their leadership capabilities and become a role model in their innovation ecosystem. The LIF concept of mentoring is a two-way process where learning is a key outcome for both mentors and mentees. Over the last 2 years, the approach has developed further to become a purposeful peer mentoring programme, whereby entrepreneurs meet and interact with like-minded individuals to feel empowered to make a sustainable positive impact on pressing global challenges. The more recent mentoring model encourages mentors and mentees to adopt a collaborative approach, sharing the roles as and when appropriate. Recruitment, selection and matching of participants The one-on-one mentoring relationship is at the heart of this programme, and these relationships are carried out entirely online. The programme team accommodated those participants who wished to have a dual role, five participants were both mentee and mentor. Matches were made by the preferences criteria selected by mentor/mentee on their application form, if a mentor/mentee had a strong preference for the same country or sector this was taken into account. If there was a specific preference to be matched with someone from a different country for the purposes of learning from a new culture or entering international markets, this was accommodated. Preferences such as age and gender, as well as same/different sector, were also taken into account. There were 28 matched pairs at the beginning of the programme. Training and educational opportunities The LIF programme provides access to high-quality skills training focused on commercialisation, a network of peers in their own country,

Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector  25 the UK and around the world, and a rich and varied experience with immediate and long-term benefits for their innovations. In relation to the mentoring, mentors and mentees are provided with a range of mentoring training offers. In 2021, the training providers designed and delivered online mentor and mentee training induction webinars and additional training 3 months and 5 months post commencement of the mentoring relationships. The training addressed the origins and concept of mentoring and how this differs to coaching; the roles of the mentor in the context of entrepreneurship; characteristics of effective mentoring relationships; the phases of the mentoring relationship, the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) core competences of mentoring, including building rapport and developing the mentoring agreement; developing insight and learning; supporting innovation, transition and change; and reviewing the mentoring relationship and celebrating success. In 2022, the LIF programme team launched a new mentoring programme for LIF alumni, referred to as a Peer Mentoring Alumni Programme. This programme differed from the previous programme as it enabled LIF alumni to come together in a mentoring relationship as equals, rather than the previous hierarchical approach. The programme aims to build capacity amongst LIF alumni to support each other in their innovation commercialisation journey and further develop their capabilities as entrepreneurial leaders. Typically, the formal mentoring relationship lasts 6 months; however, the majority of peer mentors continue to say in contact and retain an informal mentoring relationship. The purpose of the Peer Mentoring Alumni Programme and training is as follows: • Shared experiences and mutual learning of a mentoring relationship can broaden perspectives to not only boost creativity and discover more innovative solutions, nurture personal growth and professional development. • Provide the fundamental knowledge and skills to support peer mentors to develop effective mentoring relationships. • Aligning mentoring practice to the EMCC Global Mentor/Coach framework and core competencies. • Emphasise a reciprocal mentoring approach, focusing on co-learning and the co-development of the mentoring relationship. Programme evaluation The mentoring programme is evaluated through online surveys as the midway point of the training and at the end of the training programme. The online surveys enable the programme team to understand the participants’

26  Julie Haddock-Millar and David Clutterbuck experience of the training, the mentoring programme and the impact of their relationships. The mentee feedback was extremely positive: • 100% of participants were satisfied with the training • 88% of participants are aware of the key influences of a successful mentoring relationship • 90% of participants are aware of the need to build a solid foundation early on in the mentoring relationship The mentor feedback was equally positive: 94% of participants were satisfied with the training 100% of participants are aware of the different roles of the mentor 100% of participants are aware of the core competencies of the mentor 94% of participants are aware of the factors that influence successful relationships • 94% of participants are aware of the phases and transitions of the relationship • • • •

Reciprocal mentoring outcomes In 2022, following an in-depth evaluation of the Peer Mentoring Programme, it was found that it yielded positive benefits and outcomes for all participants. The overall impact included: Developing entrepreneurial leadership identity Developing an entrepreneurial mindset Establishing realistic goals Improving self-confidence Expanding professional networks and made new business connections Understanding the realities of creating innovations in a new country and context • Experiencing mutual learning and shared experiences

• • • • • •

Summary The LIF Peer Mentoring Programme and Peer Mentoring Alumni Programme both clearly demonstrate the power of entrepreneurial mentoring in fostering shared experiences and mutual learning of a mentoring relationship, broadening perspectives boost creativity and discover more innovative solutions, nurture personal growth and professional development. In the final evaluation survey, there was clearly evidence of colearning and co-development within the mentoring relationships.

Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector  27 Chapter conclusions and summary In terms of a reciprocal mentoring process, it is important to consider the extent to which the mentoring in all three case studies can be said to be reciprocal in nature. What the cases illustrate is the distinction between reciprocity in terms of intention and benefits of mentoring, and reciprocal mentoring as a process. In the examples of the BYST Mentoring Programme and the CBFW Mentoring Programme, reciprocity was not explicitly designed or executed using a reciprocal mentoring process. The mentoring on both programmes was delivered primarily on a one-way basis, where one person took on the role of mentor and the other took on the role of mentee and there was no deliberate decision to reverse the roles/divide the time between each participant in terms of their mentoring work. However, there were clear intended and actual benefits that both mentees and mentors experienced as a result of the mentoring process. Hence, there is an argument to make here to say that the mentoring process and conversation impacted almost as much on the mentor as the mentee and that the mentor benefits seemed to be a reciprocal outcome from the benefits accrued by the mentee. Furthermore, it is possible to argue that the programme has the potential to be re-designed with a reciprocal mentoring process at its core. However, in this scenario, it would be important to explore what the potential impact of such a re-design would be. Evidence from the evaluations suggests that the mentoring pairs engaged in considerable amounts of collaborative activity, e.g., designing business plans, developing branding and marketing strategies which transcend the mentee using the mentor as a sounding board for their own thinking. There is evidence of a working, reciprocal and equal partnership between the pairs. However, this is not the same thing as conceiving of the mentoring process itself as being reciprocal, as the pair typically actively worked on the mentee’s business rather than the mentors. In summary, consideration of this, the first two cases provide some useful analytical tools with which to examine reciprocal mentoring in entrepreneurship, i.e., reciprocal benefits vs reciprocal mentoring process and collaborative uni-directional working vs two-way collaborative working. In final example, the Royal Academy of Engineering Leaders in Innovation Fellowships Mentoring Programme illustrates how a mentoring programme can transform from uni-directional to reciprocal as a process, shifting from a mentee–mentor relationship to a peer mentoring relationship which attempts to minimise the hierarchical and power dynamic in the relationship. Still in its infancy, time will show is the participants fully experience the benefits from the peer mentoring process. A common theme amongst all the case studies is the fact that while both mentees and mentors benefit from the mentoring relationship, at the heart of the mentoring is personal, professional and business growth and transformation. The contribution the individuals and organisations make to the entrepreneurial ecosystem drives sustainable economic development around the world,

28  Julie Haddock-Millar and David Clutterbuck creating jobs and strengthening communities. Working together as a network, individuals and organisations are able to maximise their collective impact, enabling members to scale their operations to deliver effective support to more entrepreneurs every year. In relation to the wider stakeholder impact, all cases demonstrate that reciprocity has the potential to extend beyond the mentee and mentor, which might be referred to as the ripple effect. References Andersson, T., Formica, P. & Curley, M.G. (2009). Knowledge-driven entrepreneurship: the key to social and economic transformation. Springer Science & Business Media. Baum, J.R. & Locke, E.A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), pp. 587–598. Bowen, D.D. & Hisrich, R.D. (1986). The female entrepreneur: a career development perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), pp. 393–407. Clutterbuck, D. & Haddock-Millar, J. (2016). Empowering women, broadening horizons: an independent evaluation of the mentoring women in business programme. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304658914_EMPOWERING_WOMEN_BROADENING_HORIZONS_An_Independent_Evaluation_of_ the_Mentoring_Women_in_Business_Programme/citation/download10.13140/ RG.2.1.1922.7123 Cohen, L. & Musson, G. (2000). Entrepreneurial identities: reflections from two case studies. Organization, 7(1), pp. 31–48. Down, S. & Reveley, J. (2004). Generational encounters and the social formation of entrepreneurial identity: ‘young guns’ and ‘old farts’. Organization, 11(2), pp. 233–250. Falco, P. & Haywood, L. (2016). Entrepreneurship versus joblessness: explaining the rise in self-employment. Journal of Development Economics, 118, pp. 245–265. Gindling, T.H. & Newhouse, D.L. (2014). Self-employment in the developing world. World Development, 56, pp. 313–331. Kautonen, T., Van Gelderen, M. & Fink, M. (2015). Robustness of the theory of planned behaviour in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), pp. 655–674. Krueger, N.F. (2007). What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), pp. 123–138. Laferrere, A. (2001). Self-employment and intergenerational transfers: liquidity constraints and family environment. International Journal of Sociology, 31(1), pp. 3–26. Morris, M.H., Pryor, C.G. & Schindehutte, M. (2012). Entrepreneurship as experience: how events create ventures and ventures create entrepreneurs. Edward Elgar Publishing. Owen, R., Botelho, T. & Anwar, O. (2016). Exploring the success and barriers to SME access to finance and its potential role in achieving growth. Research Paper, (53). Owen, R., Haddock-Millar, J., Sepulveda, L., Sanyal, C., Syrett, S., Kaye, N. & Deakins, D. (2019). The role of mentoring in youth entrepreneurship finance: a global perspective 1. In Higgins, David, Paul Jones, and Pauric McGowan (eds), Creating entrepreneurial space: talking through multi-voices, reflections on emerging debates (Vol. 9, pp. 115–135). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Reciprocal mentoring in the entrepreneurial sector  29 Radu Lefebvre, M. & Redien-Collot, R. (2013). “How to do things with words”: the discursive dimension of experiential learning in VEM dyads. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), pp. 370–393. Ragins, B.R. & Kram, K.E. (2007). The handbook of mentoring at work: theory, research, and practice. Sage Publications. Raijman, R. (2001). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: Mexican immigrants in Chicago. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(5), pp. 393–411. Sarasvathy, S.D. (2009). Effectuation: elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Edward Elgar Publishing. Starr, J.A. & Fondas, N. (1992). A model of entrepreneurial socialization and organization formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1), pp. 67–76. St-Jean, E. & Audet, J. (2012). The role of mentoring in the learning development of the novice entrepreneur. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(1), pp. 119–140. St-Jean, E., Radu-Lefebvre, M. & Mathieu, C. (2018). Can less be more? Mentoring functions, learning goal orientation, and novice entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 24(1), pp. 2–21. Sullivan, R. (2000). Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6(3), pp. 160–175. Van Gelderen, M., Kautonen, T. & Fink, M. (2015). From entrepreneurial intentions to actions: self- control and action-related doubt, fear, and aversion. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), pp. 655–673. World Bank (2022). Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/smefinance.

3 Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector Rita Symons

Introduction Mentoring is commonly used in healthcare although it still predominantly works on a traditional model of mentoring which reinforces hierarchical power and assumes more experienced staff have increased knowledge. This mentoring, therefore, tends to be primarily about knowledge exchange, rather than a truly generative partnership. Woolnough and Fielden (2017) explore the use of mentoring in healthcare, arguing it has many long-term career benefits such as securing changes in practice, enabling the pursuit of additional learning and development opportunities, enhancing self-confidence and achieving career goals. The use of reciprocal mentoring as a tool to enable systemic change is, however, increasing with attempts across the globe to reflect the mutuality of the mentoring relationship. An early example of evidence was offered by Stephenson (2014) who shared experience of using reciprocal mentoring in nursing to facilitate intergenerational dialogue, across four distinct age groups. We know that inequality is systemic and embedded in many healthcare systems, with racial inequity a common occurrence. This has been highlighted sharply by the COVID-19 pandemic, as Otu et al. (2020) remind us that 63% of healthcare staff who died in the United Kingdom (UK) pandemic were from Black and ethnic minority communities, while the approximate percentage of minority staff in the UK is 20%. In this chapter, we showcase four examples of organisations which have embraced reciprocal mentoring as a tool to specifically address the issue of inclusion in the healthcare workforce. Reciprocal mentoring focused on inclusion is increasing in prevalence, as it is arguably a suitable vehicle for facilitating conversations about difference. Clutterbuck (2012) has argued that mentoring has the capacity to break down the barriers that difference creates, enabling people to communicate more effectively and that reciprocity in mentoring, in particular, has the potential to provide a vehicle for challenging the prevailing culture and the systems that underpin it. Early programmes of mentoring for inclusion were generally titled reverse mentoring (Raza & Onyesoh, 2020). The concept of reverse mentoring for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) staff is rooted in the idea that sharing lived experiences enhances DOI: 10.4324/9781003302537-3

Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector  31 understanding and creates change. Traditionally, a mentor is expected to be more senior and more experienced than his or her mentee (Garvey & Stokes, 2022). Reverse mentoring recognises that there are skills gaps on both sides, and that each person can address their development areas with the help of the other’s strengths; however, it does not necessarily explicitly aim to redress the power differential. We know that diverse workforces are more compassionate, and this in turn leads to better quality care. Reciprocal or truly mutual mentoring is still an evolving concept in healthcare. Case studies two and four are reciprocal mentoring schemes by design while in the case of case study three in the UK National Health Service, the programme was initially reverse mentoring; however, there was an emergent realisation that reciprocal was a more appropriate paradigm. The first case study is a mixed model, with the mentoring for students being more one way in nature. The case studies demonstrate the variety of approaches to the use of evidence and research in the implementation of mentoring programmes. All have considered relevant literature; however, the paucity of research in terms of the use of mentoring in healthcare has led to a high level of experimentation, which makes the need for good formative evaluation all the more important. A common theme among all the case studies is the fact that while individuals will undoubtedly benefit, the ultimate aim is transformation, not only of individuals but also of the systems or environments in which they are operating. As such, the focus of the case studies is on achieving transformative change in healthcare systems. In case study four in particular, there is a deep underpinning exploration of what transformative mentoring in this context means. While the cases vary enormously in scale from global, to district to individual organisation, they all share a common desire to affect change, through the creation of new insights and knowledge. Case Study: The power of reciprocal mentoring to empower the global health workforce: The Nursing Now Challenge Author: Lisa Bayliss-Pratt Reciprocal mentoring is at the heart of the Nursing Now Challenge (NNC) approach to empower, support and strengthen its global network of 54,000+ student and early-career nurses and midwives. The NNC offers its members free access to the Vygo mentoring platform. This platform hosts support programmes for nurses and midwives at every stage of their career, ensuring a holistic and inclusive mentoring experience. There are currently three mentoring programmes available: • Early-Career to Student Mentoring • NNC Alumni to Current Participants Mentoring • Middle-Career/Senior to Early-Career Mentoring

32  Rita Symons These programmes enable nurses and midwives to engage in meaningful discussions around global health and leadership. Participants benefit from reciprocal learning and improved self-awareness. They are able to support one another in their leadership development journey, enhancing their skills as advocates, practitioners and leaders in health. This case study will explore the power of reciprocal mentoring to support and empower the global nursing and midwifery workforce. It will demonstrate the role of this reciprocal mentoring platform in driving the nursing and midwifery leadership agenda and improving health and healthcare globally. The NNC The NNC is a global network that exists to raise the profile, power and potential of student and early-career nurses and midwives globally. The NNC network offers a unique space for nurses and midwives to connect, share experiences and grow together. It has become a valuable support system for thousands of early-career nurses and midwives globally, representing a vibrant, diverse, challenge-led community. Investing in early-career nurses and midwives is essential for improving health and healthcare globally. The NNC is committed to providing employers, universities and colleges the opportunity to benefit from the shared experience and learning of a global network to ensure the implementation of leadership development programmes that support student and early-career nurses and midwives as leaders and advocates in health. By mid-2022, over 54,000 nurses and midwives from 908 organisations across 87 countries had been enrolled in NNC leadership development programmes. To boost its robust ecosystem of support for the global nursing and midwifery community, the NNC, in collaboration with the social educational platform, Vygo, launched a pilot in October 2021 to offer nurses and midwives reciprocal mentoring opportunities. Platform access was given to student and early-career nurses and midwives enrolled in NNC development programmes as well as partners and collaborators, thus guaranteeing the availability of the expertise and experience of middle and senior career health professionals. There is so much to be gained from connecting with others, learning, and sharing the burden of the challenges we face. Engaging with peers globally is an enriching experience personally and professionally. Professor Lisa Bayliss-Pratt, Programme Director, NNC Vygo is a tech start-up platform enabling global peer support and is built on two convictions: 1. Everyone deserves to have a champion 2. Everyone deserves to champion someone else.

Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector  33 Mentoring outcomes for the nursing and midwifery profession include preparation for leadership roles, talent development, personal and professional satisfaction, enhanced confidence and increased recruitment and retention (Vance,  2010). Despite these benefits, there remains a scarcity of organisational and global mentoring programmes available to nurses and midwives with significant obstacles including poor access to mentors with desired skill-sets and limited time for mentoring alongside clinical practice (Dirks, 2021). The NNC Vygo platform aims to help fill this gap and overcome common barriers by offering reciprocal opportunities regardless of geographic location and access to a large pool of mentors from different organisations, with diverse specialities and leadership skills. Since its launch, this pilot has been funded by Vygo as part of its corporate social responsibility effort to provide nurses and midwives with valuable mentoring opportunities to drive the nursing and midwifery leadership agenda. There are three programmes available on the platform uniquely designed to promote reciprocal mentoring: Early-Career to Student enables nursing and midwifery students to engage with early-career nurse and midwifery mentors from different countries, organisations and specialties. Mentors offer their experiences and advice to support students during their studies and transition from student to registered practitioner. This transition is often fraught with uncertainty due to a gap between what students learn during their studies and experiences in practice (Paget & ­Britten, 2020). Early-career nurses and midwives can fine-tune their mentoring competencies to empower mentees, providing a sense of fulfilment. NNC Alumni to Current Participants aims to facilitate transformative learning between mentors who have already completed an NNC leadership development programme and mentees currently participating in NNC leadership development programmes. As current participants progress through their development programme, mentors and mentees can draw on their collective wealth of leadership knowledge, facilitating further leadership pathways. Middle-Career/Senior to Early-Career enables nurses and midwives at different career stages to benefit from bidirectional learning and improved self-awareness through meaningful discussions around leadership development and global health issues. Earlycareer nurses and midwives can also increase awareness of the vast array of diverse roles and opportunities nurses and midwives can undertake globally. Intergenerational learning provides key insights into diverse leadership approaches and ways to adapt to the different generations working within healthcare.

34  Rita Symons Once an organisation accepts the NNC, they are invited to register their nurses and midwives participating in their leadership development programme on the NNC Vygo platform. Mentors and mentees are also recruited through social media, webinars, regular mailings which include video and step-by-step onboarding guides and regular training sessions. Vygo’s infrastructure ensures successful global administration and robust mechanisms for matching, training and capacity management. As well as supporting 1:1 mentoring relationships, mentors can also host virtual group sessions with up to 200 members, allowing members with similar interests to seek collective support from mentors and share knowledge in an open forum environment. The platform provides programme statistics which summarise members engagement within selected date ranges to efficiently monitor mentoring relationships as well as in-depth reports to analyse platform performance which can be filtered to identify specific insights and enable NNC participating organisations to understand their nurses’ and midwives’ engagement. Educational opportunities Members can complete invaluable mentoring competency training through Vygo’s online Mentoring Academy, a freely available initiative to build leadership and employability skills. The course is self-paced and incorporates two hours of video, written and interactive content. Learning objectives include: • Understand the role of mentors and potential mentorship impacts • Explore concepts including subconscious bias, well-being and cultural sensitivity • Learn practical techniques for building meaningful, impactful relationships This dynamic resource has proven beneficial to the NNC network, helping members to upskill and overcome apprehension to joining due to no previous mentoring experience (82% of members) and providing members the chance to be mentored and mentor someone else, an essential learning experience. By enhancing communication and conflict management skills, aspiring mentors can evolve into confident active listeners and indelible guides to empower their learners, allowing the mentoring programmes to be truly impactful. Evaluation and future plans Since the NNC Vygo platform was launched in October 2021, over 300 members have joined from over 100 organisations across 46 countries. The 2022 evaluation reported:

Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector  35 • 27% of members have become mentors • 140 chat, one-to-one or group sessions have been completed • 95% of members who completed a session reported major confidence and knowledge improvement and 95% further reported their session was significantly valuable • 4.5/5 average mentee rating • 4.63/5 average mentor rating Members have reported positive outcomes including: Enhanced global interconnectivity Development and leveraging of professional support networks Enhanced cross-country understanding of nursing and midwifery Improved mentoring competencies Increased sense of belonging through collective leadership journeys • Supplementary mentoring resources for organisations to integrate into their NNC development programmes

• • • • •

I’m privileged to connect with nurses globally and be inspired by their passion. I’ve been able to hone my leadership, communication and empathetic listening skills, reflect on my personal and professional journey and broaden my perspective of global nursing practice. Dr Clarissa Catherine, Mentor, Middle-career/Senior to Early-career Member engagement is reported at 46.7% with 73.8% of one-to-one sessions being rescheduled. This suggests that in spite of the functionalities enabled to alleviate commitment pressures, limited time for mentoring activities remains a barrier to engagement. The NNC plans to coordinate with participating organisations to ensure their nurses and midwives are provided adequate time to engage in these mentoring activities. Since the platform’s launch, many lessons have been learnt, notably that active use of the platform is greatly facilitated when the NNC and Vygo provide one-to-one support meetings and tailored training sessions during the onboarding process to allow participating organisations to understand platform benefits and encourage their nurses and midwives to engage in this mentoring opportunity. To ensure the longevity and effective use of this mentoring platform within the NNC community, we will create a Vygo resource hub to improve the user experience and facilitate expertise sharing within and beyond the global health workforce.

36  Rita Symons Case Study: Reciprocal mentoring for inclusion – Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Authors: Frances Dodd, Wendy Ann Tangen and Caroline Bamford Introducing the organisation and programme context Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (LYPFT) is the main provider of specialist mental health and learning disability services in Leeds, in the UK. They also provide specialist services beyond the boundaries of Leeds, and some highly specialised national services. Leeds as a city is ranked as the third largest in the UK, with 18% of the population identifying from a minority ethnic group. Within the trust, 71.5% of staff identify from a White ethnic group and 23% from a minority ethnic group. The trust’s vision is to provide outstanding mental health and learning disability services as an employer of choice. This means supporting service users and carers, staff and the communities they serve to live healthy and fulfilling lives, to achieve personal and professional goals and live free from stigma and discrimination. The pandemic and Black Lives Matter movement revealed an important insight into the complexities of service users and the staff groups. The data within the NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) identified both experience and progression gaps between ethnic minority communities and their White counterparts. A disproportionate disparity in experience for ethnic minority staff was highlighted, in areas of promotion when compared to White staff. In addition to this data, experiential feedback from the Workforce Race Equality Network (WREN) staff members highlighted barriers and blockages to career progression, as well as a lack of opportunity to influence and contribute to culture change. There were some compelling stories which highlighted the need for action in the Trust. Introducing the mentoring programme In November 2020, the Trust introduced a reciprocal mentoring pilot programme that was sponsored by the Chief Executive. This consisted of eleven mentoring partners, from Executive and Non-Executive Directors, who were partnered with ethnic minority colleagues from the WREN network. Importantly, both partners took on the role of mentor and mentee, as the relationship was not based on seniority or status. The reciprocal mentoring pilot aimed to achieve a genuine learning exchange through a two-way relationship, by transcending hierarchy, creating relationships and building both individual and organisational value. As such, the model was one of reciprocal at the outset. The programme

Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector  37 focused on increasing cultural awareness to foster diversity and inclusion and to support personal and professional development. The Trust acknowledged the importance of learning from each other’s lived experiences, to constructively challenge thinking, behaviours and to increase cultural understanding. In practice, the project was composed of three distinct parts – the recruitment of participants, learning and development and the mentoring relationship itself. The pilot was set up for the mentoring relationship to last for 12 months, with monthly meetings between the pairs as a minimum. A reflective, “learning by doing” and co-creation approach was applied, informed by similar programmes. At the recruitment (expressions of interest stage), participants completed documentation detailing their personal objectives and the goals they wished to achieve through the programme. Participants were encouraged to share this with their mentoring partner to support and develop collective understanding. This information also informed the mentor partner matching process. Programme evaluation and impact All participants were invited to a series of learning and development sessions, aimed at supporting effective reciprocal mentoring relationships and to influence organisational culture change. There was an explicit recognition of the power differentiation that potentially could inhibit, and mutual learning was encouraged within the learning and development sessions. Mentoring pairs were also offered facilitated coaching sessions to explore any barriers or power dynamics within the relationship. All were encouraged to keep a reflective journal (which was supplied to all partners) of their mentoring and masterclass sessions that would assist to identify action learning sets. Participants were asked three key questions to reflect on: Q1. What insight gained from reciprocal mentoring interaction can you use more in how you lead to promote and enable inclusion and everyone’s voice to be heard? Q2: What aspect of your leadership do you most need to give most attention to? What will you do and what will be the difference you expect? Q3: How will you hold yourself accountable to developing you and the behaviours you identified? How will you measure the impact? The full programme was due to take place over 12 months, but due to the impact of the pandemic on the capacity of the NHS and the participants, this was extended by four months. Ongoing feedback was a fundamental part of the programme and the mid and final evaluation identified positive impacts, as well as invaluable learning to inform

38  Rita Symons the future. Evaluation of the programme was undertaken through both quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (interviews) approaches. The programme was adapted in response to ongoing participant feedback; therefore, the pilot development was an iterative process. Trust leads ensured the programme was celebrated at regular intervals, and mid-way through the pilot, the staff network held an external event to showcase the learning and progress made. This was followed by a celebration event at the end of the programme to share experiences and learning. These events focused on the importance of personal stories and journeys, successes and learning opportunities for future programmes. Overall, the evaluation identified a clear passion and desire from participants to further expand and develop the programme and demonstrated immediate changes in shared learning, building relationships and behaviour change. Examples were apparent in all the feedback, as identified in the examples below: • “See life from another’s perspective leading to self-reflection – behaviour change.” • “Self-reflection – my perceptions of others. Programme has enabled me to challenge status quo and increased my awareness on workplace micro/ macro aggressions.” • “Better insight into workplace culture. Better knowledge on EDI. Consider how we do things better at Board level.” • “Feels as if the programme has helped to open doors for all concerned – creating a proactive and positive channel of communication which wasn’t there before.” The feedback also identified that the pilot programme was overly ambitious in terms of some of the intended outcomes, such as time commitment and the expectation of immediate culture change. This has been taken into consideration for the next programme, where organisational impacts are now seen as long-term outcomes. Key learning from the pilot programme has been incorporated into the future programme design including more clarity on organisational outcomes, condensing the programme timeframe and reviewing the programme learning and development sessions. Also, based on the success of the pilot, the reciprocal mentoring learning partnerships were expanded to include all senior managers, and also the mentoring partner opportunities were expanded beyond a focus on race to include disabled and LGBTQ+ colleagues. The second phase, with a simplified and shorter nine-month programme was designed to be delivered in-house, led by the Equality and Inclusion team. The reciprocal mentoring programme is now embedded by being a key priority in the “Our People Plan” ambition to create an organisational culture where everyone feels they belong. Through the

Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector  39 success of the pilot, there is confidence that reciprocal mentoring can positively contribute to a shift in the underlying culture, to one where strong alliances are built, biases are challenged and the power of difference is genuinely valued.

Case Study: From reverse to reciprocal mentoring: embedding professional friendship – North East London NHS Foundation Trust Author: Harjit K Bansal Introducing the organisation and programme context North East London Foundation Trust (NELFT) serves a diverse population of 4.3 million, covering a large geographical footprint, with over 6,500 staff and a budget of c. £500 million. Over 40% of its workforce are Black, Asian and from ethnic minority groups, which at one level matches well with the fact 40% of the population it serves is from Black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds. In terms of senior leadership, however, the pattern is very different. NELFT became acutely aware in 2017 that the senior leadership team, including the Executive Management and Board lacked representation from Black, Asian and other ethnic minority groups (0% at Board Level, and just two Black colleagues at Integrated Care Director Level). This led to a lack of role models in the organisation and an inconsistency with Trust values. The Ethnic Minority Network (EMN) in NELFT developed the Stronger Together Strategy and highlighted Reverse Mentoring/Walking in Your Shoes as one of its objectives to address the shortcoming of Black and Minority Ethic staff at Board Level. A business case was presented to the Board by the Head of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, seeking to establish an ambitious pilot programme of Reverse Mentoring, with a view to making a further step change in the Executive Board’s appreciation, understanding and commitment to diversity. NELFT was one of the first NHS Trusts (2018) to engage in such a programme at Board Level, and there was external interest in the processes and outcomes, as the Workforce Race Equality Standard, a national initiative was being implemented in the NHS at the time. Introducing the mentoring programme The mentoring programme focus was initially on race. The GROW Framework, well known to many coaches, was used as a process to support the Board in clarifying what they wanted to achieve. This included

40  Rita Symons a desire to increase representation at Board Level and to have a composition which represented both the workforce and the population served. A Board workshop was arranged to secure buy-in and establish the reverse mentoring process and context and to explore issues such as unconscious bias, understanding of mentoring, complex relationships and boundaries with a spirit of curiosity. In the session, the Board also discussed practical process issues and considered the escalation process for the programme. The Board consisted of 12 members, who were all signed up to this programme. The Trust then sought applications from BME members of staff to agree to mentor their senior colleagues. How it worked It was agreed at Board Level that the mentoring programme would run for 12 months and would consist of the following: Board workshop Mentor Workshop with the BME participants Joint Board and BME participants’ workshop Monthly mentoring sessions A series of six bi-monthly “action learning” facilitated workshops for mentors to share experience and to capture feedback to build the evaluation model and content. • Joint session with Board and BME participants at the end of the programme to share experiences and next steps. • Review and evaluation • • • • •

There was agreement that both parties would dedicate their time and skills in jointly considering the following: • • • •

Roles and responsibilities Challenges What aspects of the organisation require attention? What are the challenges and the solutions

The process was for the mentor to contact the executive mentee within a week of being assigned. In the programme, responsibility was, therefore, placed on the mentor, which some found challenging but ultimately empowering. Despite initial development and support, it required courage for junior staff to contact senior colleagues in the Trust to make arrangements. At the first initial meeting, the mentors and mentees were asked to discuss the following: • Each other’s expectations • Topics to discuss at each meeting

Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector  41 • Who will take the primary responsibility (when to meet, agenda, learning goals) • Have a combination of formal and informal meetings • How would time be allocated between them • Discussions about how honest and transparent each was going to be about issues concerning them • Agree confidentiality, what can be discussed with the EDI manager or the Board members • Engagement and line manager support • If the relationship does not work, how they would escalate via the EDI manager. There was a clear matching process, with senior colleagues identifying role, skills and current level of cultural competence, while the individuals from under-represented groups identified skills, learning needs, further insight required and what of themselves they want to share. The criteria for matching the Board member to the EMN member was dependent on expressed learning needs and what they hoped to achieve. For example, the Executive Director of HR stated that he would like to increase his knowledge and understanding of mental health; therefore, he was matched to a colleague who worked as a night nurse on the ward. Although the programme was primarily around inclusion, other learning needs were, therefore, incorporated. In addition to mentoring, the Trust also identified an EMN Ambassador to support both the mentor and the mentees. The expectations were made clear to both parties in terms of the commitment and expectations. Training and support A guidance pack was developed for everyone in the programme. Action learning logs were completed at each session and reviewed by the EDI manager, and any themes coming up were part of the feedback session to the wider group. Training sessions were designed to equip the partners with the skills to maximise success. The training sessions included the following: • Three rules for reverse mentoring (the two-way street, co-create and keeping it informal) • Advantages and risk of mentoring (Both the mentor and mentee benefit from the opportunity to build interpersonal skills and see, first hand, that the organisation values their knowledge and contributions. There is ample evidence that giving colleagues a way to grow and develop internally can lead to greater engagement and performance, while supporting retention.)

42  Rita Symons • Best practices (ensuring engagement, set expectations, structure, trust and transparency, better than expected, to boost morale and increase productivity and enrich culture) • Action learning sets (provide an immediate vehicle for identifying and responding to the development needs of participants) • Surface and analyse individual leadership and management dilemmas. Both mentors and mentees had signed up to a commitment, which was to attend the pre-programme training, meet as a pair every four weeks. In terms of formative evaluation, participants attended a mid-programme session to exchange ideas and to provide feedback. There was also a final session with all, to evaluate the programme and discuss next steps. In addition to this, both pairs were to meet with the EDI manager (separately) for welfare checks and any concerns about the relationship; this was on the basis of monthly review meetings. Sustaining the mentoring programme Those engaged in the mentoring process were encouraged to apply for the leadership course that NELFT developed in-house, and as part of this programme, the mentors had further exposure to training, shadowing, coaching and a further one-year development programme. The reverse mentoring programme is being reframed as reciprocal mentoring. It is currently being expanded to extend beyond the board members, to include the second tier of the leadership board. Outcomes and lessons learnt The Trust research and development team supported the EDI team to carry out an evaluation of the programme. The outcome was: • Increased knowledge base (clinically/working with patients, and how the board functions and makes key decisions). • How the funding from external commissioners impacts patient delivery and how the Trust is accountable for its functions and delivery of service. • Greater clarity of the roles at Board Level • Exposure to external networks, opportunities for access to mentoring opportunities, internal promotion. • Understanding of the different cultures (BME members gave an insight into their cultural, beliefs and customs and the impact of racism) The next phase of evaluation is to consider how this increased understanding has impacted in terms of behaviour and organisational culture.

Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector  43 Some practical lessons learnt include: • There should have been some mentors on the reserve list, as participants were lost through the 12-month period. • Additional training sessions would have benefited both parties, particularly on having conversation about race, White privileges and the inequalities faced by ethnic minority groups. • The Board have requested action learning sets as they felt they would have benefited from them. In the original pilot, these were only in place for the BME mentors. The definition of mentoring, as published in the NELFT mentoring handbook, is as follows: “In reverse mentoring, a junior team member enters into a ‘professional friendship’ with someone more senior, and they exchange skills, knowledge and understanding. For example, a younger person might be more comfortable with IT skills, so encouraging a pairing with an older colleague who has less experience of using these technologies can improve that person’s ability to connect with potential clients or customers.” As the Trust moves into the next phase of the programme, they are actively changing the model to one of reciprocal mentoring to recognise the two-way process at play. Going forward, there is a belief that mentoring can play an important role in bridging the gap between the BME staff and White staff. These groups have experienced vastly different social and cultural situations and experiences, which has resulted in varied work ethics, mindsets and attitudes. Dialogue across the boundaries is seen as a key enabler to cultural change.

Case Study: Transformative co-mentoring: fostering cultural change in the medical profession Authors: Mirna Ramos-Diaz and Frances Kochan Introduction to the organisation and context Although approximately 20% of the United States (U.S.) population lives in rural areas, only 11% of physicians practise in these regions (Jaret, 2022) Additionally, although it is predicted that by 2043, the U.S. will become a majority/minority nation, in 2021, only 1% of matriculants in U.S. Medical Schools were American Indian or Alaska Native, and Black or African Americans were 20.8%. Hispanic, Latino and Latinx were 12.7% (AAMC, 2021). In 2005, the Pacific Northwest University (PNWU), located in Yakima, Washington, was founded in an attempt

44  Rita Symons to address this problem. The PNWU mission is to “educate and train health care professionals, emphasizing service among rural and medically underserved communities throughout the Northwest.” Its vision is “revolutionizing community health” (PNWU, 2022). In an effort to expand and enhance its capacity to fulfil its mission, in 2014, PNWU entered into a partnership with the Yakama Nation (YN), Mount Adams School District (MASD) and Heritage University, a minority-serving institution with 67% Latino and 10% American Indian/Alaska Native in 2020 (https://heritage.edu). In 2015, the Yakama Nation Tribal School (YNTS) joined in this partnership. These conversations led to the creation of “Roots to Wings” (RTW), a partnership programme that fosters the entry of Native American and Latino Students into the health and STEM professions and seeks to encourage PNWU graduates to enter medical practice in rural and underserved minority communities. Additionally, for the last four years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded a summer programme for RTW students. A foundational element within the RTW initiative, and the focus of this case study, is Transformative Co-Mentoring (TCM). Theoretical background The literature on mentoring includes hundreds of definitions (Dominguez, 2012); this reality led Dominguez and Kochan (2020) to suggest that when defining mentoring, researchers should use a definitional schema detailing a qualifier, a definitional word, the participants and the function or purpose of the relationship. Using this schema, TCM is defined as a “reciprocal” (qualifier) relationship (definitional word) between two or more individuals (participants) with the goal of creating mutual understanding and respect and fostering a lasting change in those involved and in the environments in which they function (function or purpose). Theoretically, TCM is associated with Clutterbuck’s notion of Diversity Mentoring (2012) in which mentoring is an instrument of personal and social change. It connects with Mullens’ (2017) concept of Collaborative Mentoring, which is reciprocal, involving mutual exchanges amidst a dynamic context for learning. It also fits into Kochan and Pascarelli (2012) Transformative Mentoring schema, because it focuses on the future, those involved seek to create a new culture, mentoring roles are fluid and participants serve as co-mentors to one another. TCM is also closely aligned with Transformational Co-Mentoring developed by Austin and Howlett (2013). However, we labelled this mentoring approach as “transformative” because whereas transformational is defined as “an act in which someone is transformed” (Merriam-Websters

Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector  45 Dictionary, 2020a), transformative is an active word, defined as “causing or being able to cause a lasting change in someone or something” (Merriam-Websters Dictionary, 2020b). Operationalising TCM At the beginning of each year, and a few times during the year, PNWU co-mentors engage in training sessions. These sessions prepare them to understand the purposes of RTW and TCM. They engage in activities to help them to become more culturally aware of the lives of their student co-mentors. They also learn how to become effective listeners and learners and what it means to be a co-mentor. They also access co-mentoring circles composed of four to six students from two grade levels (i.e., six and seven) and one medical student. Co-mentoring circles are organised to include students from each of the schools represented, and students in the circle are from diverse cultural backgrounds. The sessions begin with a cultural activity. Co-mentors discuss and share their reactions in their TCM circles. Next, students engage in learning circles led by professors in which they are exposed to scientific and medical knowledge. They also engage in hands-on experiments and other activities. They remain in their co-mentoring groups during these activities. Following this instruction, the co-mentoring circles engage in conversations about their learning experiences and discuss the most important “take-away,” for the day. The session ends with a prayer led by an Elder. There is also a summer session for 10–20 high school juniors and seniors who are coupled with 3–4 co-mentors. Activities are similar to those during the school year, but they occur five days a week, six hours a day for six weeks. Programme impact It is not possible to report all findings related to the impact of TCM. However, there is ample quantitative evidence that medical graduates have been impacted by the programme, based on their career choice decisions. In 2021, PNWU was fifth in the nation for having its graduates practising in medically underserved areas. Additionally, it was ranked sixth for having the most graduates practising in primary care, sixth in the nation for most graduates practising in a medically underserved area and tenth in the nation for most graduates practising in rural areas (https://www.pnwu.edu/blog/2022/04/06/pnwu-ranked-top-10-us-medical-school-in-three-mission-related-categories/). Data on quantitative impact on school-based students such as graduation rates and entry into higher education is not available, as past history has left its scars on the Native American community, making it reluctant to have such data publicly available. This data will be released in the near

46  Rita Symons future. These limiting factors led us to focus this research study upon the degree to which participants view their TCM mentoring relationship as impacting their thinking, relationships and actions. In 2020, an openended survey was via Survey Monkey, to all PNWU co-mentor graduates, who were in their medical residency programme. A 50% response rate was achieved. Since residency is a highly time-intensive experience and the survey was distributed during the COVID epidemic, this return rate was viewed as acceptable. The survey contained two open-ended questions. From 2017 to 2021, 10–20 school-based students attended the previously noted intensive NIH summer programmes. Students provided feedback each day, and upon their completion of the programme, they conducted a content analysis of the responses of both data sets, coding them to determine the extent to which their participation matched the TCM guiding principles. Sample responses are reported for each principle. Reciprocal relationship Both groups of co-mentors shared their views about their relationship, and both indicated the reciprocity of these endeavours. For example, one of the school-based co-mentors shared, “It is valuable to understand that relying on others is a part of our human lifestyle.” Another said, “it is important to learn from the co-mentors. so that I can succeed in life and have a bright future.” Speaking about this relationship from the medical student view, a co-mentor wrote, “It is really important to meet the co-mentees where they are and build a relationship with them, from there.” Another said, “I really enjoyed getting to know these students and learning alongside of them.” A third remarked, “I really remember the student stories and learning about a different culture.” Creating mutual understanding and respect A closely related outcome of reciprocity is having mutual understanding and respect for one another. Of this, one medical student shared, “The most memorable part of this experience was creating a strong bond with my co-mentees. It gave me a sense of purpose.” Another commented, “On our last night together, one of my mentees thanked me for my talks with her and told me that she was going to go to college. It made me cry.” One of the most important goals of TCM is to foster change in individual thinking, understanding and action so as to enhance one’s personal life and/or the environment in which they function. Demonstrating this type of learning and change, one school-based student wrote: “One lesson I learned was that most people have something to overcome in life and the important thing to remember is to learn to deal with these challenges.” In a similar

Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector  47 vein, a student wrote that she learned, “No matter what the obstacles, never give up.” A more focused comment was shared by a third student who wrote, “Develop a plan for your life so that you will not get derailed,” while another, sharing a similar idea, wrote, “Shepherd and control your life so that you can meet your goals.” Comments from medical graduates were equally powerful. Sharing about how this experience had changed them and the way they function, one person wrote, “I have adjusted or let go of some of my biases that did not serve the greater good.” Another said, “This experience helped me to become aware of my cultural White privilege.” Dealing with culture, a third person wrote, “It made me more culturally competent.” Expanding on this issue of cultural competence, another person shared, “It has helped me learn to communicate with people who are different ages and have different lives than I do.” Fostering a change in their environment The ultimate desired outcome of TCM as practised in RTW is to create a lasting change in the environments in which co-mentors function. School-based students shared multiple examples of ways in which they were creating changes in their home environments. Among the most salient comments were “I will share with my parents about not getting diabetes.” Another said, “I will tell my family about VR.” A third student wrote, “I will share everything I learned today with my family.” Finally, a student commented, “One thing I will take home is our experiments to show my younger siblings.” Students also appeared to gain knowledge about how to enter and succeed in careers in the STEM and medical professions – making their potential for success in these fields more viable and, in turn, changing the trajectory of their futures and the culture of these professions. Typical comments were “start to network early,” “I learned how important STEM education is” and “Someday, I can become a physical therapy doctor and take classes at PNWU.” A final comment dealing with this outcome was, “This experience will help me to remember that a career in science is in my future.” It appears that the experience was also life-changing for the medical student co-mentors, who in turn are bringing that knowledge and change into their work. For example, one of them shared, “My experience as a co-mentor has made me more culturally aware when I am working with my patients.” Another wrote, “I think it has given me a greater respect for other cultures and alternative to modern medicine.” An interesting comment came from another co-mentor who wrote, “If a patient tells me about their medicine man, I will not brush it off or think less of them.” A final powerful comment was, “I think this gave me the confidence and courage to seek out issues in whatever community I go into and to effect change positively.”

48  Rita Symons Programme future The use of TCM in the RTW programme will continue and expand as new schools are added to the partnership. A school of dentistry is being added to PNWU; so in the next few years, students from that area will be participating in this endeavour. Private funding is being sought to continue and expand, and there will be an extensive assessment report prepared once all data permissions have been granted. The principles and practices of TCM are also being incorporated into community circles and restorative justice practices at PNWU. The strategies and underlying concepts are appropriate for any group, organisation or societal entity striving to create mutual understanding among and between diverse groups. It also appears to be a powerful tool in changing the context and environments in which people live and work to foster cross-cultural understanding and respect and expand opportunities for the underserved and under-represented in our institutions and society.

Chapter conclusions and summary All the case studies presented start with a deep desire to address historical inequalities and create a more inclusive workforce. We know that if staff feel a sense of belonging and happiness, they provide better care to individuals and communities. West (2021) states that “it is the hands and hearts of health and social care that hold our communities together.” Ultimately, mentoring is about human connection and change through dialogue. We need to move beyond using the process to exchange knowledge and move to a place that is truly developmental, where new knowledge is created. The model of generative conversations, as conceptualised by Osborne and Hinson (2015) feels appropriate, where they describe generative conversations as those “that generate new value or meaning.” The use of reciprocal mentoring as a vehicle for this feels like an exciting prospect. These case studies have universally shown some evidence of impact, both in terms of awareness and learning, but in some cases a measurable shift in terms of opportunities and progression for those from under-represented groups. In all case studies, there is good anecdotal evidence of positive impact, and even where tangible results are not available, there is encouraging evidence of proxy measures. One example is in case study 1 which evidenced a greater sense of belonging. Baumeister and Leary (1995) made a clear link between a sense of belonging and self-efficacy and motivation. The concept of TCM feels highly relevant in programmes to address systemic inequality. By its very nature, it recognises the starting point of individuals and their rich history, asset and trauma, while keeping a focus on deep organisational and cultural change. This also reflects the importance of dialogue-based approaches to change. Change occurs in the space between individuals, in generative conversations. Osborne and Hinson (2015) describe generative conversations in the following way: “Generative conversations are

Reciprocal mentoring in the healthcare sector  49 conversations that generate new value or meaning.” In the area of inclusion, it feels like the safe place of discomfort offered by reciprocal mentoring may indeed be a place for new knowledge to be created. There remains a lack of focus in some programmes of robust evaluation. The involvement of higher education organisations may give more rigour in terms of the ability to evidence impact. Healthcare, like many other sectors, needs to contribute to a more robust evidence based on the benefit and long-term holistic benefit of mentoring from a place of equality. The first case study shows the power of technology to enable global virtual connection, whereas the other three are deeply rooted in a sense of place and community. The contexts and settings, therefore, are varied and wide ranging, but reciprocal mentoring, if implemented thoughtfully, is proving to be a powerful tool to achieve transformative shifts in the tectonic plates of healthcare culture. References AAMC. (December 8, 2021). Medical school enrollment more diverse in 2021. Retrieved on May 29, 2022, from https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/ press-releases/medical-school-enrollment-more-diverse-2021. Austin, J., & Howlett, B. (2013). Transformative co-mentoring: A model for fostering co-creation of knowledge. Paper presented at the University of New Mexico Mentoring Conference, Albuquerque, NM. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychology Bulletin, 117(3), pp. 497–529. Clutterbuck, D. (2012). Understanding diversity mentoring. In D. Clutterbuck, K. M. Poulsen, & F. Kochan (Eds.), Developing successful diversity mentoring programmes: An international casebook (pp. 1–17). Berkshire: Open University Press. Dirks, J. L. (2021). Alternative approaches to mentoring. Critical Care Nurse, 41(1), pp. e9–e16. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2021789. Dominguez, N. (2012). Mentoring unfolded: The evolution of an emerging discipline (Doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico. Retrieved from https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=oils_etds. Dominguez, N., & Kochan, F. (2020). Defining mentoring: An elusive search for meaning and a path for the future. In B. J. Irby, J. N. Boswell, L. J. Searby, F. Kochan, R. Garza, & N. Abdelrahman (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of mentoring (pp. 3–18). Malden, MA: Wiley. Garvey, B., & Stokes, P. (2022). Coaching & mentoring theory and practice. 4th edition. London: Sage. Heritage University. (n.d.). Heritage University designated as a Hispanic Serving Institution and a Native American-serving Non-Tribal Institution: One of only two universities designated as both, in the country. Retrieved on May 29, 2022, from: https://heritage.edu/heritage-university-designated-as-both-a-hispanic-servinginstitution-and-a-native-american-serving-non-tribal-institution-one-of-only-twouniversities-designated-as-both-in-the-country/. Jaret, P. (2022). Attracting the next generation of physicians to rural education. AAMC. February 3, 2020. Retrieved on May 29, 2022, from https://www.aamc. org/news-insights/attracting-next-generation-physicians-rural-medicine.

50  Rita Symons Kochan, F., & Pascarelli, J. (2012). Culture and mentoring in the global age. In S. J. Fletcher & C. A. Mullen (Eds.), Handbook of mentoring and coaching in education (pp. 184–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2020a). Transformative. Retrieved on May 29, 2022, from https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/transformative. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2020b). Transformational. Retrieved on May 29, 2022, from https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/transformational. Mullen, C. A. (2017). Critical issues on democracy and mentoring in education: A debate in the literature. In D. A. Clutterbuck, F. Kochan, L. G. Lunsford, N. Dominguez, & J. Haddock-Millar (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring (pp. 34–51). London, UK: Sage. Osborne, D., & Hinson, J. (2015) Generative conversations – results through connection and meaning. Retrieved on May 20, 2022, from https://change-fusion.com/ wp-content/uploads/2015/12/GenerativeConversations.pdf. Otu, A., Ahinkorah, B. O., Ameyaw, E. K., Seidu, A., & Yaya, S. (2020). One country, two crises: What Covid-19 reveals about health inequalities among BAME communities in the United Kingdom and the sustainability of its health system?. International Journal of Equity in Health, 19, p. 189. Paget, S., & Britten, L. (2020). A programme to smooth the transition from student to newly qualified nurse. Nursing Times, 116(4). Retrieved on April 14, 2022, from https://www.nursingtimes.net/roles/nurse-educators/a-programme-to-smooththe-transition-from-student-to-newly-qualified-nurse-16-03-2020/. PNWU. (April 6, 2022). PNWU ranked top 10 U.S. medical school in three missionrelated categories. Retrieved on May 29, 2022, from https://www.pnwu.edu/ blog/2022/04/06/pnwu-ranked-top-10-u-s-medical-school-in-three-missionrelated-categories/. Raza, A., & Onyesoh, K. (2020). Reverse mentoring for senior NHS leaders: A new type of relationship. Future Healthcare Journal, 7(1), pp. 94–96. Stephenson, G. N. (2014). Breaking traditions with reciprocal mentoring. Nursing Management, 45(6), pp. 10–12. Vance, C. (2010). Fast facts for career success in nursing: Making the most of mentoring in a nutshell. Chichester: Wiley. West, M. A. (2021). Compassionate leadership: Sustaining wisdom, humanity and presence in health and social care. Reading: Swirling Press. Woolnough, H. M., & Fielden, S. L. (2017). Mentoring in nursing and healthcare. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

4 Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon

Introduction This chapter focuses on reciprocal mentoring initiatives in the third sector. The third sector, also known as the civic sector, is primarily composed of organisations focused on contributing to society and specific communities, such as those identified as operating in the non-governmental, nonprofit-making, voluntary and social enterprises spheres. We draw on three case studies (SAVE the Children, the National Institutes for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and ODTÜMİST Mentoring Programme(s) for METU Graduates) using reciprocal mentoring in this sector to identify how inter- and intra-organisational mentoring initiatives, in particular, are developed. This chapter will begin by identifying the nature of the sector and the key challenges faced due to the diversity of organisations from charities to social enterprises, voluntary groups and cooperatives. The focus then turns to how the value-driven nature of the third sector directs the forms of reciprocal mentoring in these initiatives. Beyond the role of values in driving reciprocal mentoring initiatives in third-sector organisations, this chapter then explores access to knowledge as another key feature of reciprocal mentoring. Examples around sharing knowledge related to diversity and social justice, digital technology and cultural adjustment are explored. Finally, this chapter identifies how reciprocal mentoring initiatives in this sector encourage shared and social learning opportunities beyond mentoring dyads. We will explore this theme by highlighting across the case initiatives the nature of generativity and communities of practice as initiatives create wider networks of support. This chapter will draw upon cases from a range of reciprocal mentoring initiatives across the third sector including charities, professional organisations and social enterprises.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003302537-4

52  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon Defining the third sector The third sector, as it is commonly known, is difficult to define because the organisations that make up this area of any economy are varied and complex (Bach-Mortensen et al., 2018; Salamon & Sokolowski, 2016). However, it is possible to say what they might be and what they might not be as follows: • • • • • • •

That they are neither publicly nor privately owned They often work on the basis of voluntarism They are often specifically community focused They may be charities or associations They may be cooperatives or social enterprises They are independent of governments They are value driven

They reinvest surpluses and are often called ‘not-for-profit’ organisations Areas of commonality between these different organisations are that they tend to be in tune with and attend to the needs of their service users and they are close to the people that the public sector needs to reach. Generally, they deliver outcomes that the public sector finds it difficult to deliver. They are often quite innovative and flexible in their approach to their work, and they tend to deliver on their promises. Third-sector organisations often have limited access to resources due to focus on serving their communities rather than generating profits. This means they may be predisposed to act collaboratively and altruistically. The three cases presented here fit with these descriptions and are arranged in the following order. Save the Children is a large multinational humanitarian charity. Its global ambition is that by 2030: • no child dies from preventable causes before their fifth birthday • all children learn from a quality basic education • violence against children is no longer tolerated. The NIHR invests and supports world-leading health and social care research that improves people’s health and well-being and promotes economic growth. The NIHR collaborates with patients and service users, carers and communities to improve the quality and impact of their research. NIHR collaborates with various research funders to shape the global health and social care research system. The Middle East Technical University (METU) Alumni Association in Istanbul (ODTÜMİST) is a not-for-profit organisation, founded in 1996 to manage cooperation programmes and special projects in education, training and research.

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  53 Case Study: SAVE the Children – an interview with Lucile Bationo Robert Garvey This case is based on an interview with a humanitarian, Lucile Bationo, from SAVE the Children. It starts with presenting the background to SAVE and then briefly outlines SAVE’s commitment to mentoring. In the ‘background’ section, Lucile’s own background is presented. The case then looks at the purpose of mentoring in SAVE and describes the context of mentoring within the organisation. The case continues by exploring the infrastructure to support mentoring activity and outlines the arrangements for mentoring between Lucile and her colleague from another organisation, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Malawi, East and South Africa region and country. The funding arrangements are described, and finally, the outcomes of this ongoing relationship are considered, and the case concludes with “honesty works!” Background Founded in 1919 by Eglantyne Jebb and Dorothy Buxton, SAVE the Children (abbreviated to SAVE) is a UK-based charity that operates around the world in over 100 countries with the purpose of keeping children safe, healthy and learning. It has helped 45 million children across the world to receive the medicines, food, water and education they need. They have over 600,000 people working with them to help realise this mission. SAVE workers are always present when there are emergencies and humanitarian disasters. This can often place SAVE staff in extremely challenging situations where, at times, their own lives are at risk. SAVE has invested heavily in mentoring practices for a variety of purposes. For example, mentoring may be used to help local people to take on important leadership roles in their own counties. Mentoring is also used to support colleagues in their learning and development. Sometimes, mentoring is arranged across different sectors to encourage the exchange of good practice, knowledge transfer and ideas exchange. This is the case with Lucile. Lucile is a sociologist with an MBA in project management and has worked for various organisations on several projects: including food supply issues, the protection of natural resources, water supply, education, supporting children and child protection. Lucile has overcome many challenges in her life and work, and she has always been determined to learn and grow through all these difficulties. Currently, she is based in

54  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon Dakr, Senegal, in West and Central Africa (WCA) region with SAVE as a humanitarian capacity-building programme manager. Through the Across Organisation Mentoring Programme (AOMP) of SAVE, she is in a mentoring relationship with a project manager in UNHCR in Malawi; he was previously a director in a government organisation in his country. Purpose of the mentoring programme The purpose of the inter-country, cross-sectoral mentoring initiative called AOMP was originally to support leadership development. After being a mentor in this mentoring cycle last year, Lucile has been engaged this year again to take a role of mentor and also to build a pilot mentoring project for the WCA region, by taking the opportunity to reinforce humanitarian leadership among SAVE staff in this region. This changed to include mutual support and problem-solving, not by design but this emerged as the relationship progressed. Mentoring context In SAVE, mentoring may be used to support colleagues in their learning and development pathway. Specifically, mentoring aims to fulfil some of the following objectives: • Build humanitarian response capabilities for identified technically skilled employees so that they are able to effectively utilise the technical skills in humanitarian response contexts • Support identified employees that have shown an interest and aptitude to move into the humanitarian response work in the region • Assist employees with some experience/training in humanitarian work, to meet their career goals by honing new capabilities • Build capability at the local level in countries by encouraging and empowering employees with knowledge, skills and an ability to navigate the humanitarian space. • Build capacity of identified women in humanitarian response, in line with building women leaders in the region. • Improve staff performance addressing adequately their needs in humanitarian area • Connect the SAVE staff in the region with Country Offices • Develop mentoring skills through strong mentoring programme • Unlock staff in the WCA’s potential. Sometimes, the mentoring is arranged across different sectors to encourage the exchange of good practice, knowledge transfer, practical attitudes and ideas exchange. This is the case with Lucile.

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  55 Infrastructure, monitoring and supporting A central feature of mentoring within SAVE is its voluntary nature. There is a range of programmes, which run for between six months to a year or longer, and these are supported by SAVE in various ways, for example, the general pattern of things is as follows: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Target group invited to join Initial briefing followed by the first meetings between the two parties A midterm review and refresher sessions for participants Every four to six weeks mentoring check-ins Finally, at the end of the programme, a celebration event. This briefing covers things such as: What is mentoring? Benefits for mentors and mentees What roles can be played in mentoring to suit the purpose? The importance of reflective practice The use of a process framework (three-stage process; Alred & Garvey, 2019) Ideas on running the first meeting and first conversations Phase of mentoring and how to use them (Clutterbuck, 2004) Establishing ground rules and expectations Common problems and how to avoid them

SAVE has also built up an extensive range of support materials for mentoring that are available online. This includes literature, video material and the latest addition is a series of bite-sized cartoons that cover a range of mentoring topics in a brief but entertaining way. Lucile participated in these briefings for her ‘Humanitarian Leadership Mentoring Pilot Programme’. Lucile partnered with a staff member from UNHCR based in Malawi, capital: Lilongwe (in south-eastern Africa). Her mentee was previously a higher director from a government organisation and had challenges to adapt himself to the UNHCR organisation. This was sourced through SAVE’s extensive international networks. Originally, the collaboration was based on Lucile being the mentor but during the first meeting it was clear that, in Lucile’s words, it was a “win-win exercise and being aware that each of us, we have really diversified experiences. We say that, okay; this is a win-win experience.” So, the relationship was re-contracted as a reciprocal one there and then. Lucile said: “being in the position of mentor at the beginning, I feel that like, uh, I, I feel that I gained a lot, maybe more than the mentee. I don’t know, maybe. (…) Why not, why not a mentor would be mentored? (…) Showing that you can learn a lot from where the mentee is right now, I can say that the impact also from me has been important. (…) The latest news from him, because we kept good contact, he told me that he has been promoted to a deployment as a Team lead.”

56  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon The arrangements They meet regularly, approximately fortnightly, and they set the appointments up over a period in advance. If they need to change the arrangements, they let each other know in advance. Both have challenging job roles to perform. They call their meetings ‘catch-ups’, and this seems to add to the idea that they are mutually beneficial. The content of the discussions is free reigning but often involves discussions about resources, humanitarian issues and general leadership experiences. Lucile even supplied a reference for her ‘catch-up’ partner. Often, they take it in turns to share a specific story about a work situation, a colleague or something from their personal lives and they discuss it. “We share the stories together and we try to, to see how we address it …” Funding Being a registered charity, funding can be limited, but despite this, the commitment to the voluntary nature of mentoring from participants does not require funding. The central resources and external support for the mentoring programmes come from sponsors. These are sometimes large corporations who support the idea of mentoring, and they donate as part of their corporate social responsibility programmes. Outcomes and lessons learned It is particularly interesting in this case that it started as a traditional mentor/mentee relationship, and during the first meeting, it became reciprocal. The voluntary nature of the arrangement, the ‘light touch’, in the management of the mentoring programme allows this to happen and allows the individuals to develop their own ways forward. To my knowledge, this arrangement has not been formally evaluated. My question is, should it be and to what purpose? Clearly, both parties are finding value otherwise; as busy people, they would not remain committed. Personal motivation regarding the benefits from each other and Lucile’s purpose to build a similar mentoring programme are important sources of being on track despite the difficult time management. What does seem important is both parties are open to learning and honest exchange of professional thoughts and experiences as well as personal issues. The relationship is key to its success. As Lucile says about the value of her mentoring experience: “If you address the problem, it could be challenging at the moment, but if your intention, your key intention, is to find the right way of doing, you will succeed at the end finally I’m convinced on that because ‘honesty works!’” as said Steven Gaffney in his book “Honesty works.”

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  57 Case Study: NIHR Mentoring Programme Sarah Howarth, Julie Haddock-Millar and Chandana Sanyal Introducing NIHR The purpose of the NIHR is to develop a highly skilled academic research workforce capable of advancing the best research, which improves health and benefits society and the economy in England and beyond. We have a central role in England’s health and care research landscape. We work alongside other organisations that have an overarching aim to strengthen health research in the United Kingdom (UK). Each UK nation has its own government department that oversees health and care research: • The Department of Health and Social Care funds health and care research in England through the NIHR. It also supports applied health research for the direct and primary benefit of people in low- and middle-­income countries, using UK aid from the UK government. • Health and Care Research Wales is a national, multifaceted, virtual organisation funded and overseen by the Welsh government’s Research and Development Division. It provides an infrastructure to support and increase capacity in research and development (R&D), runs a range of responsive funding schemes and manages the NHS R&D funding allocation for Wales. • The Chief Scientist Office (CSO), part of the Scottish government’s Health and Social Care Directorate, supports and promotes highquality research aimed at improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of services offered by NHS Scotland and securing lasting improvements to the health of the people of Scotland. • The Health and Social Care Public Health Agency (HSC PHA) is the major regional organisation for health protection in Northern Ireland. The agency has a mandate to protect public health, improve public health and social well-being and reduce inequalities in health and social well-being. The NIHR Academy was established in October 2018 following a strategic review of training across the NIHR to review the past and look proactively at future training needs. It set out a vision underpinned by a series of recommendations which led to the re-shaping of the training programmes offered. The NIHR Academy recognises and rewards: • Collaborative, multi-professional approaches to research • The embracing of innovation and new opportunities and technologies

58  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon • Active involvement and engagement of patients, carers and the public • Respect for the diversity of methodological and theoretical practices • Personal and professional development and support of colleagues The NIHR Academy comprises ‘Members’ and ‘Associates’. Members include those on an NIHR academic path and those who play a recognised role supporting academic development. They form a key part of the national health research system that is the NIHR. NIHR Academy Members range from Master’s Studentships through to Professorships and Senior Investigators. Membership includes individuals based in both domestic and global health research settings. Some also work closely with industry, developing a cadre of research leaders with combined academic, National Health Service (NHS) and industry insight and experiences. Members are able to access a portfolio of NIHR Academy development and support activities. They are able to access NIHR research training and career development programmes to help ensure that their research meets the current and future needs of patients and the public, as well as developing and sustaining training routes for research skills to support the development of future leaders across all professions and disciplines. In addition to the awards themselves, the NIHR also provides a range of leadership and mentoring programmes to complement its training programmes, regular networking opportunities, bespoke workshops and events and personal advice and guidance on funding opportunities. Associate Members are those who are part of the NIHR research training ecosystem. They are either on a research trajectory or plan or an NIHR role in supporting research training. Research has shown that postdoctoral researchers may face structural and cultural challenges in relation to their career trajectory and insecurity about ongoing funding or employment (Åkerlind, 2005). Clarity regarding career routes is an ongoing challenge for postdoctoral researchers (Van der Weijden et al., 2016). Research productivity pressures can be a barrier to accessing career development opportunities and pursuing career opportunities (Omary et al., 2019) However, a number of research studies demonstrate the positive contribution and influence mentoring can have on postdoctoral career progression (Ranieri et al., 2015, 2016). Mentors are able to facilitate opportunities for interdisciplinary research and offer new perspectives on research career development and future employment (Hafsteinsdóttir et al., 2017, 2020). Introducing the NIHR Mentoring Programme The NIHR provides postdoctoral Academy Members with career development support through its mentoring programme. The programme

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  59 supports postdoctoral researchers from a broad range of professional and disciplinary contexts across our diverse health and social care communities to mentor others and to seek a mentor. The programme has been developed and guided by a Steering Group whose membership is representative of Academy Members. The refreshed programme builds on the previous NIHR Academy Mentoring Programme that was delivered by the Academy of Medical Sciences – the previous programme was only available to postdoctoral academy members from a clinical background, meaning a large proportion of Academy Members were not eligible for the scheme. Following a review in 2020 of the NIHR Academy Mentoring Programme, it was decided to bring the management of the programme in-house and expanded to support all Academy Members, regardless of the professional background. The refreshed programme was launched in February 2021. Each year, NIHR provide the opportunity for 75 matched mentoring pairs, prioritising those from backgrounds or disciplines that may not have previously had access to mentoring. The programme aims to support the academic and career development of NIHR postdoctoral communities by: • extending the NIHR Mentoring Programme to postdoctoral award holders from disciplines and professional backgrounds which may not have a strong mentoring tradition or may not have had access to programmes such as this in the past; • promoting interdisciplinarity working; mentees are able to seek a mentor from a cognate or complementary discipline or professional background, where appropriate; • supporting mentoring relationships between individuals from different organisations and institutions; and • promoting equality, inclusion, and diversity through engagement with, and learning from, under-represented groups. The NIHR define mentoring as: “a non-directive developmental relationship; mentors support mentees to learn and grow. The relationship is often two-way: the mentor also develops. Mentors often draw on shared knowledge, skills, competencies and behaviours; they call on the skills of questioning, listening, clarifying and reframing. Mentors tend to have the organisational and contextual experience relevant to the mentee’s organisational and career-related system, and typically mentoring relationships tend to be longer-term than coaching.” Mentors and mentees are supported throughout their participation in the programme through regular professional development events and resources. The programme adopts a continuous improvement approach, and participants are asked to provide feedback both through the formal

60  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon evaluation process, at 6 months and 12 months. The programme takes a cohort-based approach, and intakes to the cohorts take place three times per year in April, June and November, with expressions of interest to join the cohorts open for six weeks before the intake date. The programme averages 25 matched pairs per cohort. The first year of the programme proved so successful that the target number of matched pairs was increased from 75 to 90, and even taking into account the increase in matched pairs, we still experienced a significant over-subscription of 50%. Mentoring programme framework NIHR adopted the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) Global International Standards for Mentoring and Coaching Programmes (ISMCP) as an overarching framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of the programme. The ISMCP is an independent accreditation awarded to organisations designing, delivering and evaluating mentoring and/or coaching programmes either ‘inhouse’ or externally. It is an integral and essential step on the path to establishing the professional credibility and status of good mentoring programme management, ensuring programmes are: • Thoughtfully designed • Systematically managed • Significantly contributing to the development of participants, strategic drivers of the organisation and wider stakeholder objectives. The six core standards enable organisations achieve a baseline standard of programme management that ensures quality and rigour: 1 Clarity of purpose • The strategic drivers and objectives of the programme are clearly defined. • The intended outcomes and benefits of the programme are understood by all the stakeholder audiences. • Participants are encouraged and supported in developing their own purpose for participating in the programme within the overarching context of the programme. 2 Stakeholder training and briefing • Stakeholders understand the concept of mentoring and/or coaching and their respective roles. • Participants are aware of the knowledge, skills and behaviours they need to apply in their roles as mentors and mentees and they have the opportunity to identify skills gaps.

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  61 • Learning support is available throughout the participants’ involvement in the programme. • Training and briefing take into account the context and purpose of the programme, balancing the need for core skills and knowledge against the need for flexibility in the manner and timing of delivery. 3 Process for selection and matching • Stakeholders understand the selection and matching methodology and criteria. • The matching process ensures the match fits the programme and provides sufficient learning opportunities for participants, as relevant to the programme. • Both mentors and mentees have an influence on whether they participate and their matched relationship. • There is a process for recognising and unwinding matches that do not work and for re-matching the participants, if they wish. 4 Processes for measurement and review • There are robust measurement and review processes to evaluate the mentoring relationships, the programme and the organisational/strategic outcomes. • The measurement and review processes enable timely adjustments to be made to the programme. • A meaningful cost–benefit and impact analysis is in place appropriate to the organisational and sector context. • The measurement and review processes support the mentoring relationships through support mechanisms, including supervision. 5 Maintains high standard of ethics • Roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders are clearly defined and communicated to all key stakeholders. • The programme adheres to clear guidelines on the behaviour and responsibilities of all stakeholders. • There is a process for recognising and managing conflicts of interest between stakeholders, e.g., between mentors or mentees and the organisation. 6 Administration and support • Participants receive sufficient support, continuing professional development (CPD) and/or supervision throughout the programme. • Participants are supported beyond the programme where appropriate. • The programme is managed professionally and in accordance with the programme methodology and processes. • The programme methodology and processes are transparent and available to all key stakeholders.

62  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon Key design features of the mentoring programme The mentoring programme uses expressions of interest for both mentees and mentors to apply to the programme. Expressions of interest open six weeks before the cohort launch dates, and this information cascades to prospective applicants via the NIHR infrastructure. All potential mentees and mentors are invited to submit an expression of interest within the application window. This application can be for the upcoming cohort or a later cohort depending on their preferences. Mentees are NIHR Academy Members who hold an NIHR postdoctoral award and/ or hold a postdoctoral position and are based in NIHR infrastructure or in an NIHR school. Mentors are NIHR Academy Members or Associate Members who are NIHR research leaders. They may be an NIHR research professor or senior investigator or an NIHR-based postdoctoral researcher with significant postdoctoral experiences (typically, at least five years). Alternatively, they may be an NIHR Academy Member or Associate Member, contributing to the NIHR’s work at a senior leadership level, for example, an awarding panel member, or a senior leader in NIHR including its centres, infrastructure and schools. The matching process is broken down into three stages, at stage one, the team review the matching criteria points that were selected in the expression of interest form. The matching criteria consists of 11 points that all applicants are asked to indicate which are most important to them:   1  Balancing professional and academic work  2 Career progression  3 Career transition  4 Research funding   5  Developing a global/international research profile  6 Networking/building relationships  7 Work/life balance   8  Diversity and inclusion  9 Leadership development 10  Research practice 11  Managing research teams The team then move onto reviewing the free-type responses for any additional preferences and supporting information, for example, if a mentee would like to be matched with a mentor in a specific field or with specific experiences. Finally, the team conduct a review at stage three of mentee and mentor preferences to ensure they match up and do not have any conflicts of interest before the match is confirmed. Figure 4.1 summaries the mentoring programme matching process.

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  63

NIHR Mentoring programme matching process Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Review the 11

Review the free text boxes

Review of mentee and mentor

matching criteria

for any additional

preferences, conflicts of interest and

points for

preferences and supporting

specific requirements before

preferences

information

confirming the match

Figure 4.1  NIRH matching process.

Attendance at orientation training is compulsory for all mentees and mentors. It is delivered via an online interactive webinar, facilitated by the programme manager and external mentoring consultant. The orientation covers the following key topics: • • • • • • • •

The programme team and their roles An overview of the aim and objectives of the programme The role of the mentor and mentee Ethics and confidentiality Mentoring platform Professional development offer Programme evaluation approach, phases and methods Support documentation

Following the mentoring programme orientation, mentees and mentors are invited to attend a broad range of CPD optional interaction webinars. The purpose of the CPD webinars is to provide ongoing support at key transition points in the mentoring relationship, focusing on knowledge, skills and behaviours. The overall objective of the CPD webinars is to enable participants to achieve satisfactory and successful mentoring relationships. The core CPD topics include: • • • • • • • •

Developing an effective mentoring relationship Beginning the mentoring relationship The roles of the mentor and mentee EMCC Global Mentoring core competencies Purpose, direction and goals Phases of the mentoring relationship Maintaining momentum in the relationship Reviewing and closing the mentoring relationship

64  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon The programme team have developed additional webinars, based on interim feedback from mentees and mentors to support specific topic areas such as work-life balance, resilience and transitioning from mentee to mentor. Furthermore, mentees and mentors are able to attend ‘drop-in’ sessions to meet the programme team on a monthly basis to address any aspect of their mentoring practice. In line with EMCC Global ISMCP requirements, mentors are also provided with ongoing monthly reflective practice support with peer mentoring webinars, facilitated by a suitability qualified and experienced external mentoring consultant. The mentoring programme has a robust evaluation framework in place which supports the continuous improvement of the programme, the collation of evidence of achievement against the programme’s aim and objectives to share with stakeholders and identification of lessons learned to inform the potential future programmes and wider audiences. The evaluation consists of two phases. Phase one takes place at four to five months and comprises a light touch temperature check survey for all participants, providing a feedback opportunity and to address any issues which may arise. At the end of the programme, participants are invited to complete an in-depth survey, focusing on their mentoring relationship experience and outcomes. Four matched pairs attend semistructured interviews with an external mentoring consultant, providing the opportunity to create in-depth case study exemplars. The mentoring programme and team are supported by the NIHR Academy Mentoring Programme Steering Group which includes representatives from a broad range of NIHR’s research infrastructure and disciplines. The steering group is chaired by Professor Anne-Maree Keenan, one of the NIHR Academy’s Associate Deans. The role of the steering group is to support the development of the programme, they were instrumental in the development of the aims and objectives of the programme and all decisions about the programme are discussed at the steering group meetings and decisions are made through a consensus approach. They review and discuss any continuous improvements and evaluation activities as well as providing insight from their respective professions and disciplines. The Steering Group meets on a regular basis, when the programme was in development, the meetings were monthly, and this changed to bi-monthly meetings when the first cohort was launched, quarterly after the first year and twice yearly following the completion of the first year of the programme. This is due to the programme running ‘business as usual’ from this stage onwards. Programme impact and participant experience NIHR is committed to the ongoing formative and summative evaluation of the mentoring programme. This second focuses on the summative

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  65 interview analysis of the first mentoring programme cohort. Cohort 1 interviews were conducted between 7 June and 8 July 2022. The interviews were conducted online over Zoom by an External Mentoring Consultant. The approved transcriber produced 99 pages of transcription across 5 matched pair interviews, ranging between 7 pages and 14 pages per interview. The External Mentoring Consultant prepared initial matched pair case studies. Each case study summarised the transcript content, including mentor and mentee profile, relationship focus, reflections on the mentoring relationship and perceived value. A second External Mentoring Consultant prepared matched pair interview summaries and the internal evaluation report. Drivers for joining the programme The mentees viewed the NIHR Mentoring Programme as an opportunity to learn from a researcher within their field of practice, an opportunity to experience formal mentoring, consider career progression and transition and improve work-life balance. The mentors viewed the NIHR Mentoring Programme as an opportunity to share experience, expertise and support colleagues who are keen to progress their research careers in the field of health and social care. Mentoring relationship focus Through the programme evaluation, mentees and mentors described that the overall focus of their mentoring relationship was career planning and progression, building capacity for fellowship applications, research funding and outputs, networking and building relationships, navigating the academic environment including politics and self-presentation, managing work-life balance and leadership development. Perceived value of the mentoring and programme The NIHR Mentoring Programme has had a significant impact on the mentees at both personal and professional levels. Professional: as early career professionals, the mentoring conversation with experienced senior practitioners has helped mentees to explore career options and seek guidance on the next stage of their career. Some mentees expressed that they felt hugely supported in their career transition and learnt ways of networking, applying for research grants, managing the work environment, building collaborative relationships and leadership capacity. Personal: at a personal level, the mentoring increased their self-confidence, awareness of self-care and managing work-life balance practices.

66  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon Mentees have described how the mentoring has supported them in both the career and psychosocial space: • “My mentoring experience has been fantastic. My mentor has helped me to recognise my worth and has gently encouraged me to stretch outside of my comfort zone.” • “Having the opportunity to discuss my career with an experienced academic has been very valuable. I appreciated the time given and the support received so far. Having a mentor outside my institution has been very beneficial as it created a safe space for me to open up about various concerns.” • “My mentor connected me with other Clinical Academics in my clinical community. They also shared their experience of other colleagues who have crafted a career similar to the one I am aiming for.” • “A perspective from someone who is neither in my area nor my institution with whom I can discuss things that I can’t talk about with my immediate work colleagues.” The NIHR Mentoring Programme has enabled mentors to build their emotional intelligence and develop their own self-insight around the holistic practice of mentoring, supporting their mentees’ personal and professional development, including confidence building, leadership positioning and self-presentation, successfully navigating a postdoctoral career. The formalisation of the mentoring relationships and the accompanying training and continuous professional development webinars were viewed as effective learning and reflective spaces by several mentors. As most of the mentor–mentee matches are across interdisciplinary health research areas, mentors also widened their knowledge and gained further insights into new areas of work. For mentors, the benefits have been broad, encompassing a sense of personal satisfaction, development of key mentoring skills and connectivity: • “Keeps me grounded within the wider clinical academic community.” • “Supporting someone else in a more junior research career position.” • “Exposure to diverse scenarios that collectively contribute to my mentoring approach.” • “Help me to improve my people skills and active listening.” • “Feels positive that can help someone struggling with issues.” • “Interesting to see what barriers exist in career progression and how others view/react to them.”

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  67 • “I think it has been useful to reflect on my own mentoring practice and experiences. The relationship provides a useful mirror as well!” The survey and matched pair interview evaluation data highlight that the mentoring programme and the mentoring relationships are having a significant impact on both the mentee and mentor learning and growth and addressing key topics. Lessons learned for others and future intentions With any mentoring programme, particularly in the early phases, there are numerous lessons learned. The learnings fall into three categories: (1) the application of a mentoring platform and its practical usage, (2) the design of action learning sets for mentors to support their reflective practice and (3) the ability to attend CPD sessions in the current climate and work pressures. To address the issues raised by programme participants, the programme team reviewed the use of the mentoring platform and its application. Key changes in relation to the content and delivery of the CPD provision include: • The inclusion of in-person training events, in addition to the ongoing provision of online CPD webinars for mentees and mentors • The addition of topic specific CPD webinars for work-life balance, resilience, reflective practice, ethics, diversity and inclusion and transitioning from mentee to mentor • The creation of a peer mentoring group for mentees to meet and network • The adaptation of action learning to peer mentoring for all participants • The provision of greater variation of formats and timings to support access to CPD for mentors and mentees. The NIHR Mentoring Programme team will be looking to further develop and continually improve the programme in the financial year 2023/2024 to ensure that it supports the strategic goals of the organisation. To read more: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/academy-programmes/ nihr-leaders-support-and-development-programme.

68  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon Case Study: Reciprocal mentoring for equity, diversity and inclusivity: the case of ODTÜMİST Mentoring Programme(s) for METU Graduates in Turkey Aslı Kandemir and Hande Karabatak-Binns Introducing METU The METU Alumni Association in Istanbul (ODTÜMİST) provides mentoring with METU students and graduates. METU is a statefunded research university that accepts applicants with high academic achievement. Following the National University Entrance Examination (NUEE) (ÖSYM, 2022), METU currently accommodates approximately 27,000 national and 1,700 international students. With English as the medium of instruction, it achieves high employability records for graduates (METU, 2022). However, there is still a need to enhance METU students’ ability to navigate the personal and professional life (Gannon & Maher, 2012). METU’s strong alumni associations play a significant mediator role as third-sector organisations in order to achieve this employability goal through mentors’ accumulated capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Clutterbuck et al., 2017). The mentoring programmes are supported with mentors’ accumulated capital in education, life and industry experience that enables mentees to have a meaningful student experience, to facilitate their career development and to co-produce an equitable, diverse and inclusive Turkish society. Similarly, for mentors, these programmes offer reciprocal learning and a life-fulfilling experience. Overall, it creates an open dialogue between different generations and people in different life stages. This case outlines the reciprocal mentoring nature of the ODTÜMİST mentoring programmes offering detailed information about them and providing insights into their development. Reciprocal mentoring Mentoring can essentially be defined as guidance within the different axes of education, development and social change (Bonneywell & Gannon, 2021; Clutterbuck et al., 2017; Kamarudin et al., 2020). Those axes intersect within the educational context as teaching (Garvey et al., 2014; Stokes et al., 2020), the professional context as performance enhancement (Bull & Stokes, 2020; Gannon & Maher, 2012) and the social context as ‘a project of freedom’ (Giroux, 2011). Hence, mentoring supports self-reflection, self-management and self-awareness of mentors and mentees from all backgrounds (Bull & Stokes, 2020). These aspects position mentoring as a developmental intervention, between mentor(s) and mentee(s), for vocational, psychosocial and prosocial improvements (Eissner & Gannon, 2018).

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  69 These moral and practical aspects of mentoring can also bring reciprocity, in which such developmental interventions are two-dimensional and heterarchical (Bull & Stokes, 2020; Round, 2021). As Bull and Stokes (2020) argue, reciprocal mentoring sits on three key concepts: reflection, critique and culture, which require such heterarchy (Round, 2021). Reflection aims to achieve development, being directed towards the self (of mentors and mentees), the organisation or the society and upholds effective analysing rather than blaming as to generate an inclusive mentoring culture (Bull & Stokes, 2020). This reflective and heterarchical approach also enables the exploration of power structures and struggles in personal, professional and social relations, which render the mentoring culture more egalitarian, empowering and dynamic and operate for a societal impact (Gannon & Maher, 2012; Salter & Gannon, 2015). In the ODTÜMİST mentoring programmes, these aspects make mentoring reciprocal with a wider purpose of supporting equity, diversity and inclusivity. It is an opportunity of mutual learning, experience sharing and empowering (Round, 2021). Hence, this chapter uses the below operational definition of reciprocal mentoring, which is a developmental co-creation that rests on a heterarchical, liberating and mutual learning partnership. The ODTÜMİST mentoring programmes ODTÜMİST began mentoring in 2015 with three programmes, and the fourth programme was added in 2021 due to the need to support immigrant graduates (see Figure 4.2 below). ODTÜMİST, as a third-sector organisation, has close ties with public and private sectors. 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

2015-16

2016-17 Career

2017-18 Peer

2018-19 Work and Life

2019-20

2020-21

Work and life UK

Figure 4.2  Number of mentoring matches in 2015–2022.

2021-22

70  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon Infrastructure of the programmes ODTÜMİST operates its programmes for all METU students and alumni within a threefold infrastructure (ODTÜMİST, 2022). Stage 1 involves administrative preparation and the call for applicants. Once preparation is completed, applicants are invited to participate via ODTÜMİST’s online communication platforms, email lists and social media accounts. Following applications, both applicant mentors and mentees are interviewed to understand their competence and suitability for the programmes. Interviews are held by experienced mentors who develop, monitor and run the programmes and volunteers for interviewing using a checklist and semi-structured questionnaires. As long as applicants meet the eligibility criteria set out by ODTÜMİST, candidates are asked to create an account in Mentorlink, a software programme for matching. This is followed by training for mentors, which equips them with foundational mentoring skills, informs them about the programmes’ ethical codes and introduces them to materials on effective mentoring. A professional third party delivers the training through a virtual learning environment – Canvas. Training, accredited by the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC), is delivered in the first month. Educational seminars are delivered throughout the year for continuous development, and the mentoring competencies set out by International Coaching Federation (ICF) and EMCC are shared. Later, mentees are trained by the third party regarding the code of conduct and orienteered by ODTÜMİST about requirements of mentoring and evaluation. The programmes’ teaching materials are perpetually reviewed and revised by both the third party and ODTÜMİST’s programme coordination team. Stage 2 is where reciprocal mentoring materialises. First, the initial algorithmic matches are carried out by the Mentorink based on the profiles created on the platform. The programmes’ coordination team becomes involved in the matching process and ensures these matches are appropriate in terms of their reciprocal nature by taking certain characteristics of mentors and mentees into account. Those include under-/ postgraduate degrees studied at METU, sectors in which both mentors and mentees work, age balance, gender balance and the motivation mentioned in the interviews underpinning mentors’ and mentees’ participation in the programmes. If matches are not sufficiently reciprocal, the team further discusses other candidates to achieve matches that are more appropriate manually. Mentoring sessions begin after matches are made and pairs will have a maximum of ten meetings. Mentors and mentees determine the time intervals of their meetings with recommended guidelines, of certain tasks to be undertaken before and after each session outlined. One task is to register the content of the session into the virtual log within participants’

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  71 personal accounts on Mentorink. This is a secure platform compliant with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and supports the efficacy of mentoring, offering opportunities for further improvement in design and operation (Stokes & Merrick, 2013). Stage 3 comprises evaluation of the programmes for the given mentoring year and consists of in-/end-of year surveys with questionnaires and open-ended questions. Upon the submission of in-year evaluations, an interim meeting for improvement is organised, and both mentors and mentees are informed about the results. If there are mismatches, or dysfunctional areas in the programmes in terms of reciprocal mentoring, they are revised. Following the end-of-year evaluations, the same process follows including the final meeting. The programme coordination team, consisting of a general programme coordinator (GPC), programme coordinators (PCs) for individual programmes and other team members representing each programme, retains the results and suggestions to be reflected on to the next mentoring year. There are also group coordinators (GCs), who communicate with mentors–mentees and monitor the in/complete sessions. If there are any obstacles experienced, mentors and mentees inform GCs, GCs inform PCs and PCs inform the coordination team to openly discuss and overcome difficulties. Funding of the programmes are sustained by both alumni donations and membership fees as well as sponsorships. Mentors are also encouraged to make a small donation to contribute to their training. Overall, a mentoring year takes place between September/October and May of each academic year. Below, in Figure 4.3, is a summary of these stages.

Stage 1: Preparation Administration Call for applicants Training

Stage 2: Execution Matching Goal setting for reciprocal learning/sharing and rapport building Interim evaluation

Figure 4.3  Mentoring programmes’ stages.

Stage 3: Evaluation Summative evaluation Final meeting with mentors-mentees Recording of outcomes

72  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon Outcomes of the programmes Since 2017, the end-year feedback has been collected and analysed with a 5-point Likert scale between 1 – Strongly Disagree and 5 – Strongly Agree. Evaluation mainly aims to monitor mentor–mentee satisfaction to improve the reciprocal nature of the programmes. As Table 4.1 shows, reciprocal mentoring has been achieved by mutually benefitting mentors–mentees in terms of their vocational and psychosocial expectations. The evaluation results show that they learn from each other and are significantly satisfied with the mentoring relationship. It encourages them to reach their goals set in Stage 2. Table 4.1 presents the mean scores of the results of the analysis. The data show that mentors’ and mentees’ personal and professional developments are well-supported, helping their self-making and selfawareness processes. This mutuality does not only serve for the reciprocity aimed in these programmes but also nurture other dimensions of equity and inclusivity as mentors and mentees are from all backgrounds. Likewise, these statistical data were supported with mentors’ and mentees’ narratives unearthing how reciprocal mentoring operates in ODTÜMİST’s programmes. Findings of cluster analysis demonstrate that there are five common themes in narrated responses. Within the ranking of significance, those include (overall) satisfaction with the programme(s), satisfaction with mentoring relationship, increased self-awareness, satisfaction with the content of the programme(s) and (positive) impact on (mentees’) career. When mentors and mentees were asked in 2018–2019 as to what the best aspect of their mentoring relationship was, there were mentees who stated that it was their mentors’ encouragement and never-ending support through experience sharing rather than a one-dimensional/hierarchic instruction giving that Table 4.1  Mentoring programme evaluation Mentoring Number of Number of Question 1 programme respondents responders How satisfied (mentees) (mentors) are you with the year programme?

2020–2021 108 2018–2019 42 2017–2018 25

108 42 25

Question 2 The match in our mentoring partnership is meaningful and useful (strongly agree or agree %)

Question 3 Am I satisfied with the personal development and learning experience I have achieved with the mentoring programme? (strong agree or agree %)

Mentee Mentor Mentee Mentor Mentee

Mentor

96 96 91

96.3 80 86

98 87 91

93.5 94 96

98 90 95

97.2 94 95

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  73 mattered. In addition, the rapport that was built at the outset of the relationship enabled and empowered them to self-reflect and self-realise within a heterarchical understanding of mentoring. Below are some excerpts from mentee narratives. • [The best aspect] is to have such a genuine and understanding mentor. They don’t try to manage me. We have a developing relationship in a respectful and loving manner (Mentee 1, Career, 2018–2019, In-Year Evaluation Survey). • [The best aspect] is to not be the only one who learns (Mentee 2, Career, 2018–2019, In-Year Evaluation Survey). Similarly, mentors responded to the same question in 2018–2019 with self-exploration through mentees’ self-developments and personal choices, learning youth perspectives and communication techniques and gaining updated insights about METU. Due to limitations in space in this case, below presents only a number of narrated mentor statements from the in-year evaluation survey of the 2018–2019 career mentoring. • Different priorities, different perspectives, marks of another era’s person that stayed with me (Mentor 1) • It’s been informative for me too, in terms of self-exploration and selfdevelopment (Mentor 2). • I have also learnt from my mentee; [the best aspect was that] it wasn’t a one-dimensional flow of information (Mentor 3). • Reciprocal mentoring has always made me feel good. Shall we organise a workshop just on that next year? (Mentor 4) • [The best aspect was] the preparations, steering the life choices of one of my METU fellows – a brother – and learning from him in return. Also, being able to see what impact I leave with what I say and how I say it gives me a ‘polishing’ effect for my professional development (Mentor 5). These examples of narrated mentor–mentee statements illustrate reciprocal mentoring with its undercurrents such as enabling, liberating and empowering elements (Eissner & Gannon, 2018; Salter & Gannon, 2015). While mentees grow vocationally and psycho-socially, mentors are better informed about mentees’ current life stages and future power struggles within the wider society, albeit indirectly. These findings support the prosocial element in reciprocal mentoring (Gannon & Maher, 2012) as well as professional development as a co-created developmental intervention.

74  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon Conclusion This case suggests what reciprocal mentoring is and how it manifests in the ODTÜMİST mentoring programmes. Using both survey data and narrated responses, we find that reciprocity along with equity and inclusivity is ensured in the programmes. Both mentors and mentees evidently feel safe and confident to have open, honest and inclusive knowledge and experience sharing; develop awareness about themselves and others; and employ their critical agency. They internalise mutual learning and reflect it on the co-creation of freedom and equality (Bull & Stokes, 2020; Freire, (2005[1970]); Giroux, 2011; Murphy, 2012). Participants co-develop a mentoring culture which facilitates socialisation of students into industry and leaves them with the virtuous circle of reciprocity (Eissner & Gannon, 2018). This chapter concludes that the reciprocal nature of ODTÜMİST’s mentoring programmes at the outset is effective as it enables equal representation in, and co-production of, solidarity among METU students/graduates in and out of industry. Indeed, this approach has contributed to the programmes’ accreditation application, which has been recently awarded with a Gold Medal by EMCC. Hence, the programmes indicate a strong future benefitting both mentees–mentors, organisations as well as the society. Key themes across third-sector organisations’ reciprocal mentoring case studies Reviewing our three case studies, we became aware of the recurrent themes cutting across these examples. Three themes we draw attention to here are the role of shared values at the organisational and mentoring initiative levels, the opportunities for contemporary knowledge sharing and how these are underpinned by ‘generativity’ (Erikson, 1978). The concept of ‘generativity’ is strongly associated with mentoring activity (Levinson, 1978; Moberg & Velasquez, 2004; Ragins & Scandura, 1994). According to Erikson (1978) on one level, ‘generativity’ is the strong human desire to procreate, but it is also about bringing on, influencing and supporting other people. Garvey et al. (1996: 13) argue, “Mentoring is one way to satisfy the deep-seated desire to leave an impression on the world, which is recognized as a characteristic of mature adulthood.” In Levinson’s terms (1978) ‘generativity’ is seen to contribute to the mentor’s motivation to mentor; however, our examples suggest this is also the case for those who might be typically seen in the mentee role. However, the traditional notion of generativity involves a more mature mentor leaving an impression on ‘newer’ or younger generations. This is something we question as part of our analysis of our cases; instead, suggesting generativity can have a wider bidirectional character in evolved examples of reciprocal mentoring. In Table 4.2, we summarise the themes as they arise across our three case organisations from the third sector. First, we can see a strong set of values which

ODTÜMİST • Mentoring Programme(s) for METU Graduates

•

•

•

NIHR

• Support employees and realise career goals • Support women leaders • Develop inter-regional connections • Develop potential Interdisciplinary learning – • Professional development across disciplines multi-professional and • Enhancing interdiscicollaborative plinary research Active engagement across • Equality, inclusivity various stakeholders and diversity across Diversity of knowledge and healthcare research practices, professional and personal development • Dialogue between Education, personal and professional development generations • Opportunities for professional enhancement • Diversity issues to be tackled across society

• Humanitarian relief

Features of generativity

• Knowledge and experi- • Mutuality – engaging with ence sharing to supsocial struggles and across port graduate careers life stages and wider society • Self-awareness and understanding that is brought into wider personal and professional experiences • Mutual development

• Knowledge sharing via • Building capacity for further interdisciplinary collaborative, multiresearch in healthcare professional approaches • Awareness of self-care and to research wider work-life balance is• Upskilling of sues beyond the personal researchers

• Building pilot mentoring • Build local capability and leadership capacity initiative in a regional area • Exchange good prac- • Develop capabilities and tice and enhance empowerment knowledge transfer

Priority values of organisation Priority values of mentoring Knowledge sharing initiative

SAVE the Children

Case study organisation

Table 4.2  Themes across the three third-sector reciprocal mentoring cases

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  75

76  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon underpin each organisation and that formally connect and commit members to the organisations cause. This sense of shared values within the organisations is seen in the humanitarian relief commitment of SAVE, the interdisciplinary learning of NIHR and the values of personal and professional development for graduates as espoused by ODTUMIST. Each organisation also emphasises the purpose of their mentoring initiative as strongly aligned to delivering their wider organisational goals and reinforcing their values. In the case of ODTUMIST, the priorities of professional enhancement, nurturing diversity and dialogues between generations are evident. By contrast, the NIHR emphasises the remit of the mentoring initiative as professional development across professional boundaries, interdisciplinary research and again, enhancing diversity, inclusivity and equality. Finally, the SAVE mentoring initiative is based upon the values of support and development for women, locals and enhancing professional development and potential. That all three cases have a diversity dimension to the priority values of their mentoring initiative reinforces the way reciprocal mentoring specifically can engage with social change (Round, 2021). In terms of the theme of knowledge sharing, the three third-sector cases underline issues of sharing good practice, multi-collaborative research knowledge and understanding as well as career success amidst societal and educational changes within mentoring partnerships. Mentoring as a reciprocally focused activity facilitates knowledge sharing and highlights the value of being open to lifelong learning and development. From these initial analyses, we speculate that commonly held values in organisations that underpin mentoring initiative examples offer a way of engaging again with Erikson’s (1978) ‘generativity’ concept. The three third-sector reciprocal mentoring cases presented here highlight that generativity works both ways where mentor dyads demonstrate a desire to share their contemporary knowledge and insights (whether that is in humanitarian relief, graduate career success, diversity and inclusivity or collaborative research approaches) and are committed to the values of the organisation and its values and longterm ambitions. Whether we can see a generational dimension to the evolution of generativity as a concept where younger generations have a deep-seated aspiration to leave an impression on the world, or even create a better world, is unclear and deserves further research attention. It could be that reciprocal mentoring has appeared as a feature of these generational differences and inclinations creating the conditions for reciprocity and extending our understanding of generativity. Acknowledgement We would like to thank ODTÜMİST, METU-UK Alumni Association and the entire programme coordination team for their encouragement and Ms. Hüray Böke and Ms. Çiğdem Cengiz for their immense support and facilitation in this chapter.

Reciprocal mentoring in the third sector  77 References Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Postdoctoral researchers: roles, functions and career prospects. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), pp. 21–40. Alred, G. & Garvey, B. (2019). The mentoring pocket book (4th ed.). Arlesford, Hants: Management Pocket Book Series, Arlesford Press Ltd. Bach-Mortensen, A. M., Lange, B. C. & Montgomery, P. (2018). Barriers an facilitators to implementing evidence-based interventions among third sector organisations: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 13(1), pp. 1–19. Bonneywell, S. & Gannon, J. (2021). Maximising female leader development through simultaneous individual and group coaching. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 15(2), pp. 180–196. Bourdieu, P. (1986). ‘The forms of capital’, in J. G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 231–258. Bull, M. & Stokes, P. (2020). Creating a coaching culture through reflective practice to reduce organisational blame culture. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching, 12(1). Clutterbuck, D. (2004). Everyone needs a mentor (4th ed.). London: CIPD. Clutterbuck, D. A., Kochan, F., Lunsford, L. G., Dominguez, N. & Haddock-Millar, J. (2017). The SAGE handbook of mentoring. London: SAGE. Eissner, S. & Gannon, J. (2018). Experiences of mentoring in the UK hospitality sector. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 17(3), pp. 296–313. Erikson, E. H. (1978). Adulthood. New York: Norton. Freire, P. (2005[1970]). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York and London: The Continuum International Publishing Group. Gannon, J. M. & Maher, A. (2012). Developing tomorrow’s talent: the case of an undergraduate mentoring programme. Education and Training, 54(6), pp. 440–455. Garvey, B., Alred, G. & Smith, R. (1996). A first person mentoring. Career Development International, 1(5), pp. 10–14. Garvey, B., Stokes, P. & Megginson, D. (2014). Coaching and mentoring: theory and practice. London: Sage. Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York and London: The Continuum International Publishing Group. Hafsteinsdóttir, T. B., Schoonhoven, L., Hamers, J. & Schuurmans, M. J. (2020). The leadership mentoring in nursing research program for postdoctoral nurses: a development paper. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 52(4), pp. 435–445. Hafsteinsdóttir, T. B., van der Zwaag, A. M. & Schuurmans, M. J. (2017). Leadership mentoring in nursing research, career development and scholarly productivity: a systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 75, pp. 21–34. Kamarudin, M. binti, Kamarudin, A. Y. binti, Darmi, R. binti, & Saad, N. S. binti M. (2020). A Review of coaching and mentoring theories and models. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 9(2), pp. 289–298. Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of man’s life. New York: Knopf. METU (2022) Aday Öğrenci (University Applicant) [online]. Middle East Technical University/METU. Available from: https://adayogrenci.metu.edu.tr/?campus= ankara#research. Moberg, D. J. & Velasquez, M. (2004). The ethics of mentoring. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(1), pp. 95–122.

78  Bob Garvey and Judie Gannon Murphy, W. (2012). Reverse mentoring at work: fostering cross-generational learning and developing millennial leaders. Human Resource Management, 51(4), pp. 549–573. ODTÜMİST (2022). Mentorluk programı (mentoring programme) [online]. ODTÜMİST. Available from: https://odtumist.org/mentorluk/. Omary, M. B., Shah, Y. M., Schnell, S., Subramanian, S., Swanson, M. S. & O’Riordan, M. X. (2019). Enhancing career development of postdoctoral trainees: act locally and beyond. The Journal of Physiology, 597(9), p. 2317. ÖSYM (2022). Ölçme, Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi Hakkında (About the Centre for Assessment, Selection and Placement). ÖSYM. Available from: https://www.osym. gov.tr/. Ragins, B. R. & Scandura, T. A. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), pp. 957–971. Ranieri, V., Barratt, H., Fulop, N. & Rees, G. (2015). Clinical academics’ postdoctoral career development. BMJ, 351(1), p. 20. Ranieri, V., Barratt, H., Fulop, N. & Rees, G. (2016). Factors that influence career progression among postdoctoral clinical academics: a scoping review of the literature. BMJ Open, 6(10), p. e013523. Round, S. (2021). Can reciprocal mentoring as a progressive tool contribute to creating shared understanding of women’s career equality challenges?, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, S15, pp. 260–269. Salamon, L. M. & Sokolowski, S. W. (2016). Beyond nonprofits: re-­conceptualizing the third sector. Voluntas, 27, pp. 1515–1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266016-9726-z. Salter, T. & Gannon, J. M. (2015). Exploring shared and distinctive aspects of coaching and mentoring approaches through six disciplines. European Journal of Training and Development, 39(5), pp. 373–392. Stokes, P., Diochon, P. F. & Otter, K. (2020). “Two sides of the same coin?” Coaching and mentoring and the agentic role of context. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Special Issue: Mentoring: Theoretical Background, Empirical Findings, and Practical Applications, pp. 1–11. Stokes, P. & Merrick, L. (2013). ‘Designing mentoring schemes for organisations’, in J. Passmore, D. B. Peterson, & T. Freire (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring (1st ed.). Chichester: Wiley, pp. 197–216. Van der Weijden, I., Teelken, C., de Boer, M. & Drost, M. (2016). Career satisfaction of postdoctoral researchers in relation to their expectations for the future. Higher Education, 72(1), pp. 25–40.

5 Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 education sector Nora Dominguez

Introduction The PK-12 educational sector includes students, teachers, and administrators in the school grades before college. It encompasses elementary and secondary education, and in the United States (U.S.), it includes early childhood (pre-kindergarten), elementary school (kindergarten to 5th grades), middle school (6th–8th grades), and high school (9th–12th grades). This foundational educational sector provides the essential knowledge and skills for college and workplace success. It also prepares young people for the challenges of adulthood and their obligations to their communities. Worldwide, the PK-12 educational system is considered compulsory. In 2014, approximately 1.29 billion students were enrolled in PK-12 (SDG 4 Data Digest, 2018). The U.S. PK-12 system comprises 128,961 schools, with 54.2 million students and employs 3.5 million teachers (NCES, 2022). Despite the importance of education for both personal and worldwide economic development, 617 million children and adolescents are unable to read or handle basic mathematics, creating a global dropout crisis due to lack of access, failure to keep students on track, and issues of quality in education (SDG 4 Data Digest, 2018). In addition, the world is experiencing a teacher shortage crisis due to the lack of training and unattractive work environments, exacerbated by post-pandemic teacher attrition, with 69 million teachers needed to achieve universal primary education by 2030 (UNESCO, 2022). While global educational issues are complex, we draw from the cases presented in this chapter to alleviate some of these problems. Reciprocal mentoring initiatives and relationships assist in easing diversity disparities that increase children’s likelihood of incarceration, increase community engagement, and improve teachers’ working environments. In this chapter, we explore the design of reciprocal mentoring initiatives addressing these challenges at the micro-level. The PK-12 educational sector context Mentoring is a complex phenomenon, and it depends on the context, the purpose of the relationship, and the participant’s values and competencies. DOI: 10.4324/9781003302537-5

80  Nora Dominguez Despite multiple and competing definitions of mentoring, many scholars agree that mentoring is, first and foremost, a relationship that implies a partnership to facilitate learning and growth (Dominguez, 2017), making the educational sector a natural context for mentoring relationships to grow and flourish. Mutuality has been considered an essential element for the success of this developmental relationship. While mentors, mentees, and organizations benefit from establishing mentoring relationships, Allen and Eby (2007) consider them reciprocal but asymmetrical since they are primarily established for the mentee’s benefit. In addition, many studies assumed that the effectiveness of a mentoring relationship depended on the amount of assistance provided, focusing on how different characteristics of the protege, the mentor, and the mentor–protege relationship accounted for variation in the quality of mentoring received. Some scholars claim that true mentors provide high career and psychosocial support. In contrast, others recognized that additional support is needed for the mentee’s success, such as coaching sponsorship, networking, and role modeling (Dominguez, 2017). Furthermore, Ragins et al. (2017) concluded that mentoring satisfaction depended on the quality of the psychosocial or relational functions offering opportunities for mutual learning, growth, and discovery. Given the complexity of the organizational environment, we acknowledge that a single mentor cannot provide all the guidance, exposure, and opportunities essential to managing current educational, job, and leadership challenges effectively. In educational settings, individuals receive mentoring assistance from many people at any time, including teachers, advisors, counselors, senior colleagues, peers, family, and community members. Therefore, the hierarchical one-to-one mentoring paradigm has shifted. The mentee has changed from being a passive receiver to becoming an active learner; the mentor role has evolved from being an authority to becoming a facilitator of learning; and the learning process has changed from mentor-directed to self-directed and from face to face to multiple and varied opportunities and configurations (Zachary, 2009). Most important, the focus of the relationship has changed from the transfer of information to the co-creation of knowledge through critical reflection (Dominguez, 2017). The reciprocal nature of mentoring has been explored as a critical element for establishing high-quality mentoring relationships. These relationships are not just mutually beneficial; in high-quality, reciprocal mentoring relationships, members experience a strong emotional attachment to each other and their relationship; they develop trust through a process of disclosure and authenticity; they increase their emotional intelligence and relational savvy; and members give support to each other based on their needs because they care for the well-being of their partner, not because they expect something in return (Kram, 2008; Kram & Higgins, 2009). In PK-12, one-to-one, hierarchical mentoring relationships have been extensively studied, indicating positive outcomes in youth’s social and emotional

Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector  81 development, academic performance, and behaviors. However, this approach has insufficiently addressed school disparities and educational attainment due to the lack of qualified mentors, volunteer mentors’ attrition, power differentials, and scarcity of mentors from underrepresented populations. Group and near-peer-mentoring approaches, designed for the establishment of mutually beneficial partnerships among middle-/high-school students and pre-service teachers, have yielded increased positive outcomes in school connectedness, social and emotional development, improved academic attitudes, and community engagement for youth, as well as increased understanding of students and the community and changed attitudes toward teaching for pre-service teachers (Harwood & Radoff, 2009). Reciprocal mentoring relationships alleviate issues in teacher education and the work environment by increasing pre-service teachers’ self-confidence, engagement, sense of belonging, and perception of being valued and respected. In studying graduate residencies, Paris (2010) concluded that reciprocal mentoring assists the development of pre-service teachers by pairing two skilled professionals with complementary skill sets and needs, increasing the likelihood of both parties acting as mentor and mentee since they have something valuable to offer the other. Reciprocal mentoring initiatives also convey a commitment to the teachers’ success and leadership development by “including purposeful mentoring activities, assigning committed mentors, and providing a periodic assessment of the mentoring arrangements positions the principal as a catalyst for the realization of teacher professional competence” (Tillman, 2003, p. 233). In this chapter, we showcase three examples of mentoring initiatives supporting the learning, growth, and development of students and teachers, in which the reciprocal nature of the relationships positively affected the lives of their participants. In the first case, Witmer and Wimer present a middle school program created to decrease the incarceration likelihood of underrepresented youth by pairing Black men with sixth-grade students. While the program follows a hierarchical approach, a serendipitous outcome develops when novice and seasoned mentors learn from each other by sharing their life experiences and engaging in community-building activities. In the second case, Witmer addresses the reciprocal nature of near-peer mentoring relationships among white college student mentors (pre-service teachers) and middle/high-school mentees from underrepresented backgrounds, in which both mentors and mentees engage in cross-cultural relationships resulting in increased cultural competence, awareness of unconscious bias, and inequities for the pre-service teachers and positive attitudes toward a college education for the mentees. Finally, in the third case, Cowin explains an innovative, pure-reciprocal mentoring initiative in which aspiring educational leaders (in-service teachers) participate in comentoring circles. The structured design of the program has raised the leadership opportunities of 76 aspiring leaders in the past 7 years.

82  Nora Dominguez Case Study: Serendipitous reciprocal mentoring effects on Black male mentors Miriam Marguerita Gomez Witmer and Jeffrey W. Wimer Educational disproportionality is a significant factor contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline, which promotes structural and systemic discrimination, resulting in certain groups of students being more at risk for prison. Black male students are issued more behavior referrals from teachers than other races. The Brotherhood is a middle-school mentoring program designed to address this disproportionality. Twelve Black men from the community, ages 24–62, agreed to serve as mentors to 13 Black males in one middle school. A control group (n = 34) was formed from the Black males who did not receive mentoring and attended two other middle schools in the same district. The two primary intended goals of the mentoring program were (1) mentees will progress successfully from sixth grade to seventh grade, and (2) mentees will have an increased sense of self-confidence and empowerment by the end of the program. These explicit objectives are protective factors that mitigate the disproportionality. Black male mentors provided authentic mentoring. Many mentors were raised in the same community as the mentees and shared similar experiences. Two groups of mentors emerged organically seasoned and novice. Some seasoned mentors are pillars of the community who have mentored some novice mentors. Novice mentors reported that they benefited from the seasoned mentors’ wisdom and life experiences. The seasoned mentors reported that they appreciated the novice mentors’ ability to relate to and gain trust with the mentees. This serendipitous effect resulted in reciprocal mentoring. Purpose and objectives of the mentoring program School-to-prison pipeline is a term that acknowledges that because of structural, systemic, institutional, and societal barriers that foster inequity, inequality, racism, and other forms of discrimination, certain students are destined for prison (Milner et al., 2019). Research shows that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. While the U.S. represents 5% of the world’s population, it accounts for roughly 25% of its prison population, and incarceration is disproportionally distributed across the population. People of Color (African American, Latino, and Native American) make up about 30% of the U.S. population but account for approximately 60% of the prison population (The Sentencing Project, 2017). Furthermore, a Black male in the U.S. has a one-in-three chance of going to prison in his lifetime. Educational disproportionality is a significant factor contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline, which promotes structural and systemic

Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector  83 discrimination, resulting in certain groups of students being more at risk for prison. In this case study, the school district identified that sixthgrade Black male students were issued more behavior referrals from teachers than other races. “The Brotherhood” is a middle-school mentoring program designed to address this disproportionality. The two primary intended goals of the mentoring program were (1) mentees will progress successfully from sixth grade to seventh grade, and (2) mentees will have an increased sense of self-confidence and empowerment by the end of the program. These explicit objectives are protective factors that mitigate the disproportionality. Mentoring context Black male mentors provided authentic mentoring. Many mentors were raised in the same community as the mentees and shared similar experiences. Two groups of mentors emerged organically seasoned and novice. Seasoned mentors are older, have a historical understanding of the Black experience, and are seen as wise. Some seasoned mentors are pillars of the community who have mentored some of the more novice mentors in the past. Novice mentors are typically younger and closer in age to mentees. Recognizing that multicultural education is an evolving process, participants’ voices and experiences must be addressed. To provide a space for this work, a focus group with the mentors was conducted ten days after the death of George Floyd. Nine mentors and four school personnel (i.e., Assistant Superintendent, Community Liaison, Home-School Coordinator, and the Principal from School C) participated. Three interview question prompts were provided to the participants before the meeting using a naturalistic case study inquiry approach (Merriam, 1998). The questions were as follows: (1) How are you feeling? (2) How do we respond to the mentees considering what is happening with the Black Lives Matter protests? (3) What is next? Video and audio of the meeting were recorded using the Zoom platform. Audio responses were then transcribed verbatim using Microsoft Word. Each participant’s transcribed responses were analyzed using a content analysis open-coding procedure to identify emergent themes. Data were organized according to each interview question to identify patterns (Glaser, 1992; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Analysis revealed two significant themes from the mentors: minority stress (Meyer et al., 2008) from recent lived experiences and the promotion of social activism as a strategy for societal change. Minority stress refers to the conflict with the social environment experienced by members of stigmatized minority groups. These stressors can affect the mental health of everyone in the community. The shared

84  Nora Dominguez lived experience of the Black Lives Matter protests happening in the mentors’ and mentees’ neighborhoods created symbiotic relationships between mentors and mentees. Mentors were asked to think about what they, as 12-year-olds, would need to hear to help them process these events. Changes in the curriculum were the outcome of this focus group, and the mentoring program became more cohesive. The new shared vision from the focus group unified the seasoned and novice mentors. Seasoned mentors often talked about respect in terms of older people deserving respect automatically. They reported that they learned different ways to establish relationships with mentees from novice mentors. For example, novice mentors believed that respect must be earned and can be earned in different ways. The seasoned mentors gained an awareness of the novice mentors’ approaches to building relationships with mentees. More entry points to communication with mentees regarding social media, music, and contemporary issues allowed the novice mentors to relate to their mentees and the seasoned mentors to witness other ways to meet them where they are. Rather than seasoned mentors only offering their own opinions and giving advice, they recognized that mentoring is about meeting the mentees where they are and knowing what they need. Reciprocal mentoring emerged between the seasoned and the novice mentors. Infrastructure, organizational support, and communication plan Twelve Black men from the community, ages 24–62, agreed to serve as mentors to 13 Black males in one middle school. A control group (n = 34) was formed from the Black males who did not receive mentoring and attended two other middle schools in the district. The program coordinator facilitated mentor–mentee sessions and provided a handout to the parents about the goals of each session. The mentor liaison was a staff member in the school who had direct contact with the mentees daily, and this position was critical to the success of the program. The home-school coordinator in the school was paramount in ordering food, reserving rooms for each session, and communicating with the families. Families who attended the sessions received information about the content of each session and resources to help their sons meet the program’s goals. Recruitment, selection, and matching strategies The school district Equity Design Team offered information sessions at local faith-based organizations and used word of mouth within the school district to recruit mentors. Interested mentors then attended a

Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector  85 mandatory four-hour mentor training. The school district paid for the mentors to get their clearances and paid mentors a stipend for their participation for one academic year; however, because of COVID-19, all mentors agreed to work with their mentees beyond the original end date. All sixth-grade Black males in the middle school were invited to an orientation meeting. Communication was sent home to parents, who then permitted their sons to participate. A speed mentoring activity, where mentees rotated around the room to engage with the trained mentors, was used to help make the mentor–mentee matches. Training and educational opportunities for mentors and mentees Mentors participated in a four-hour training, which included goals of the project, support for building relationships, an overview of the curriculum, and data about the demographics and developmental levels of the mentees. Mentees also participated in an orientation session, and if they were interested in the program (all but one agreed to participate), parents also attended an orientation meeting. Mentors were given the Critical Mentoring (Weiston-Serdan, 2017) book to read and use as a resource. The mentees all received and read We Beat the Streets: How a Friendship Pact Led to Success (Davis et al., 2006). The initial curriculum topics included: • • • • • • • • •

Building Our Community/Manners Power of Your Belief Making Good Choices Career and College Exploration Self-Esteem, Self-Advocacy, Self-Efficacy Black History Social Media and Our Reputation Celebration and Preparation for Summer Mentoring Activities Trip to the African American Museum in Washington, D.C. (families welcome)

After the lockdown from the pandemic and George Floyd’s murder, the curriculum was modified in response to the needs voiced by the mentees and the mentors. These changes included: • Local African American Heritage and History • Growth Mindset • Career Exploration • Black Lives Matter/Social Activism

86  Nora Dominguez • • • • •

Power of Public Speaking Police Officer Panel Celebration/Community Networking/New Middle School Building Black Military Veterans Choices: movie and discussions

Strategies to monitor and support the relationships Strategies to monitor and support the relationships included cohort meetings every other week. The original curriculum was designed to meet the mentees’ needs and capitalize on the mentors’ areas of expertise. Five mentors presented part of the sessions; for example, there were two sessions about Black military veterans and local Black history. Formative and summative evaluation Formative and summative evaluations of the mentoring program and the mentoring relationships were conducted throughout the program. Formative check-ins with mentors were done at each cohort session. At the end of the pilot program, mentors participated in exit interviews over Zoom. They provided feedback, and the researchers identified emerging themes and presented that information to the school district. At the end of each semester, the researchers assessed the mentees’ grades, attendance, and the number of discipline referrals. Funding of the mentoring program The school district funded the program coordinator’s position and the clearances for the mentors and provided all the operational funds for meals. The district also purchased the Critical Mentoring books for the mentors and the We Beat the Streets book for the mentees. Sustaining the mentoring program and plans for the future A final report of this one-year pilot program was presented to the school district, and recommendations were made. The mentoring program prepared mentors to maintain mentoring relationships beyond the one-year pilot program. Some, but not all, matches are still meeting regularly without formal programming. There are plans for expanding this model to a new middle school in the same school district serving sixth-grade Black females. Outcomes and lessons learned The COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter protests after George Floyd’s murder significantly impacted the program. Even

Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector  87 though the cohort mentoring sessions had to move to a remote format, the mentoring program still met regularly. A plan was developed with mentors and school personnel to support the mentees and their families best. It became clear that the Black male mentors also needed support during this time of racial unrest in the country. Meeting online was a real challenge for many reasons. However, the school provided the mentees’ families with pizza delivery, and the check-ins became even more critical as some families were experiencing food insecurity. Mentorship needs to be adaptive and clearly respond to the mentees’ needs, so the session curriculum changed in response to those needs. For example, one mentor suggested a photovoice project that all mentors and mentees could do to mark who they were at this time in history. Novice mentors reported that they benefited from the seasoned mentors’ wisdom and life experiences. The seasoned mentors reported that they appreciated the novice mentors’ ability to relate to and gain trust with the mentees. This serendipitous effect resulted in reciprocal mentoring, which unified the mentors to create a stronger bond.

Case Study: Color of Teaching Mentoring Program: cultural awareness as a reciprocal mentoring outcome Miriam Marguerita Gomez Witmer The Color of Teaching Mentoring Program (CoT) addresses a national disparity between teachers and students of color. The mission of CoT is to recruit and retain students of color in the field of education. Trained college student mentors serve middle- and high-school students interested in becoming an educator. The percentage of education majors of color is low, so often, White females make up most of the mentors in the program. The mentees in the program are mostly all students of color who attend nearby urban schools. The mentors often have yet to gain significant previous experience working with ethnically diverse students who have different lived experiences than them. College mentors participate in training addressing cultural competence and unconscious bias; however, they learn much more from first-hand experience working with their mentees of color. The mentors report that they learn so much from their mentees and that, as future teachers, this is very beneficial. The cultural mismatch that exists initially often dissipates as the mentors learn more about their mentees’ lives. The mentees report that they learn much about college life and how to access resources and advocate for themselves from their mentors. This reciprocal mentoring effect has great potential to support more equitable learning environments for all

88  Nora Dominguez students, particularly students of color because these White pre-service teachers are learning about cultural differences and inequities that exist in the education system directly from their mentees. Purpose and objectives of the mentoring program While the diversity of the PK-12 student population continues to increase, the diversity of the teaching workforce has not. Black students comprise about 15.3% of public-school students nationwide, but Black teachers represent only 6.7% of the teaching workforce (Riser-Kositsky, 2019). Latinx students are the fastest-growing underrepresented group in the U.S. Latinx students comprise 26.4% of the total U.S. school-age population (ages 3–17) but represent only 8.8% of the teacher workforce (Riser-Kositsky, 2019). The purpose of the CoT is to recruit and retain students of color in the field of education. The program is specifically designed to address the disparity between the number of students of color in the nation versus the low number of teachers of color. Representation and advocating for the teaching profession matter. One Black female mentor in the program noted, “Representation is key to diversity that suits all students with different backgrounds and conditions. As a student of color, I find it difficult to find a mentor that looks like myself and could provide similarities in experience.” Her observation articulates one of the fundamental issues with the lack of diversity in the teaching profession and the need to recruit more teachers and mentors of color. Mentoring context While the mission of CoT is to recruit and retain students of color in the field of education, most of the mentors are White females, which is consistent with the number of white teachers in the northeast geographical region. Mentees attend urban schools that provide 100% free and reduced lunch to all their students. Middle-school and high-school students in the program have either been nominated by a teacher, guidance counselor, or administrator, or themselves or their parents request enrolment. The predominantly White female mentors also hold leadership positions in the organization. Given that the mentors predominantly come from suburban or rural areas, many have yet to gain experience interacting with people of color living in urban areas. CoT allows them to mentor students of color and learn more about their lived experiences, which may impact them as developing teachers. While the primary purpose of the CoT Mentoring Program is to educate the mentees about college life, goal setting, and pursuing an

Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector  89 education degree, the mentors also learn from their mentees. The following mentors’ testimonials garnered from survey data express this reciprocal effect: One White female mentor stated, “CoT has given me resources and experience learning about different cultures. This has made me a better all-around person and given me the tools to continue to grow.” When asked about what she learned by being a mentor in CoT, one White female shared, “I have learned what it means to be a role model, to plan and organize with others in mind, how to communicate effectively, and above all, show kindness to all.” One White female shared the following when asked if CoT has impacted her perspective on students of color and, if so, how. She wrote, “Absolutely! I come from a predominantly white school district, and it opened my eyes to coming to [CoT] and seeing the extensive and beautiful celebration of diversity. Thanks to CoT I have learned how amazing it is to listen to peoples’ stories and learn how to have a conversation despite not being a student of color.” She also said, “I am more educated on the topic and importance of diversity and can share it with my friends and family so we can address people properly and include all.” This insight demonstrates the power of reciprocal mentoring and how this mentor’s perspective has changed, and her awareness may impact her future students of color. When asked about what impact being an officer has had, a White female mentor said, “Being an officer in color of teaching is the greatest honor and the best thing to brag about. I feel so lucky to have meaningful conversations with people who aren’t like me but accept me. I never get tired of hearing peoples’ stories and watching them bring everyone together.” Having opportunities to learn about different cultures is important for pre-service teachers who can impact societal views and behaviors regarding respecting all people. Another White female shared, “I learned to listen to others’ stories. I also learned to appreciate people from other backgrounds and advocate for change.” She also noted, “CoT has taught me more about students of color and the different barriers these individuals face that I, as a white individual, have not had to face.” CoTs impacted her “Being involved helped me see the gaps in our current education system. It has opened my eyes to other students and their experiences in education. CoT has taught me to advocate and be part of the change.” These realizations have clearly motivated this mentor to be a culturally responsive teacher who will fight for equity for all her students. To be knowledgeable about cultural expectations and differences is one thing but being motivated to take that knowledge to action is another. In this way, this mentor can be part of the solution to the racial divide that exists in our society.

90  Nora Dominguez Even though culturally relevant and sustaining mentoring is discussed during mentor training, sometimes the White mentors unknowingly engage in microaggressions and need to be made aware so that they can learn not to make the same mistakes in the future, especially in their future classrooms. Creating a safe environment where mentors and mentees can have honest conversations can help everyone to be more equitable and culturally sensitive. All mentors are encouraged to reflect on their unconscious biases honestly and ask questions that will help them grow as culturally responsive teachers. The mentoring program is more robust if everyone can share their honest feelings and learn from each other. Infrastructure, organizational support, and communication plan Brochures and applications are given to all middle-school and high-school guidance counselors in the urban schools participating in the program. Parental consent is secured, and mentees complete an information/interest form which is used for matching them with a mentor. This threetiered mentoring program begins with 7th–12th grade students securing a trained college student mentor. Cohort meetings of mentors and mentees occur twice a month during the academic year. Trained college mentors can get matched with faculty mentors as well. In this way, the college student can be both a mentor and be mentored, providing more mentoring support and an opportunity for more reciprocal mentoring. Open and honest communication is key to building a safe and validating environment for everyone and allowing everyone to grow together. Recruitment, selection, and matching strategies College students are invited to join the CoT Mentoring Program at campus organization fairs and class presentations made to education majors. Word of mouth on campus also draws some potential mentors to learn more. CoT is an approved student organization, so mentors interact and collaborate with other student organizations on campus. College student mentors are then required to submit clearances and participate in mentor training, after which mentors can be matched with mentees enrolled in the program. The biggest recruitment event for mentees is Teacher Ed Day. Highschool students take a tour of campus, hear from an inspiring keynote educator of color, participate in a roundtable discussion with mentors and other local educators of color, eat lunch in the dining hall, and interact with a panel of college students representing a variety of student organizations on campus. After the event, high-school students can request an application.

Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector  91 Training and educational opportunities All mentors participate in a mandatory 2.5-hour training which includes an overview of best practices in mentoring, details about the mission and goals of the CoT Mentoring Program, stages of mentoring, required paperwork, and culturally responsive practices (Ladson-Billings, 2014). Mentors and mentees are invited to present at academic conferences and participate in community service opportunities. These experiences help mentors and mentees gain confidence, strengthen relationships, and practice-building leadership skills. Another primary goal of the mentoring program is to support the retention of education majors. College student mentors have opportunities to participate in professional development, like conducting research and speaking at academic conferences. The mentors also take leadership positions and get experience organizing Teacher Ed Day. In addition, they organize a Scholastic Book Fair to raise money to purchase a new book for every child in a designated elementary school. Strategies to monitor and support the relationships Mentors are responsible for contacting their mentees weekly, via text or phone, to attend as many cohort meetings as they can with their mentees and have another individual meeting with them once a month. Mentors are asked to submit a record of how often they have met with their mentees at the end of each semester and a brief report about the general topics they discussed during their meetings. These data are then used to design the curriculum for the next semester to meet the mentees’ needs. At each mentor meeting, mentors share how everything is going with their mentees, and if support is needed, it is given immediately. Formative and summative evaluation Each semester all the officers in the organization talk about what went well and what changes they would like to see to strengthen the program. Collecting feedback from all mentoring constituents is vital to a deeper understanding of the program’s mission so that it can be more effective (Clutterbuck et al., 2012). Mentees are also invited to share feedback and recommend future activities for the mentoring cohort meetings. Since 2010, the program coordinator has collected data on the number of students who matriculate to the college and the number of students who earn their college degree and teacher certification. To date,

92  Nora Dominguez 43 high-school students involved in CoT have matriculated to the host university, and approximately 81 college students who participated in CoT have graduated with their teaching certificates. Thirty-eight college students have engaged in high-impact practices (research or speaking at academic conferences), and two undergraduate students in CoT have published a paper for a conference proceeding. All these outcomes support the recruitment and retention of students of color. Funding of the mentoring program CoT is funded through grants and support from the Dean of the College of Education and Human Services, both education departments at the college, and a partnership with the local urban school district. As more school districts partner with the program, they will also be asked to support CoT financially. Sustaining the mentoring program and plans for the future CoT is a student organization on campus, so in-person events were not permitted for a year because of COVID protocols, but the officers used Zoom to continue to meet. Now that organizations are allowed to meet on campus again, mentees have been engaging at a much higher rate. The mentoring program continues to grow, and now seven other school districts are requesting mentors for their students, so the program is expected to grow exponentially in the next few years. Many school districts see this as a “grow your own” program that will help them address the nation’s teacher shortage crisis. Outcomes and lessons learned Regarding reciprocal mentoring, the mentees learn about college life from their mentors, and the mentors learn cultural awareness from their mentees. Creating a safe space for the mentors and mentees and helping them to build trust can foster reciprocal mentoring. Many mentors report that they learn a lot from their mentees, and in this case, reciprocal mentoring could have a long-lasting effect on the mentors who are also pre-service teachers. This experience may help the pre-service teachers be more culturally responsive to their future students, which could be a valued outcome that impacts students of color who may feel supported and validated enough to pursue careers in education.

Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector  93 Case Study: Empowering one another: leadership lessons learned in co-mentoring circles Kathleen M. Cowin Co-mentoring circles offer aspiring PK-12 school leaders a safe, supportive, professional community to learn how to lead with others uniquely situated to understand today’s challenges of PK-12 school leadership. Circle members co-mentor each other through a structural approach that focuses on “collaboration, shared decision making, and systems thinking” (Kochan & Trimble, 2000, p. 20) and through “reciprocal teaching and learning” and examine issues of power within their mentoring relationships (Mullen, 2005, p. 25). Key to collaboration is a focus on systems thinking approach, whereby participants recognize the complexity of issues and take time before acting to use thoughtful inquiry and reflection. Co-mentoring circle members focus on mutual respect, appreciation, and attentive listening, in which the listener holds a space where the speaker can hear their ideas without interruption or advice-giving (Center for Courage and Renewal, 2022; Gibbs, 2006) and deep reflection (Arredondo-Rucinski, 2005; Rodgers, 2002). There are usually 12 or fewer participants in the circle, which is held within the internship seminar in a graduate-level leadership certification program. Establishing a safe, supportive, trusting, and professional co-mentoring circle takes several formation meetings. The circle is not a place for complaining, though empathy is often extended among the circle participants when listening to issues voiced by circle members. Over 76 interns have participated in co-mentoring circles over the past seven years, giving overwhelmingly positive assessments, with some circle members still meeting independently after program completion. Purpose, context, and tensions Time for mentoring aspiring PK-12 school leaders moving from veteran teachers, instructional coaches, or deans of students to their new role as PK-12 Principal Certification Interns (Interns) is in short supply in today’s complex schools. Over the past seven years, 76 Interns have participated in co-mentoring circles during their required Internship Seminar. Co-mentoring circles offer Interns a safe, supportive community to learn with others who are uniquely situated to understand the challenges in today’s schools. Co-mentoring circles provide a group of co-mentors to call on without waiting for an assigned mentor to be available. A “Circle” usually has 12 or fewer participants. The focus is to create trusting and supportive developmental relationships.

94  Nora Dominguez Interns have unique needs in their internships, with several tensions built into the relationship between the Intern and the school districtassigned Principal Intern Mentor (PIM). The PIM is usually also the Intern’s Principal in the Intern’s other role as teacher, instructional coach, or dean of students. One tension Interns expressed is concern over their PIM, seeing them as not knowing how to do something they have been assigned and looking unprepared for leadership. Another tension arises when Interns disagree with how their PIM wants a particular action handled. Even when the outcome of the assigned Internship task seemed successful, if the task was performed differently than how the PIM would have completed it, the PIM may call their performance into question. Yet another tension is that the PIM also serves as a gatekeeper to an Intern’s future employment as an administrator, as the PIM is a crucial recommendation writer and reference. An Intern’s ability to work collaboratively and collegially with their PIM can be critical to future employment. Tension also comes from the quality of feedback Interns receive. Often PIMs assign Interns tasks so that the PIM can move on to another task. If the PIM is not present to personally observe task completion, hearsay feedback from others may be used to evaluate the Intern’s work. Interns say it would be helpful if their PIM could observe their internship work and provide timely feedback. As their university-based mentor, I wanted to create a safe space to address these tensions, so I created the co-mentoring circle process and have been refining it for seven years. Program structure The co-mentoring circle was developed for PK-12 Principal Interns within the context of a university graduate Principal Certification Program. Interns attend the Internship Seminar once a month on Saturdays as a required component of their certification program. Ninety minutes of each required five-hour seminar is used for the co-­mentoring circle. There is no organizational or financial support for the co-mentoring circle program beyond using 90 minutes of the monthly Internship Seminar for the co-mentoring circle. There is no recruitment of participants for the co-mentoring circle as they are already students in the Principal Certification Program, attending the required monthly Internship Seminar. There is no matching as the Interns participate as co-mentors to each other within the circle. Communication about the structure of the co-mentoring circle is completed during the Internship Seminar and includes ten components used to form the comentoring circle.

Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector  95 Educational opportunities and curriculum description Interns are introduced to co-mentoring from the work of Kochan and Trimble (2000) and Mullen (2005). Mullen (2005) defines ­co-mentorship as when “individuals or groups proactively engage in reciprocal teaching and learning and transform power structures to honor egalitarianism” (p. 25). Mullen’s (2005) call for an examination of the power structures inherent in the mentoring relationship is foundational to the work of the co-mentoring circle, as is Kochan and Trimble’s (2000) examination of “collaboration, shared decision-making, and systems thinking” (p. 20). Interns are also introduced to the co-mentoring circle components. See Figure 5.1, which is explained in detail next. Group agreements

Group agreements (Gibbs, 2006), “attentive listening,” “appreciation,” “no put-downs,” “mutual respect,” and the “right to pass” (p. 71), are our starting points in discussing how we will treat each other. We discuss the agreements by acting out how they might look based on life or classroom experiences. The agreements are reaffirmed each time we meet,

Using Group Agreements

Holding Confidentiality

Communication Styles/Skills

Reflective Practice

Assessment of the Circle’s Work

Giving & Receiving Feedback

Hopes & Concerns

Developing Trust

Self-portrait Professional Timelines

Figure 5.1  Ten components of a co-mentoring circle.

96  Nora Dominguez and if there were to be a concern about upholding the agreements, as the facilitator, I would discuss this within the circle until it was resolved. Confidentiality

Participants agree to hold confidentiality as the standard for circle participation. We conduct self-checks on whether confidentiality is held before each circle begins. We practice a form of deep confidentiality from The Courage to Lead©, called “double confidentiality,” in which only the person who brings up a specific topic can bring it up again. Trust

Trusting co-mentoring relationships come from study, reflection, and our work together. Participants study and discuss the work of Tschannen-­ Moran (2007, 2014) and Combs et al. (2015) for practices that build trust. The discussions and activities we participate in provide opportunities to be trustworthy, deepening trust with each other. Communication styles and skills

Circle participants take a communication self-assessment (Alessandra & O’Connor, 2017, 2018) and study Zachary and Fischler’s (2014) model for mentoring conversations. In our co-mentoring circle work, we seek to move our conversations to a level Zachary and Fischler (2014) call “collaborative engagement” (p. 168), in which participants strive to be vulnerable, sharing concerns or fears with each other. This level of conversation can happen if the co-mentoring circle relationships are trusting, and the group agreements and confidentiality are upheld. Giving and receiving feedback

Giving and receiving feedback is key to the daily practice of a school leader (Sullivan & Glanz, 2013). School leaders give feedback on lessons and on actions taken by staff and students. They must know how to give feedback that neither inhibits the receiver from engaging with the feedback nor unnecessarily engendering anger or hurt. The skills of giving and receiving feedback are practiced in the co-mentoring circle as we offer support and feedback to one another for the issues brought to the circle. We also study giving and receiving feedback from the non-evaluative perspective of a “critical friend,” where we aim to elevate our work (Costa & Kallick, 1993) and not to offer judgments unless requested.

Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector  97 Reflection

A format for written reflection is taught based on the work of Arredondo-­ Rucinski (2005) and Rodgers (2002). Time is reserved at the end of each circle for silence and written reflection. As a facilitator, written reflections are given to me to read, and I respond to each writer. “Hopes and Concerns”

This activity continues to build trust among the circle participants by providing time to share hopes and concerns. When conducted face to face, the activity used post-it notes and whiteboard space. Over Zoom, a Google document was created so that participants could complete the activity. Participants anonymously list their hopes and concerns for their internship on the post-it note or Google document. After everyone has had an opportunity to participate, we review the notes. Then, Interns are asked if they see similar ideas listed. Similar notes are put together. Each time the activity has been conducted, the participants have had similar hopes and concerns. When this happens, it builds a further sense of camaraderie. “Professional Timeline”

Participants make and share a visually displayed timeline in the professional timeline activity. What comes from sharing these timelines, posted to our electronic classroom platform, is the opportunity to highlight areas of expertise. For example, if you know a fellow circle participant with unique education experience and have a related question, you have a ready-made co-mentoring expert. “The Self-portrait”

The self-portrait activity is completed after establishing trust, confidentiality, and our group agreements. As each participant shares, the conversations are insightful and self-revealing. I conceived the self-portrait activity based on the qualitative methodology of portraiture (LawrenceLightfoot & Davis, 1997). Participants said they felt a closeness or connection with their circle members after the activity. Written reflection follows this activity. Here is a snippet of one circle member’s self-portrait, which focused on when her father was critically burned in an accident that destroyed their family business. Her father was airlifted hours away to a trauma center. During the months of her father’s recovery, her mother stayed near the hospital.

98  Nora Dominguez For the rest of my life, I will carry in my heart all the kind things people did for our family during such a difficult time. Unfortunately, I will never forget the teacher who sent home a poor progress report for my sister with a written note in red ink, “Return with parent signature.” I was furious when she showed it to me. I thought everyone knew my mom was sitting by my dad’s bedside … while he recovered. This teacher even had to turn past the spot where my dad’s shop had been to get home each day. As I have worked with families experiencing trials and tragedies over the years, I have remembered how this felt and have done my best to help them feel cared for and supported. Whether through tragedy or triumph, every student and family should feel wholly cared for and supported by the school. (Unnamed participant, 2021) The work of the circle After these components have been addressed and the activities completed, the circle’s work addresses what Interns want to discuss. An agenda is created by Interns sending me their agenda topics. An example of one agenda topic: How to address the issue of shortages of substitute teachers. Beginning at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, substitute teachers, often retired teachers, were notifying school districts that they could no longer continue to substitute. This left school districts with critical shortages of substitute teachers. These shortages had school leaders scrambling to use the staff who were present to cover for absent teachers. Complicating the issue was the Contracted Bargaining Agreement requirements for preparation/release time for certified teachers. Our circle discussed how to deal with this issue, with all participants sharing ideas from their expertise and experience and using this co-­mentoring information to create new ways to address the issue. See Box 5.1 for other examples of agenda items.

Box 5.1  Examples of co-mentoring circle agenda items from interns • Substitute teacher shortages combined with Collective Bargaining Agreement requirements • Classroom management curriculum and practices for students returning for face-to-face instruction for the first time in over a year • Complying with mask-wearing requirements for students and staff • Managing quarantine of students who test positive for COVID-19

Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector  99 • Managing records for vaccination requirements • Managing school levy campaign public events with community members who are protesting in attendance • Communicating about master schedule changes with students, families, staff, and community stakeholders • Communication among the school leadership team (with assistant principals, counselors, school security, and primary school office administrative support members) • Informal and formal evaluation of teaching practices • Classroom walk-through protocols and recording forms • Responding to TikTok challenges posted on social media • Supporting staff through grief and loss Formative and summative evaluation Time is given at the end of each circle for oral and written reflection and formative assessment of the circle’s work. Circle participants discuss their reflections and formative assessment, and, as a facilitator, I read the written reflections and formative assessments. If issues come up from these reflections or assessments, I address them individually or with the whole circle. In this way, we monitor our co-mentoring relationships. Written summative assessments are conducted at the end of the semester and when Interns complete their Certification Program. These summative assessments have been overwhelmingly positive (76/76 responses), with all Interns affirming the co-mentoring they received in the circle. Sustaining co-mentoring circles and lessons learned Through the thoughtful assessment of the participants, presenting at conferences, publishing about the process, and discussing it within my department, I continue to receive feedback that continues to help refine future co-mentoring circles. Co-mentoring circles can be used in a variety of settings. I have successfully used this process with Principal Interns and Assistant Principals and have discussed using it with medical practitioners. I recommend that future mentoring program designers consider a co-mentoring circle approach. Start with developing group agreements and confidentiality among all participants and then continue to assess the group processes and outcomes to affirm trust is growing. It may seem counter-cultural in today’s fast-paced work environment to take time to talk about how you are going to be in a relationship with one another. Still, I have found this time provides rewards of deeply supportive, long-lasting co-mentoring relationships. I hope others will try co-mentoring circles and continue to discuss their experiences.

100  Nora Dominguez Chapter conclusions and summary This chapter’s cases highlight the reciprocal mentoring process, outcomes, and design. In the first case, reciprocal mentoring emerges as a serendipitous outcome among mentors participating in a hierarchical, one-to-one mentoring program. In this program, a community of practice arises by artificially creating the proximity of people with shared interests and goals while addressing critical societal issues. Shared lived experiences among mentors offered the opportunity for dialogue in helping their mentees cope and reframe lifethreatening events. The exchange of ideas and shared values among seasoned and novice mentors enhanced their learning, changing their communication styles and modifying their perspectives and approaches in attending to their mentees’ needs. Elements of design and structure, such as having a program coordinator, a mentor liaison, and minimum school-based space, provided the needed resources for the program to flourish. Training and educational opportunities for mentors and mentees, a set curriculum, and shared readings increased the likelihood and quality of dialogue, learning, and satisfaction that resulted in relationships continuing beyond the boundaries of the initial program. In the second case, a near-peer mentoring program for pre-service teachers and middle-/high-school students enhanced cross-cultural communication among mentors and mentees. The relative closeness in age, and the low power differentials, increased the opportunity for reciprocal mentoring. The mentor quotes show that these highly motivated and committed educators are open to learning from their mentees with humility. Their caring nature contributed to changing and improving the educational environment. A wellplanned recruitment strategy, training opportunities in culturally responsive practices, continuous monitoring and support, and data collection provided the infrastructure to improve and expand the program to other school districts, increasing the feelings of respect, validation, and support for so-needed incoming educators. In the third case, unique design elements are in place to offer co-­mentoring circles for aspiring PK-12 school leaders in which reciprocal mentoring flourishes. Through the implementation of a theory-based curriculum with grounded but shared agreements, a collaborative process based on explicit values, professional facilitation, and accountability measures, this program provides evidence of effective reciprocal mentoring practices to support our educators and improve their working environments. References Alessandra, T. & O’Connor, M. J. (2017). The Platinum Rule: Behavioral profiles scoring booklet. Carlsbad, CA: Alessandra and Associates. Alessandra, T. & O’Connor, M. J. (2018). The Platinum Rule: Behavioral profiles: Selfassessment. Carlsbad, CA: Alessandra and Associates.

Reciprocal mentoring in the PK-12 educational sector  101 Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (eds.). (2007). The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Hoboken, New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405133739.2007.x Arredondo-Rucinski, D. E. (2005). Standards for reflective practice. In S. Gordon (ed.), Standards for instructional supervision: Enhancing, teaching and learning (pp. 77–90). Larchmount, NY: Eye on Education. Center for Courage and Renewal. (2022). Touchstones. Retrieved from https://couragerenewal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CCR_Touchstones_V4.pdf. Clutterbuck, D., Poulsen, K. M. & Kochan, F. (2012). Developing successful diversity mentoring programmes. An international casebook. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Combs, J., Harris, S. & Edmonson, S. (2015). Four essential practices for building trust. Educational Leadership, 72(7), pp. 20–22. Costa, A. & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), pp. 49–51. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/234658747_Through_the_Lens_of_a_Critical_Friend. Davis, J., Jenkins, G., Hunt, R. & Draper, S. (2006). We beat the street: How a friendship pact led to success. New York: Puffin Books. Dominguez, N. (2017). A research analysis of the underpinnings, practice, and quality of mentoring programs and relationships. In D. A. Clutterbuck, F. K. Kochan, L. G. Lunsford, N. Dominguez & J. Haddock-Millar (eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring (pp. 67–87). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Gibbs, J. (2006). Reaching all by creating tribes learning communities (30th anniversary ed.). Windsor, CA: CenterSource Systems. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Harwood, A. M. & Radoff, S. A. (2009). Reciprocal benefits of mentoring: Results of a middle school-university collaboration. In B. E. Moely, S. H. Billig & B. A. Holland (eds.), Creating our identities in service-learning and community engagement (pp. 159–188). Charlottle: NC: IAP Information Age Publishing. Kochan, F. K. & Trimble, S. B. (2000). From mentoring to co-mentoring: Establishing collaborative relationships. Theory Into Practice, 39(1), pp. 20–28. Kram, K. E. (2008). Keynote speech at the 2010 Mentoring Conference. Albuquerque, NM. Kram, K. E. & Higgins, M. C. (2009). A new mindset on mentoring: Creating developmental networks at work. MIT Sloan Management Review, 15, pp. 1–7. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy: The remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), pp. 74–84. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Meyer, I. H., Schwartz, S. & Frost, D. M. (2008). Social patterning of stress and coping: Does disadvantaged social statuses confer more stress and fewer coping resources? Social Science & Medicine, 67, pp. 368–379. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Milner, R., Cunningham, H., Delale-O’Connor, L. & Kestenberg, E. (2019). These kids are out of control. New York: Corwin.

102  Nora Dominguez Mullen, C. A. (2005). The mentoring primer. New York: Peter Lang. National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Annual Reports. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved August 8, 2022, from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2022/2022144.pdf. Paris, L. (2010). Reciprocal mentoring residencies… Better transitions to teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), pp. 14–26. Ragins, B. R., Ehrhardt, K., Lyness, K. S., Murphy, D. D., & Capman, J. F. (2017). Anchoring relationships at work: High-quality mentors and other supportive work relationships as buffers to ambient racial discrimination. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), pp. 211–256. Riser-Kositsky, M. (2019, July 22). Education statistics: Facts about American Schools. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/­educationstatistics/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0C26N0V1EJXD0_hXdMqTHMsANF3jMjgdo Dg_JKxBR7WLrNiqkpUWlrWu0. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104, pp. 842–866. SDG4 Data Digest. (2018). Learning to nurture. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved August 8, 2022, from https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/sdg4-data-digest-data-nurture-learning-2018-en.pdf. Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2013). Supervision that improves teaching and learning: Strategies and techniques (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. The Sentencing Project. (2017). Sentencing times. Washington, DC: Sentencing Project. Tillman, L. C. (2003). Mentoring, reflection, and reciprocal journaling. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), pp. 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_9. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). Becoming a trustworthy leader. In M. Fullan (ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (2nd ed., pp. 99–113). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. UNESCO. (2022). Transforming education from within: Current trends in the status and development of teachers. Retrieved August 8, 2022, from https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000383002. Weiston-Serdan, T. (2017). Critical mentoring: A practical guide. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Zachary, L. (2009). “Framing the Conversation”, Keynote Speech at University of New Mexico Mentoring Conference, 16th November, University of New Mexico. Zachary, L. J. & Fischler, L. A. (2014). Starting strong: A mentoring fable: Strategies for success in the first 90 days. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

6 Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education Nora Dominguez

Introduction The higher education (HE) sector is a complex and dynamic industry encompassing undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate education. Tertiary education promotes economic, technological, and social change through exchanging knowledge, research, and innovation. Furthermore, the importance of HE as an economic sector goes beyond providing the foundation for knowledge creation, scientific discovery, and innovation; it provides the highly skilled people required for the growth and development of our knowledgebased societies. In the last decades, tertiary education has grown in enrollment due to the need for advanced skills in the workplace. Worldwide, governments spend approximately 2.5% of the global GDP on HE, and about 235 million students are enrolled in colleges and universities. In the United States (US), the sector includes 5,839 institutions, enrolls 15.85 million students, and employs approximately 3.9 million people (NCES, 2022). In addition, wages of tertiaryeducated adults increase with each level of further education; workers with associate degrees earn 20% more than non-college-educated people, people with bachelor’s degrees earn 44% more, and individuals with post-graduate degrees (master’s, doctoral, or professional degrees) earn 88% more. Additionally, better-educated people experience lower unemployment rates, adapt better and faster during economic crises, and are more socially engaged (OECD, 2022). Despite a 20% growth in global enrolment in the past decade, 12% of full-time bachelor’s students leave before the beginning of their second year and only 39% graduate within their program duration (OECD, 2022). Attrition is a complex and multi-factor-influenced phenomenon associated with educational disparities and the lack of institutional support for underrepresented minorities. Mentoring has been largely studied in HE as a positive strategy influencing satisfaction and retention rates (Allen & Eby, 2010).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003302537-6

104  Nora Dominguez The HE context for students and staff Interest in mentoring to foster individual growth and development continues to flourish among researchers, practitioners, policymakers, educators, business leaders, and the public. Universities and Academic Programs frequently emphasize the benefits of mentoring, concluding that undergraduates and graduate students benefit substantially from mentoring relationships with faculty members (Tenenbaum et al., 2001). However, the top-down one-to-one model has proven unsuccessful in satisfying the needs of underrepresented minorities, particularly first-generation, low-income, underrepresented students. The US undergraduate education has a national faculty-to-student ratio of 1–14, with 75% of the full professors from white populations (Hussar et al., 2020), making it challenging for underrepresented students to find mentoring support. Many institutions have extensively implemented peer-mentoring programs and initiatives to address the pressures presented by an insufficient number of mentors and the lack of diversity in the faculty ranks, encouraging one-toone and group peer-mentoring relationships. The peer reciprocal mentoring model reduces the power differentials between mentor and mentee, creating opportunities for intimate, emotional, collaborative, egalitarian, and complementary connections based on respect and rapport (Jones & Brown, 2011, p. 406). In addition, scholars and practitioners have recognized that even in the hierarchical mentoring model, there are opportunities for a two-way flow of information that benefits the participants (Ragins & Kram, 2007). Furthermore, Gibson and Sodeman (2014) identified knowledge gains among mentors and mentees in cross-generational relationships, and Stevenson and Vaulkhard (2017, p. 242) recognized the reciprocal nature of mentorship among emerging and established leaders in relationships “where mentor and mentee roles become blurred, and joint learning becomes the goal.” The HE context is perhaps the natural environment for reciprocal mentoring to flourish. The knowledge transmission framework of academe has gradually evolved into a collaborative model of knowledge co-creation when faculty, advisors, counselors, and academic coaches engage students and peers in critical reflection processes and dialogue where the participants benefit from each other’s knowledge and experience. The four cases presented in this chapter provide evidence of effective practices in designing, implementing, and evaluating reciprocal mentoring relationships, bringing to academe practical examples yielding positive outcomes in critical measures such as increased self-confidence, self-awareness, and engagement that have a direct impact in reducing attrition and increasing completion rates benefiting the participants, the organizations, the workplace, and our knowledge-based societies.

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  105 Case Study: Reflecting to reciprocate: Florida Gulf Coast University Honors Mentor Program Authors: Catherine Gorman Cordova and Lindsay Rushworth University students’ first year of college is often marred by anxiety, loneliness, and low self-esteem (So & Fiori, 2021). Although this is especially true of first-generation and minority students (Potochnick & Perreira, 2010), the well-being of some of the highest achieving first-year students, those in Honors, is also impacted. Like their peers, Honors program students struggle with feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and a sense of belonging, often increased by personal pressures for success (Scager et al., 2012). Conversely, students who feel they belong in college demonstrate more engagement, better mental health, and greater persistence (Gopalan & Brady, 2020). Students’ sense of belonging is often tied to connectedness with the campus, faculty, and peers (Chambliss & Takacs, 2014). When students learn together, the benefits are reciprocal and mutual. This process of co-learning and sharing resources is linked to reciprocal mentoring and positive outcomes for all parties involved (Chandler & Kram, 2005; Harvey et al., 2009). Florida Gulf Coast University’s (FGCU) Honors Mentor Program was founded to assist student transition and community building by sharing resources. FGCU is a four-year public institution in Southwest Florida. Students accepted into the FGCU Honors College are among the highestscoring students admitted to the university. However, before 2011, these students needed help with campus engagement, college connectedness, and peer connectivity. Although Honors students performed well in their classes, they weren’t demonstrably connecting with their peers. Thus, to improve the sense of belonging and create a more cohesive environment, the Honors Director and Coordinator established a peer mentor program designed for upperclassmen students to mentor first-year students in a required, semi-formal Honors Mentor Program. In its conception, the Honors Mentor Program was implemented through a freshman orientation that allowed mentors and mentees to attend a two-day retreat involving student cohorts. Mentors served as orientation leaders and were required to set up biweekly meetings for the semester with mentees. Meetings were designed to be semi-formal and structured using Cohen’s (1995) adult learner mentoring framework, with meeting topics such as goal setting, personal well-being, and academic resource guidance. Qualitative reporting from students and mentors relayed the program’s positive impacts. There were noticeable changes in Honors students’ sense of community throughout campus, with qualitative mentee feedback such as “She [my mentor] has made

106  Nora Dominguez the transition to college much easier”; “[He] did a great job helping me to get more integrated into Honors, and went beyond just being a mentor”; “I greatly appreciated the opportunity to have a mentor, and I think that many other students can benefit from this program just as much, if not more, than I have.” Given the success of the mentor program, the next three years saw drastic growth, which required scaling adjustments. Expanding the Honors Mentor Program provided many transition benefits for incoming students and met the intended goal of augmenting community engagement. However, as mentors began increasing their mentees, the need for a more reciprocated mentoring process was evident. Mentors often reported feeling overwhelmed by the increasing student responsibilities and expressed feelings of disconnect in their own community engagement outside of the mentor program. Therefore, the addition of a required peer mentor course was created to enhance the mentor experience and assist in the mentor’s personal and professional development. To supplement the cost of course fees, mentors receive a onecredit tuition waiver and a $1,000 stipend. The course incorporates intentional mentor reflection, which began improving mentoring reciprocity. In alignment with the AAC&U values curriculum and NACE competencies, the course curriculum provides a paradigm of meaningful reciprocal mentoring and scholarship rooted in Communication, Information Literacy, and Critical Thinking. Grounded in the conceptual framework of theorists including Cohen, Daloz, Kram, Klasen, and Clutterbuck, the course highlights solution-oriented techniques, building communication skills, and executing conflict-management skills. Mentors gain a sense of satisfaction through helping other students achieve their goals via an increased understanding of how mentoring contributes to the different Elements of Honors: Scholarly Advancement, Cultural Enrichment, Community Engagement, and Leadership. The metacognitive component of integrative learning (AAC&U, 2022) serves as the capstone for the course as mentors create either a digital story or an ePortfolio. The capstone assignment requires mentors to create a digital audio-visual story of their mentoring experience and include a reflection on leadership development, how they engaged with their mentees, and how they can apply this experience to a future professional goal. The ePortfolio project asks mentors to craft a reflective narrative supplemented with visual artifacts around three focus areas. One is a reflection on mentor leadership and professional growth through peer mentoring. These reflection techniques allow mentors to think about what they taught their mentees and consider how they reciprocally grew as leaders, mentors, and students through this experience. Since taking the course,

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  107 mentors have benefited more personally from the mentor program and its relationships. Evidence from their portfolios and personal narratives evinces reciprocal mentoring practices so that the mentors are growing alongside the peers they are mentoring. The mentors develop and enhance their interdisciplinary competencies through the Mentor Leadership course while practicing them with their mentees throughout the academic year. Within the Honors Mentor Program, mentors and mentees reported an increase in the following AAC&U competencies, which are tied to the overall learning outcomes of the Honors Mentor Program: • Intercultural Knowledge and Competence: The mentors’ experiences in mentoring have reciprocated learning in intercultural knowledge and expanded their cultural competencies. One mentor stated, “I’ve learned a lot about the space I share with others during my experience as an Honors Mentor. My mentee and I became involved with MLD [Multicultural Leadership and Development Center], and I learned when to leave space for others and that we are always sharing space. I think about that a lot as a mentor. I want my mentees to feel safe, seen, and heard” (Honors Mentor, 2021). • Civic Engagement – Local and Global: Through reciprocal mentoring, mentors and mentees shared in civic engagement through service work. One mentor noted: “Taking what I learned from alternative break, I always encourage my mentees to not just go through the motions of college, but to use this time to figure out what they are passionate about” (Honors Mentor, 2020). • Affective/Emotional Intelligence: Emotional intelligence development has been a reciprocal area for growth for mentors and mentees. As one mentor recently reported, “I had a great conversation with one of my mentees who helped me more than her. We are very similar in our personalities, handling stress, personal living situations, and academically, so it felt nice to be understood by another student” (Honors Mentor, 2021). • Leadership Development Skills: Leadership remains a key skill for future employment (Fain, 2020), and peer mentoring has reciprocally increased mentors’ leadership skills alongside their mentees’ academic and social development. A current peer mentor said, “Being an Honors Mentor this year has taught me more about myself than I thought it would. As I began mentoring, I realized I had much more to learn about mentoring than I knew. I learned that being a good leader means setting the right example. I also learned that mentoring takes much time and thought to be effective. The skills I learned this academic year helped me within my classes, extracurriculars, and life in general” (Honor Mentor, 2022).

108  Nora Dominguez • Information Literacy: Within the program, mentors and mentees benefit from co-learning and resource-sharing. As one mentor shared, “I use countless resources given to me by FGCU to succeed–I looked to the CAA [Center for Academic Achievement] for help with time management and study resources, and my Honors Mentor [during my first year] for direction, among many other resources” (Honors Mentor, 2020). • Communication: The communication between mentors and mentees in the Honors Mentor Program has increased understanding and developmental reciprocity, which will continue to assist these students in their future careers. One mentee stated, “My Honors Mentor has gone above and beyond to help make my freshman year a success! I can’t even count how often our meetings have run past time because she’s helping me with anything from housing applications to course selection. She does everything she can to help me reach my goals. She always keeps our group informed of opportunities to get involved on campus, and thanks to her, I have my first executive position in an RSO” (Honors Mentee, 2021). • Problem-Solving: Through the Honors Mentor Program, mentors and mentees have learned how to navigate personal and academic challenges. Like leadership, problem-solving remains a sought-after skill for employment (Fain, 2020) that mentors and mentees can implement in their future fields. A mentee reported, “One of the many things my mentor helped with was that she showed me how to anticipate problems with registering for classes. In my first semester, I had many issues with getting the classes I wanted, mostly because I didn’t know how to check my holds and all the pre-registration requirements. My mentor taught me to think ahead, plan better, and anticipate when I might have trouble with something and get ahead of it” (Honors Mentee, 2021). Over the last ten years, the Honors Mentor Program has evolved into one of the most successful and mutually beneficial student success programs, serving over 2,000 incoming students. Alongside mentees, the number of peer mentors has steadily increased, coinciding with the growth of the incoming class of first-year, first-time-in-college (FTIC) Honors students. In addition to their regular meetings, mentors and mentees are encouraged to work together in scholarship and research. Over the past year, two Honors Mentors presented at the 2021 National Collegiate Honors Council Conference. Additionally, the mentors began researching and analyzing the student perception of the Honors Mentor Program, culminating in an Honors Thesis project. What makes this scholarship more meaningful is that one of the current

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  109 mentors is a former mentee of the other, reinforcing that those who are mentored are more likely to mentor others and that mentoring is reciprocated (Johnson & Ridley, 2008). Through the reciprocal mentoring process, mentor and mentee have augmented growth and scholarship to support lifelong learning and a sense of belonging. Given the current climate of a global pandemic, natural disasters, and socio-political unrest, there has perhaps never been a more critical time for university students to feel a sense of shared community. The reciprocal mentoring of the FGCU Honors Mentor Program has enhanced students’ sense of belonging and has provided mutually beneficial competencies. With the learning outcomes of Intercultural Knowledge and Competence, Civic Engagement, Emotional Intelligence, Leadership Development, Information Literacy, Communication, and Problem-Solving, peer mentors and mentees join in the mutual sharing of resources so that the learning process, engagement, and development reciprocated. Although it was not the initial intention of the program, the FGCU Honors Mentor Program has become dedicated to reciprocal learning and growth outcomes for all students involved. The reciprocal nature of mentoring has been a catalyst for community engagement and enhancement, thus strengthening the mentoring relationships and fostering a sense of belonging. As the program continues to grow and evolve, it will remain a goal for mentors and mentees to continue learning from and with each other, reinforcing the positive impacts of reciprocal mentoring.

Case Study: Reciprocal mentoring in United Kingdom (UK) HE – A case from a UK Business School Aaron Taylor Reciprocal mentoring in UK HE is a relatively recent concept growing in significance as its benefits are becoming more clearly understood (Burdett, 2014). The process provides a platform for students to deliver their unique feedback and for universities to gain insight into student mindsets and experiences to better respond to needs and requirements. In this study, reciprocal mentoring was piloted with a new Ph.D. student and an experienced doctoral supervisor to uncover ways to enhance the quality of doctoral supervision in a UK Business School. In addition to the monthly Ph.D. supervisory meeting, a further meeting was organized each month to develop a broader perspective on

110  Nora Dominguez improving the current provision level. The dates and times of these meetings were agreed upon between the mentor and mentee. The empirical data confirmed that reciprocal mentoring plays a significant role in enhancing student engagement and has a transformational impact on the student “voice.” Discoveries indicate that there were several tangible benefits to reciprocal mentoring. These included building a better learning culture, developing student leadership skills, sharing perspectives more transparently, supporting inclusivity, and enhancing self-confidence and selfawareness. These findings demonstrate the need for the institution to leverage the mentoring provision to improve its offering to Ph.D. students. It was also discovered that the level of support offered to Ph.D. students needed to be improved so that they could further develop their skills and competencies. These findings correlate with Singh et al.’s (2021) study on knowledge sharing. The mentoring program The justification for this mentoring program was to improve the quality of Ph.D. supervision after student feedback indicated that supervisions could be better prepared, personalized, and more informative. In module evaluation questionnaires (MEQs), supervisions had been criticized for being one way, lacking in intellectual stimulation, and being overly formulaic. Therefore, this project aimed to understand student concerns in more detail and provide solutions using mentoring as an intervention. The overriding intention was to enhance the quality of the Ph.D. provision, to develop skills and competencies (Burdett, 2014), and for the study to take place in a safe environment where constructive opinions could be freely shared and explored (Johnson et al., 2023). Mentoring context The university is a post-92 UK institution with a mainly international student body. The study took place in the University Business School, which, as of May 2022, has 32 active Ph.D. students studying a range of business-related topics. The project took place from October 2021 to April 2022. During this time, there were six Ph.D. supervisory meetings and six mentoring sessions where the Ph.D. student played the role of mentor and the Ph.D. supervisor the role of mentee. After each monthly mentoring session, the Ph.D. supervisor collated feedback and recommendations and presented these in an informal presentation to the Head of the School and Academic Dean.

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  111 Mentoring program infrastructure The Ph.D. mentoring program was initiated after positive feedback from staff who had previously participated in reciprocal mentoring with first-year undergraduate students. After each monthly supervision, another meeting was organized where the supervisee provided feedback to the supervisor on recommended enhancements for the following supervisory session. These suggestions were reflected upon and then implemented. The same process happened every month. The supervisor was provided hours on his workload plan with feedback on progress presented to the Head of School and Academic Dean every month. After six months, finite improvements were suggested and implemented. Recruitment, selection, and matching strategies Ph.D. students were invited to participate by email and undertook an interview to ascertain their suitability. The Ph.D. supervisor and supervisee were subsequently matched on subject alignment and their support of mentoring as a form of intervention. The Ph.D. student was an employment coach in a previous role. She was very enthusiastic about participating and was supportive of the program. As Taylor and Black (2018) argue, having a clear understanding of dispositions before a reciprocal mentoring project is essential in delivering clear and constructive results. Training and evaluation There was an initial presentation by the Head of the School at the start of the project on the benefits of reciprocal mentoring and the justification for both the supervisor and supervision student to get involved. Three main learning objectives were evaluated during this study: 1 To critically evaluate what is going well regarding Ph.D. supervision and if the best practice can be shared throughout the Business School. 2 To identify areas for improvement. 3 To provide recommendations on how to enhance the current Ph.D. provision. Strategies to monitor and support relationships The Head of School consulted with the Ph.D. supervisor and Ph.D. student in separate monthly catchups to ascertain if the program was

112  Nora Dominguez running well and if any support was needed. These meetings were beneficial in keeping the participants on track and reminding them of the learning objectives. Formative and summative evaluation of the program The Head of the School conducted a formative evaluation of the program after the first round of feedback was received in November 2021. As Burdett and Crossman (2010) contend, collating feedback in a reciprocal mentoring project is vital in understanding how to provide targeted solutions. The evaluation was organized into three areas: 1 What is going well? 2 What else can we include in the monthly supervision meeting? 3 What can we improve upon? Summative feedback was collected after the cessation of the project after six months. The feedback was collated from the three main learning objectives below: 1 To critically evaluate what is going well regarding Ph.D. supervision and if the best practice can be shared throughout the Business School. It was discovered that supervisions were well organized and communication between the supervisor and student was clear and effective. The student was particularly complimentary of the three areas of strengths and three areas of development, a strategy that was used by the supervisor to deliver constructive feedback on monthly formative drafts. This was viewed as a clear and effective feedback strategy that could be replicated and rolled out to other supervisors in the Business School. 2 To identify areas for improvement. The main development area of concern was that supervision meetings tended to be overly rigid, with the student requesting more significant interaction in discussions. Supervisors were suggested to create a better learning culture where students could challenge and provoke further debate on the explored topics (Desai et al., 2018). By doing so, opportunities would arise to develop leadership skills and to share differing perspectives more transparently (Bozak, 2021). This intervention was also seen to help support inclusivity and enhance self-confidence and self-awareness in Ph.D. students (Chaudhuri et al., 2021). 3 To provide recommendations on how to enhance the current Ph.D. provision.

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  113 Three main areas were recommended to be enhanced: 1 Roll out the three strengths and areas of development feedback strategy to other supervisions within the Business School. 2 Ph.D. supervisions should be more interactive, where students are further encouraged to challenge and debate with the supervisor. 3 It was suggested by both the supervisor and the student for the reciprocal mentoring process to continue refining the provision. This feedback will be used to inform Ph.D. supervisions from October 2022. These recommendations are expected to be transferred to both MBA and DBA supervisions. Funding of the mentoring program The program was not funded, although the Ph.D. supervisor received 25 hours on his workload to participate in the project. This allocation was adequate to participate in meetings with the student, meetings with the Head of School and Academic Dean, and the time required to disseminate the findings from the project. Sustaining the mentoring program and plans for the future This was a pilot program although due to the positive feedback received, it is anticipated that it will be expanded to MBA and DBA supervision in 2022/2023. Participants will increase to six mentors and six mentees in each subject area for the next iteration to improve the generalizablity of the findings. Outcomes and lessons learned Discoveries indicate that there were several tangible benefits to reciprocal mentoring. These included building a better learning culture, developing student leadership skills, sharing differing perspectives more transparently, supporting inclusivity, and enhancing self-confidence and self-awareness. These findings demonstrate the institution’s need to leverage its reciprocal mentoring provision to improve its offering to Ph.D. students. It was also discovered that the level of support offered to Ph.D. students needed to be improved so that they can further develop their skills and competencies (Singh et al., 2021). As a caveat, it is

114  Nora Dominguez suggested that these findings may not be representative of other institutions due to the number of participants involved and the organizational context. However, it is argued that the initial results are promising and that a roll-out at other institutions would be realistic once the following data set is evaluated and disseminated in October 2022.

Case Study: Facilitating career development orientation through reciprocal peer mentoring: The “Moving Forward-Mentoring Others for Career Success” Program Lisa Matthewman Reciprocal peer mentoring (RPM) as a form of peer-assisted career development learning has an essential role in career development. The primary objective of this case study is to evaluate the effective use of RPM as a career development intervention. The “Moving Forward-Mentoring Others for Career Success” Program aims to provide an essential bridge between Business School students and prospective students from a local Sixth Form College. This program was designed to widen the aspirations of mentees engaged in the program with the help of their mentors as role models, thus guiding them to develop into successful professionals. Over the course of the program, mentors from the Business School work with individuals and small groups of sixth form students to provide support, guidance, and development on career goals in line with effective career development strategies. Each mentor was trained in communication skills and abided by the European Mentoring and Coaching Council Code of Practice. Mentees were expected to undertake an induction briefing event and follow the training and guidance provided in the program handbook and training documentation. An academic staff member from the Westminster Business School supported all mentees and mentors. The mentor provided support and guidance to help the sixth formers develop personal career goals aligned with their program of study. The mentees met with their mentor(s) three/four times over five months at pre-set times. For both parties to progress, it was essential to plan and encourage all students to think about what they wanted to achieve during the program. So far, over 100 students have taken part in the program. A phenomenological evaluation research design was employed, and students completed a qualitative focused questionnaire survey asking them to reflect on their experiences of reciprocal peer-mentoring relationships. Content analysis of student perceptions resulted in the emergence of critical themes, including RPM relationship process, the learning process, and cognitive career-related skills development. Robust

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  115 learning gains were reported by all participants and were characteristic of successful RPM relationships. Overall, the RPM relationship can greatly enhance deep-level career-related learning and aid the transfer of theory into practice to inform academic debate on the use of RPM for enhancing student mentoring practice and career development. Purpose and objectives of the mentoring program The primary objective of the program is to enable participants (mentees) to develop the ability to critically analyze and reflect upon their career goals and direction. A vital aspect of this process for the university students or the mentors is critically reflecting on their own skill development in mentoring practice. The aim of the “Moving ForwardMentoring Others for Career Success” program is to enable students to gain practical experience in mentoring skills and equally share valuable professional experiences with sixth form students to enhance career development-related decision-making. Aims of the program: • To pair interested Business School students with Sixth Form College students. • Mentoring is a long-term relationship that meets a developmental need. A mentor facilitates personal and professional growth in an individual by sharing the knowledge and insights learned through the years. Simply put, mentors are people who help others to succeed. • To provide extra career development support and an insider perspective for prospective students from a Sixth Form College. Mentoring context This program was designed to widen the aspirations of mentees engaged in the program with the help of their mentors as role models, thus guiding them to develop into successful professionals. The mentees met with their mentor(s) three/four times over five months at pre-set times. For both parties to progress, it was essential to plan and encourage all students to think about what they wanted to achieve during the program. Running from January to April, this five-month RPM program was designed to provide a critical learning bridge between students from a London-based Business School and sixth formers from a local Sixth Form College. The purpose of the program was to support sixth form students in making positive career-informed decisions and transitioning from sixth form study to post 18 opportunities. Over the course of the program, students were mentored by a university student.

116  Nora Dominguez For both parties to make progress, it is essential to plan and think about what you would like to achieve in the next six months. We have given you some suggestions for areas of development you might like to cover with your mentee(s) under four broad headings: Personal Development, Career Development, Academic Development, and Confidence Building. Students were encouraged to agree on a learning contract at the first meeting and set some key objectives to plan for future meetings. After each session, students were encouraged to use the space in the provided workbook to record and reflect on the meetings. This helped the participants to consolidate their learning and plan. This program was designed to widen the aspirations of mentees engaged in the program and, with their mentor’s help as a role model, guide them to develop into successful professionals. The role of the mentor was to help the mentee to make informed decisions about their future, either in terms of study support or in help preparing for finding work. Conversations focused upon: • Clarifying short- and long-term career goals • Finding out more information about working in a specific role or sector • Contacting professionals in the industry • Developing confidence and building on interpersonal skills • Improving CV and performance at interviews • Finding out what employers were looking for in candidates • Improving study skills • Making a link between the subject of study and the world of work Recruitment, selection, and matching strategies Mentors selected to participate in the “Mentoring for Careers Development” program were undergraduate students from Westminster Business School who completed training in mentoring and coaching skills. A detailed application and selection process asked mentors to state why they were interested in participating in the scheme and what skills and qualities they could bring to the role. The mentees were generally sixth form students in their first year of study and were interested in their tutors being mentored. The students were from mixed cultural and linguistic backgrounds with high literacy levels. Training and educational opportunities Each participant was trained in communication skills and abided by the European Mentoring and Coaching Council Code of Practice. Mentees

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  117 were expected to undertake an induction briefing event and follow the training and guidance provided in the program handbook and training documentation. An academic staff member from the Business School supported all mentees. The mentor provided support and guidance to help the sixth formers develop personal career goals in line with their programs of study. The aim of the program was to pair students from the Sixth Form College with undergraduate students with relevant university/workplace experience. This program was designed to widen the aspirations of mentees engaged in the program with the help of their mentors as role models, thus guiding them to develop into successful professionals. The mentees met with their mentor(s) three/four times over five months at pre-set times. For both parties to progress, it was essential to plan and encourage all students to think about what they wanted to achieve during the program. Students were encouraged to agree on a learning contract at the first meeting and set out some key objectives to plan for future meetings. After each session, reflection was encouraged, and workbook tasks were given. This helped the students to consolidate learning and plan. The role of the mentor was to help the sixth formers make informed decisions about their future, either regarding their further study or alternative career options. Some of the topics discussed included: • Clarifying short- and long-term career goals • Finding out more information about working in a specific role or sector • Contacting professionals in the industry • Developing confidence and building on interpersonal skills • Improving CV and performance at interviews • Finding out what employers are looking for in candidates • Improving study skills • Making a link between the subject of study and future study options and or the world of work The program was supported by online tools and resources, physical learning space, skill development exercises, practical demonstrations, tutor support, and feedback. The Grow model underpinned the mentoring conversations (Whitmore, 1992). Tutors engaged with the peer partnerships regularly to ascertain how the relationship was progressing, what stage the relationship had reached, how goals were being achieved, and what the essential learning outcomes had been. In addition, one-to-one and group supervision was a vital component of the mentoring process, which also fed into the reflective element of

118  Nora Dominguez the career development process. Tools used in the mentoring sessions included: • • • • • • • • • • •

Ice breakers Contract signing Key skills assessments SWOTSWAIN G Questions Johari Window Career Lifeline tool R Questions Career Visioning activity W Questions Personal Development Planning

The mentors were required to undertake continuous assessment tasks with their mentees, and the relationship consisted of four meetings. Thus, each RPM relationship consisted of four-six hours, made up of four meetings, each comprising 15 minutes of preparation time, 60 minutes of mentoring, and 15 minutes of reflective write-up time. The students were required to meet up on a biweekly basis, and additionally, the weekly contact time was encouraged. Students undertook faceto-face meetings, synchronous telephone conversations, asynchronous emails, and remote synchronous Zoom/Blackboard Collaborate mentoring sessions. The overall process of the RPM was to provide students with a safe place to discuss their career development goals stemming from real-life personal and professional issues. This practical work was then reflected upon. These reflective logs culminated in the production of a reflective portfolio of competence. All the students were studying full-time. As part of their learning process, students were required to maintain reflective learning logs related to the critical career development content utilized in the program. Formative and summative evaluation of the mentoring program and the mentoring relationships An opportunistic, purposive sample of 70 participants was drawn from the mentoring cohorts between 2019 and 2022. An iterative data collection process was employed, with students completing a questionnaire of open questions. A phenomenological evaluation research design was employed, and students completed a qualitative focused questionnaire survey asking them to reflect on their experiences of reciprocal peermentoring relationships.

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  119 Content analysis of student perceptions resulted in the emergence of key themes, including RPM relationship process, the learning process, and cognitive career-related skills development. Robust learning gains were reported by all participants and were characteristic of successful RPM relationships. The questionnaire was developed from the work of Feggetter (2007) and was administered to all those who completed the mentoring program. The purpose was to systematically gather perceptions about RPM as a form of career development. Voluntary submission of the questionnaire was taken as informed consent. The research project met the university’s ethical research guidelines, and all names were reported as pseudo-names. A multi-method phenomenological approach was used to illuminate the students’ experience of the RPM relationship and its use as a career development strategy. Student explorations of themselves as individuals and co-learners were integral to the process. By understanding the context and situation of a particular student population, the phenomenological approach can provide insights into their world’s beliefs, values, and culture (Van der Zam & Bergum, 2000). The data were collated and coded using conventional content analysis techniques and by reading and re-reading the text to identify salient themes, sub-themes, issues concerning career development, and skills. N-VIVO, a qualitative data analysis software package, was used to aid analysis. Based on the reflective open-ended questionnaire, the evaluation approach included coding frameworks that emerged from reviewing the written comments. A holistic overview of the perceptions and conceptualizations of the students was captured from the text that explained how the students accounted for their experiences and understood what these experiences meant from their perspective. Coding can be descriptive, interpretive, or used to convey patterns. Codes can be descriptive and refer to phenomena in the text or interpretive, with meanings being ascribed by the researcher. Such first-level codes helped to summarize the data. Secondorder codes were then developed, which were inferential and illustrated emerging themes. Documentary analysis of the student case studies and portfolios was also completed to triangulate the data. Learning about mentoring practice A theme that emerged from these peer-assisted learning activities was an increase in self-awareness and self-reflection in relation to coaching and mentoring knowledge and practice. Students became more aware of their strengths and weaknesses as individuals in a mentoring context. They were motivated to learn about coaching and mentoring themselves and their shortcomings as human beings. Peer-assisted

120  Nora Dominguez learning has helped the students to embrace and develop self-­regulatory processes, with the peer-assisted learning experience acting as a catalyst for self-reflexivity, self-regulation, self-efficacy, self-motivation, self-positivity, and greater self-awareness as shown in the following quotes: The most useful aspect was to learn about coaching and mentoring and use this knowledge in practice. Furthermore, it was beneficial to build a relationship with a client and get to know the person in such a short time. I found it useful to get first-hand experience in a formal setting with real consequences, this made the experience valuable. Learning good techniques throughout the coaching period and clients were responsive which made the sessions much more engaging. Career clarity

As a result of the mentoring relationship, the students had a clearer vision for the future. The conversations with mentees stimulated the clarification of their own academic and professional development goals. Many students face the end of tertiary education, and for the mentors, the end of their degrees, so their attention often turns toward careers and jobs. The reciprocal peer relationships contributed to the clarification of their own career goals and career development needs. Much of the independent learning inherent in the reciprocal peer-mentoring relationships focused on the goals, actions, and success criteria attached to personal development planning. So, clarity further resulted in students having a clearer focus regarding the direction their development planning might take in relation to their career-related objectives, as evident in the following quotes: Bing able to help someone realise their potential and figure out their career path. Helping my mentee think about long-term goals. Graduate skills

Finally, the third theme from the evaluation analysis concerned the development of a range of graduate skills and attributes. The peer-assisted learning experience acted as a catalyst for improvement. Students repeatedly commented on how they were utilizing time more effectively, had learned to manage their stress more effectively, built increased levels of resilience, and how their communication skills such as rapport

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  121 building, listening, questioning techniques, and their ability to give and receive feedback had improved, as shown in the following quotes: What I found most useful about the programme was developing my oral communication skills by developing relationships with the students and interacting with them regarding their future educational and career choices. Developing listening skills. Being able to cater advice to someone specifically. It was useful to listen to my mentee and guide them on what he should do for more opportunities. The least useful thing was that some mentees did not come to every session, and there were not enough mentees for mentors. What I found most useful about the programme was that it improved leadership skills as I can coach others with my own experience. There wasn’t anything least useful about the whole programme overall useful. I had enjoyed the whole experience, as I was able to practice and develop many skills, such as listening and speaking. Through this experience, I have understood how important it is to be a mentor and work with a mentee. Advice for future students on the program: If you can be mentored by someone, grab that opportunity with both hands and make the most of it. Mentoring enables you to build a professional relationship with someone who has more knowledge and experience than you so that you can ask them all the questions you have! A mentor is there to give advice and help direct you to become the best you can be; get involved, and you will not regret it! Be prepared to help the mentees as much as possible, narrate your journey for motivational purposes, be soft and calm with your tone, and listen to them (the mentee). It is a rewarding experience knowing you can help another student in your position a few years back. You get to develop skills such as listening and knowing when to speak, which is beneficial. I would say this experience is overall an amazing experience and can learn a lot in a short amount of time, especially as it is a practical experience. Outcomes and lessons learned RPM is a form of peer-assisted learning that can encourage individual students to mentor each other so that the process outcome is a more

122  Nora Dominguez rounded, holistic understanding and skillful execution of the task at hand (Asghar, 2010). RPM has a critical part to play in career development as it offers the necessary scaffolding for students to work interdependently on goal achievement and feedback giving. The program was able to encourage student development through experiential reflection. During the program, students are expected to maintain reflective learning logs. These require students to include a reflective commentary on their learning and development. As a result of the mentoring relationship, the students were able to develop a clearer vision for the future. The conversations stimulated the clarification of their academic and professional development goals. Many students were facing a transitional period in their professional lives as they approached the end of their studies. Thus, attention often turned toward careers and jobs. The reciprocal peer relationships contributed to the clarification of career goals and career development needs. Much of the independent learning inherent in the reciprocal peer relationships focused on the goals, actions, and success criteria attached to personal development planning. So, clarity further resulted in students having a clearer focus regarding the direction their development planning might take in relation to career objectives. A further theme emerged from these peer-assisted learning activities: increased self-awareness and self-reflection ability. Students became more aware of their strengths and weaknesses as individuals. They were motivated to learn about themselves and their shortcomings as human beings. Reciprocal mentoring helped the students to embrace and develop self-regulatory processes, with the peer-assisted learning experience acting as a catalyst for self-reflexivity, self-regulation, self-efficacy, self-­ motivation, self-positivity, and greater self-awareness. Finally, the third theme from the phenomenological analysis concerned the development of a range of graduate skills and attributes. The peer-assisted learning experience acted as a catalyst for improvement. Students repeatedly commented on how they were utilizing time more effectively, had learned to manage their stress more effectively, built increased levels of resilience, and how their communication skills such as rapport building, listening, questioning techniques, and their ability to give and receive feedback had improved. Funding of the mentoring program The mentors were paid a £100 bursary from the Business School outreach development fund. The primary facilitator of the program received hours for running the scheme, meaning that the time was taken away from teaching to develop, run, manage, and monitor the program.

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  123 Sustaining the mentoring program and plans This case study concludes that RPM as a career development strategy illustrates that participants were able to expand their knowledge base and develop increased self-efficacy. Participants were able to exchange knowledge constructs and perspectives for aiding the development of new tactical career decision-making knowledge and skills by evaluating them against the knowledge constructs of career development theory. Receiving regular dialogic feedback exchange and tutor guidance underpinned the transformational nature of the relationship. RPM can be viewed as an essential component of the constructivist learning dialogue and appears to be an effective career development strategy. This program should feature heavily in both tertiary and HE curriculums. The case study also suggests that RPM in this format can promote autonomy in learning and encourage the social aspects of learning, creating a safe learning culture where career development learning can be shared. Proving opportunities where all students can engage in various career development activities is crucial.

Case Study: Leadership Lounge: A model for digital, cohort-based, reciprocal mentoring during a pandemic Cathy Bates, Shannon Dunn and Valerie Vogel The genesis of the Leadership Lounge program was a desire for fellowship among HE Chief Information Officers (CIOs) while also increasing the reach and efficiency of mentoring during the pandemic. The program invites current and aspiring technology leaders in HE to participate in regular conversations with a mentor panel of experienced college and university CIOs. The Leadership Lounge program consists of structured and unstructured engagement opportunities, including monthly small-group conversations hosted online in a digital meeting platform and spaces for online asynchronous conversation in an online messaging platform. This program gives participants and mentors opportunities to discuss leadership topics, current issues, and participant questions in relaxed settings with small groups of up to eight peers and three mentors. Feedback surveys consistently demonstrate the positive impact of the program on participants. Organizers understood from the outset that the benefits of mentoring are shared and sometimes amplified in groups of participants. CIO mentors have also consistently underscored the benefits of the

124  Nora Dominguez Leadership Lounge program for themselves, emphasizing its reciprocal nature. These benefits include learning from participants – who hail from a variety of roles and types of HE institutions – about their experiences, aspirations, and challenges; providing insights into staff perspectives on information technology (IT) organizations; learning new approaches to persistent challenges from both participants and colleagues; building community, creating camaraderie with new contacts, and strengthening existing professional relationships; and exercising their mentoring skills in small groups, where they can also observe and learn from others. Program purpose The Leadership Lounge mentoring program provides a supportive environment for current and aspiring HE leaders to gather for leadership-­ focused conversation and guidance. Program sponsors launched the program to address a gap in leadership development opportunities, particularly for HE IT professionals. Program objectives include providing mentee access to a diverse group of experienced HE CIO mentors, developing leadership skills; creating opportunities for networking, inquiry, and learning; and building community among mentees and mentors. One unexpected benefit of the program is the ongoing learning and leadership development opportunities that the CIOs gain as mentors. The program’s success can be attributed to its flexibility, the dedication of the mentors, and the ability to deliver on an unmet need in HE leadership development. The program is particularly timely considering current employment trends in North American HE, including the impacts of the pandemic and the Great Resignation (Smalley, 2022; Zahneis, 2022). Emerging leaders are sometimes frustrated by an absence of growth opportunities within their institutions and are intensely interested in programs that can help them develop, advance, and expand their networks. One recent survey of U.S. HE IT employees indicated that 55% of respondents are likely to leave their current position in the next year (McCormack, 2022). Significantly, those who are best positioned to move into higher levels of leadership (mid-level managers and directors) are those most likely to be considering a change, and many Leadership Lounge participants are at this stage in their careers. Program context Participants

Mentees are primarily non-academic professional staff employed at institutions of HE in the U.S. While the program is designed to focus

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  125 on professional roles and development within IT, several participants are in academic units, libraries, and offices of campus leadership. A recent (April 2022) survey distributed to 120 previous program participants (completed by 41 individuals) provides a sample of demographics and roles. Over 80% of survey respondents identified as “mid-career” (­Figure 6.1). Leadership Lounge participants' self-described career stage Late career 13%

Early career 5%

Mid career 82%

Figure 6.1  Leadership Lounge participants’ self-described career stage.

Mentors

The mentor panel is composed of CIOs at U.S. HE institutions. The panel was intentionally developed to include a range of identities and experiences, both personal and professional, including gender, race, professional background, tenure in a CIO role, and institution Carnegie Classification – the Carnegie Classification is a framework of categories for U.S. colleges and universities. An institution’s Carnegie Classification indicates a combination of the level of degrees conferred, level of research activity, institution size, and curricular focus. Once they have joined, all program mentors have continued participation, pausing participation only periodically to balance responsibilities. While the size of the panel fluctuates, it often exceeds 20 CIOs. The demographics of the CIO mentors are represented in Figure 6.2. The diversity of the mentor panel is significant. In 2018, only 23% of CIO positions in U.S. HE were held by women, women represented only 26% of the overall HE IT workforce, and most individuals in the IT workforce (79%) and leadership roles (88%) identify as white (see Galanek et al., 2019). Among Leadership Lounge mentors, 40% identify as women and over 40% identify as non-white.

126  Nora Dominguez

CIO gender identity

Leadership Lounge mentor demographics

National trends

0%

20%

Women

40%

60%

80%

100%

60%

80%

100%

Men

CIO race/ethnic identity

Leadership Lounge mentor demographics

National trends

0% White

Asian

20%

40%

Black/African American

Hispanic/LatinX

Other

Figure 6.2  CIO gender and race/ethnic identity.

Program managers and sponsors

The Leadership Lounge is supported by two program managers who handle registration, communication, and scheduling as well as co-­ facilitation and technical support during discussion sessions. In addition to organizational support, program managers promote community building by engaging with participants and mentors via online messaging and social media. Program sponsors (both former HE CIOs) conceived and initiated the program and provided guidance and ongoing support through resource allocation, mentor recruitment, and participation on the CIO mentor panel.

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  127 Program structure and supports Operational structure

The Leadership Lounge program provides participants and mentors with multiple means of connection throughout the program. Structured program elements consist of synchronous components: small group discussions, kick-off, and wrap-up conversations, and topical workshops, all hosted via videoconference. The primary unstructured program element is an online messaging platform where participants and mentors communicate asynchronously. This platform includes channels for all current and previous program participants to connect and topical channels for sharing achievements, leadership references, and diversity, equity, and inclusion resources. Participants are also encouraged to reach out to mentors for one-on-one conversations. The program is offered three times a year, on three-month program cycles, with a break between academic semesters. The number of discussion sessions per cycle varies based partly on the total number of mentors participating in that cycle. Participants register to attend one session per month for the entire program length of three months. Each discussion session comprises three mentors, eight program participants, and one program manager. The program reaches 24–48 participants each cycle and 70–120 participants annually. The program is organized by Vantage Technology Consulting Group (Vantage), a small strategic technology and system design consulting firm whose core principles include giving back to the HE IT community and supporting staff and leadership development. Program sponsors and managers are practitioners who transitioned to consulting from HE institutions and non-profit organizations affiliated with HE. Communication and recruitment

The Leadership Lounge program’s primary web presence is on the Vantage website. This webpage lists a program summary, current mentors, program cycle dates, and links to register, join a notification list, or contact program managers for more information. Program sponsors approached an experienced and diverse set of CIOs to establish the mentor panel. Since then, the panel has grown from an initial ten mentors to double in size with an intentional focus on maintaining a balanced team with a wide range of backgrounds and experience. Participant enrolment opens several weeks before the next program cycle begins. Program managers and mentors promote the program on social media, relevant listservs, and professional organization message boards.

128  Nora Dominguez Prior program participants often reshare social media posts with positive comments about their experiences in the program. In our survey of past participants, 85% of respondents shared that they had recommended the program to a colleague. The most recent program cycle (April–June 2022) filled within 48 hours. Expectations and engagement

In lieu of formal training, mentors attend small group discussions as observers to become familiar with the discussion format. Mentors commit to attending specific sessions prior to the announcement of each program cycle, and one CIO serves as discussion facilitator for each session. Participants are expected to attend the program’s monthly discussions. Other program components are optional, including kick-off and wrap-up discussions, topical workshops, and the messaging platform. Program evaluation

Program sponsors and managers use multiple means of program evaluation, seeking participant and mentor feedback. Participants are invited to provide monthly feedback via a brief survey and a program wrap-up meeting at the end of each cycle. Program sponsors and managers also host mentors-only debriefs after each program cycle. Feedback surveys consistently demonstrate a positive impact on participants, and feedback from participants and mentors has been instrumental in refining the program. These refinements include extending initial 60-minute discussion sessions to 90-minute, creating 3-month cycles, providing reflection questions in advance to help prepare for discussions, and delivering additional workshops on participant-selected topics. Program outcomes Both mentors and program participants have articulated the shared benefit of building community, creating camaraderie with new contacts, and strengthening existing professional relationships. CIO mentors

Program sponsors understood from the outset that the benefits of mentoring are shared and sometimes amplified in groups. Mentors have consistently articulated the benefits of the Leadership Lounge program for themselves, emphasizing its reciprocal nature. These benefits include learning from participants about their individual experiences,

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  129 aspirations, and challenges; gaining insight into staff perspectives on IT organizations that can help them with their own team development; considering new approaches to shared challenges; and exercising their mentoring and leadership skills in small groups, where they can also observe and learn from others. Survey of past participants

The recent (April 2022) survey of previous program participants provides a sample of participant feedback; with 41 respondents of 120 prior program participants, the survey completion rate was approximately 34%. Participants identified diversity as a program strength. Respondents overwhelmingly (98% positive responses) identified the diversity of the mentor panel as beneficial to them and to program conversations. The program also provides leadership development to current and aspiring IT leaders who identify as women and non-binary individuals, two demographics that remain underrepresented at many levels in IT organizations and especially in IT leadership (see Figure 4.2). Over 60% of our survey respondents identify as women or as non-binary, in contrast to the 26% of women comprising the U.S. HE IT workforce (demographic data on non-binary populations among this workforce are not presently available) (Pritchard et al., 2019). Previous program participants shared their reasons for having participated in the program. Each of the following response options was selected by 60% or more of the survey respondents: • I wanted to expand my professional network (85%). • I needed/wanted access to development beyond what was offered at my institution (78%). • I wanted help defining where to focus my knowledge, skill, and leadership development efforts (76%). • It was free (73%). • It was an opportunity to meet with a diverse group of CIOs (68%). • It was a good opportunity to connect with well-known mentor CIOs (61%). Survey respondents also shared feedback on the impacts of the program on their professional development: • Expanded professional network (75%). • Defined or refined a career pathway (57.5%). • Gained confidence managing up, down, and across (50%).

130  Nora Dominguez • Decided to pursue a career change (22.5%). • Advanced career while staying at the institution (17.5%). Finally, as illustrated in Figure 6.4.1, most survey respondents identify as mid-career, the demographic most likely to be considering a job change in the near future, according to a U.S. national survey conducted in February 2022 (McCormack, 2022). Many mid-career individuals seek professional development opportunities beyond locally available and in tandem with career advice and opportunities. Just over 25% of survey respondents reported having changed positions or roles since participating in the program. Plans While the program was born out of a desire for connection and helping others during the pandemic, it was evident early on that there was an immense need for this type of program. As we moved through the pandemic and into the Great Resignation, the need for this program for mid-career professionals became even more evident. Both aspiring and current leaders frequently seek growth and development opportunities beyond those offered by their institutions. They are particularly interested in programs that can help them move into their next leadership role while expanding their networks and making valuable new connections with peers and mentors. Vantage will continue to offer the program if registration, participant engagement, and mentor enthusiasm remain high.

Chapter conclusions and summary The four cases presented in this chapter provide evidence of effective practices in designing, implementing, and evaluating reciprocal mentoring relationships. The first case, the Honors Mentor Program (Gorman Cordova & Rushworth), focuses on the reciprocal mentoring relationships among Honors students. This near-peer-mentoring model develops critical skills in communication and problem-solving alongside intercultural competence, civic engagement, information literacy, and emotional intelligence. Purposefully, this program’s design includes structured activities and training for mentors and mentees to increase students’ campus engagement, college connectedness, and peer connectivity. These activities allow mentors and mentees to critically reflect on their leadership, scholarship, and research development, supporting lifelong learning and increasing a sense of belonging to a dynamic community of practice. The second case highlights the deep connections and mentoring processes between doctoral students and their supervisors at a UK Business School (Taylor). In this case, mentors and mentees enhance their self-confidence,

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  131 self-awareness, and leadership skills by engaging in a bidirectional feedback process. By explicitly including the student’s voice in the relationship and the participation of the Head of the School in formative and summative evaluation activities, opportunities arise for transparency, clarity, and relationship building, improving participants’ engagement and agency, demonstrating that reciprocal mentoring prevails even in the hierarchical, one-to-one mentoring model. The third case by Matthewman studies the impact of reciprocal near-peer mentoring as a career development intervention for prospective students at a UK Business School. In this program, undergraduate mentors and prospective mentees develop robust learning outcomes in career-related skills, working together in pairs and small group configurations. This program includes induction, structured meetings, written handbooks, and training aids in developing learning plans and portfolios of competence and conducting structured mentoring meetings are evidence of effective practices. An emphasis on robust evaluation, relationship-building, and critical reflection processes yields positive outcomes in confidence building, emotional intelligence, time management, resilience, communication skills, and overall participants’ personal, academic, and professional growth. A fourth case focuses on the virtual experience of CIOs in developing reciprocal mentoring opportunities during the pandemic (Bates, Dunn, and Vogel). This facilitated peer-mentoring program includes structured and unstructured networking opportunities in small-group configurations. Self-directed conversations and topic selection promote professional agency, proactivity, and autonomy, enhancing reciprocal learning opportunities and community building. The program structure, including two program managers, topical workshops, and a communication platform, provided the proximity, interest, and flexibility needed to bring senior and junior professionals to the program. At the same time, the multi-organizational approach, structured needs assessment, and formal evaluation offer the data and evidence of the program’s effectiveness for long-term sustainability and expansion. This chapter highlights program design configurations enhancing the benefits and outcomes of reciprocal mentoring relationships in HE for mentors, mentees, the organization, and society. Remarkably, the need for organizational support, a clear understanding of the participant’s needs and goals, professional facilitation, and adequate design of scaffolding learning activities to promote autonomy are critical elements for reciprocal mentoring initiatives’ success. References Allen, T. & Eby, L. (2010). The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. American Association of Colleges and Universities AAC&U. (2022). Values rubrics. AAC&U. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/initiatives/value-initiative/ value-rubrics.

132  Nora Dominguez Asghar, A. (2010). Reciprocal peer coaching and its use as a formative assessment strategy for first year students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), pp. 403–417. Bozak, A. (2021). Instructional reverse mentoring: A practice proposal for teachers’ understanding the” Z” and” Alpha” generations’ learning perspectives. Online Submission, 12(43), pp. 114–142. Burdett, J. (2014). Reverse mentoring becomes a two-way street: Case study of a mentoring project for IT competence. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 28(3). https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/ doi/10.1108/DLO-01-2014-0001/full/html. Burdett, J. & Crossman, J. (2010). “Checking the pulse”: The international student experience and social engagement across Australian universities: Reflecting on AUQA feedback to Cycle 2 reports. Journal of International Education in Business, 3(1/2). Chambliss, D.F. & Takacs, C.G. (2014). How college works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chandler, D.E. & Kram, K.E. (2005). Mentoring and developmental networks in the new career context. SAGE Publications, Washington, DC. Inc., https://doi. org/10.4135/9781412976107. Chaudhuri, S., Park, S. & Johnson, K.R. (2021). Engagement, inclusion, knowledge sharing, and talent development: Is reverse mentoring a panacea to all? Findings from literature review. European Journal of Training and Development, 46(5-6), pp. 468–483. Cohen, N.H. (1995). Mentoring adult learners: A guide for educators and trainers. Florida, Malabar: Krieger Publishing Co. Desai, S., Rao, S.A. & Jabeen, S.S. (2018). Developing cultural intelligence: Learning together with reciprocal mentoring. Human Resource Management International Digest, 26(3), online. Fain, P. (2020). Report: Resilient job skills in the recession. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/09/04/reportresilient-job-skills-recession. Feggetter, A.J.W. (2007). A preliminary evaluation of executive coaching: Does executive coaching work for candidates on a high potential development scheme? International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 129–142. Galanek, J., Gierdowski, D.C. & Brooks, C. (2019). The makeup of today’s IT workforce. The Higher Education IT Workforce Landscape, 2019. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved 28 February 2019 from https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-­ publications/the-higher-education-it-workforce-landscape-2019/the-makeup-oftodays-it-workforce (accessed 4 April 2022). Gibson, L.A. & Sodeman, W.A. (2014). Millennials and technology: Addressing the communication gap in education and practice. Organization Development Journal, 32(4), pp. 63–75. Gopalan, M. & Brady, S.T. (2020). College students’ sense of belonging: A national perspective. Educational Researcher, 49(2), pp. 134–137. Harvey, M.G., McIntyre, N., Heames, J. & Moeller, M. (2009). Mentoring global female managers in the global marketplace: Traditional, reverse, and reciprocal mentoring. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(6), pp. 1344–1361. Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., Smith, M., Bullock Mann, F., Barmer, A., & Dilig, R. (2020). Report on the condition of education 2020 (NCES 2020–144). U.S. Department of Education.

Reciprocal mentoring for students and staff in higher education  133 Johnson, W.B., Long, S., Smith, D.G. & Griffin, K.A. (2023). Creating a mentoring culture in graduate training programmes. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 17(1), 63–70. Johnson, W.B. & Ridley, C. (2008). The Elements of mentoring. New York: St. Martin’s Publishing Group. Jones, R. & Brown, D. (2011). The mentoring relationship as a complex adaptive system: Finding a model for our experience. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19(4), pp. 401–418.
 McCormack, M. (2022). EDUCAUSE quickpoll results: The workforce shakeup. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved 4 March 2022 from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2022/3/ educause-quickpoll-results-the-­workforce-shakeup (accessed 4 April 2022). National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Annual reports. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved 8 August 2022 from https:// nces.ed.gov/surveys/annualreports/. OECD Indicators. (2022). Education at a glance 2022. Retrieved 8 August 2022 from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/3197152b-en.pdf?expires=1673550454 &id=id&accname=guest&checksum=2B2CBF2C420706FF60F688E28049AE25. Potochnick, S.R. & Perreira, K.M. (2010). Depression and anxiety among first-­ generation immigrant Latino youth: key correlates and implications for future research. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198(7), pp. 470–477. https://doi. org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181e4ce24. Pritchard, A., McIntosh, K. & McChesney, J. (2019). Diversity in higher education information technology: From today’s workforce to tomorrow’s leaders. CUPAHR. Retrieved July 2019 from https://www.cupahr.org/surveys/research-briefs/ (­accessed 4 April 2022). Ragins, B. & Kram, K.E. (2007). The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research and practice, London: Sage. Scager, K., Akkerman, S.F., Keesen, F., Mainhard, M.T., Pilot, A. & Wubbels, T. (2012). Do honors students have more potential for excellence in their professional lives? Higher Education, 64(1), pp. 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-011-9478-z. Singh, S., Thomas, N. & Numbudiri, R. (2021). Knowledge sharing in times of a pandemic: An intergenerational learning approach. Knowledge and Process Management, 28(2), pp. 153–164. Smalley, S. (2022). Colleges cope with IT staff flight in wake of pandemic. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 2 February 2022 from https://www.insidehighered.com/ news/2022/02/02/colleges-face-it-brain-drain-driven-covid-pay-disparities (­accessed 4 April 2022). So, C. & Fiori, K. (2021). Attachment anxiety and loneliness during the first-year of college: Self-esteem and social support as mediators. Personality and Individual Differences, 187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111405. Stevenson, L. & Vaulkhard, K. (2017). No need to grow my resumé? Mentorship and the intersection of learning between emerging and established leaders. Healthcare Management Forum, 30(5), pp. 242–245. Taylor, Z.W. & Black, V.G. (2018). Talking to the mentees: Exploring mentee dispositions prior to the mentoring relationship. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 7(4), pp. 296–311. Tenenbaum, H.R., Crosby, F.J. & Gliner, M.D. (2001). Mentoring relationships in graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), pp. 326–341.

134  Nora Dominguez Van der Zam, J. & Bergum, V. (2000). Hermeneutic – phenomenology: Providing living knowledge for nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 3(1), pp. 211–218. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https:// nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2022144. Whitmore, J. (1992). Coaching for performance: A practical guide to growing your own skills (People Skills for Professionals). London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Zahneis, M. (2022). Higher ed’s labor shortage is easing. But these parts of its work force are struggling to return to normal. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 5 April 2022 from https://www.chronicle.com/article/higher-eds-labor-shortageis-easing-but-these-parts-of-its-work-force-are-struggling-to-return-to-normal (­accessed 8 April 2022).

7 Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar

Introduction The success of the Higher Education Sector in educating the new generations, promoting scientific and technological development, and creating economic development and social change through research and innovation relies heavily upon the faculty ranks. The worldwide number of people employed with teaching responsibilities is approximately 12.5 million (The World Bank, 2020). In the United States of America (USA) during the fall of 2020, 1.5 million faculty were employed at degree-granting postsecondary institutions; 56% were in full-time positions on 9-month contracts, and 44% were in part-time employment, with national average salaries of $88,700 that vary by rank and discipline (NCES, 2022). Faculty includes instructors, lecturers, adjuncts, associate professors, assistant professors, and professors with a determined career ladder from an associate-to-assistant-to-full professor that progresses into leadership and administrative positions such as department chair, dean, provost, or university president. Faculty in the USA might be hired exclusively to cover teaching responsibilities (teaching faculty) or to assume various responsibilities, including clinical tasks, teaching, research, grant writing, publication of scientific discoveries, and community service. Approximately 57% of degree-granting postsecondary institutions have a tenure system in which, after completing a probationary period, a faculty will not be terminated without just cause (NCES, 2022). The academic landscape in the USA has been plagued by criticism due to race and gender disparities in salaries, promotion rates, and mistreatment of underrepresented minorities, creating an adverse environment for the career development of specific populations. For example, in the fall of 2020, 39% of full-time faculty at degree-granting postsecondary institutions were White males; 35% were White females, 4% were Black females, and 3% each were Black males, Hispanic males, and Hispanic females. American Indian/Alaska Native individuals and individuals of two or more races each made up 1% or less of full-time faculty. In addition, the average salary was higher for males than females in every year of the past decade, from an average salary of 96,400 DOI: 10.4324/9781003302537-7

136  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar for males and $80,000 for males in 2018 and 2019, with a higher gap when accounting for race (NCES, 2022). These adverse conditions are aggravated when institutions give low value to community service tasks such as mentoring responsibilities, making it challenging to find enough appropriate mentors to support career development and tenure and promotion (T&P) achievement for underrepresented minorities in the faculty ranks. This hostile environment might be improved when institutions include policies, procedures, and performance measurements that value and promote mentoring programs, initiatives, and reciprocal mentoring relationships. In this chapter, we explore four cases that provide evidence of effective practice and positive outcomes for faculty success by engaging in reciprocal mentoring relationships. The higher education context for faculty In academic life, the process and criteria for T&P vary at every institution and, most of the time, even from College to College or Department to Department. To succeed in getting a promotion and achieving tenure, faculty need to sharpen the skills needed to navigate the institutional policies and understand the implicit promotion procedures and the criteria for teaching excellence while balancing research activities, publication, and community and administrative service expectations. The complexity of the T&P has made it common to assign a mentor from the senior faculty ranks to newcomers. While some institutions have well-designed formal mentoring programs or initiatives, most rely on informal matching and unsupervised assignment of mentors, with no training or preparation for the success and evaluation of these developmental relationships. The four cases presented in this chapter portray mentoring programs that started promoting hierarchical, one-to-one relationships between junior and senior faculty that evolved into meaningful, high-quality, reciprocal relationships. The first case by Feeney and Gut-Zippert portrays a learning partnership among two faculty members in teacher education that started at a formal University mentoring program. The second case by Robinson, VanDerveer, and Gut-Zippert depicts a formal mentoring program for junior faculty that evolved into a rich community of practice. The third case by Clabaugh, Carducci, Baba, and Venkataraman explains a program grounded in self-­determination theory for adjunct faculty. Finally, the fourth case by Parker illustrates a teambased formal program involving clinical tenure-track and tenured faculty. In this chapter, we explore a number of the challenges newcomers and junior faculty face in a highly competitive sector with set rules for promotion and tenure achievement and how reciprocal mentoring initiatives and relationships in various configurations assist participants in easing feelings of isolation, anxiety, and impostor syndrome, ultimately increasing job satisfaction and career success.

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  137 Case Study: Honoring each other’s experiences: reciprocal mentoring in higher education Danielle Feeney and Dianne Gut-Zippert Our case study describes the development of a mentoring relationship between two faculty members, Dianne and Danielle. Dianne has been in higher education for more than 20 years and was contracted to serve as the mentor for Danielle, a new faculty member. Our relationship began as part of a formal mentoring program but soon evolved into a reciprocal relationship that continues to develop. One outcome is the co-creation of this chapter. Purpose and objectives of the mentoring program The purpose and objective of the program were dictated by the college, which sponsored the mentoring program. The guidelines indicate: The Patton College holds a strong value for faculty development and seeks to support Instructional Faculty in ways that position them for success. Therefore, The Patton College offers opportunities for new Instructional faculty to gain mentoring. The first is a one-year (up to two semesters) internal Patton College mentor [whose role is to help with adjustments to the college]. The second is an external (up to two semesters) Ohio University Mentor [whose role is to help adjust to the university] (Ohio University Patton College of Education, 2019, para. 1). Theoretical framework informing the design of the program The program had no formal theoretical framework when we began our mentoring relationship. However, in the past two years, a training program for mentors has been developed with a foundation in the theory of Appreciative Mentoring (Bloom et al., 2008). Mentoring context We are faculty members at Ohio University, the oldest public university in the state, comprised of 11 campuses and centers. Our college, the Patton College of Education (PCOE), is a comprehensive college of education (COE) with both graduate and undergraduate programs. It is divided into four departments, one of which is Teacher Education. We are faculty in the Special Education program, one of six within the department.

138  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar The infrastructure of the mentoring program The PCOE offers a mentoring program for all new faculty and those preparing their tenure dossiers. The mentee must create and submit a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for approval by the dean’s office. It is the formal contract signed by the mentee, mentor, department chair, and associate dean. Operational definition of mentoring A traditional mentor (experienced)–mentee (novice) relationship is the expectation for the PCOE Mentoring program. However, we quickly moved into a co-mentoring relationship as we developed a deeper understanding of each other’s strengths and mentored each other in our areas of expertise. Recruitment, selection, and matching strategies Exemplifying the true reciprocal nature of our relationship, we both share our perspectives on this aspect of the program: Danielle: As a new faculty member at OHIO, my first two days on campus were orientation days. One was specifically for new faculty to the Patton College of Education, where I first heard about a mentoring process. I remember being so inundated with new information, though, that I did not think much of it at the time. Two weeks later, our Department Chair inquired about my involvement in the mentoring process, and I began thinking more about it. After some communication with him and an Assistant Dean of our college, I knew working with a mentor was not just interesting but also necessary. The Assistant Dean and I met for lunch to discuss the mentoring program’s details. I learned there were no formal guidelines or processes other than the creation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). I was not given recommendations regarding whom to ask about the mentoring focus or how I should make these decisions. I began reflecting on colleagues I had already met and learned about those I had not. I also reflected on my own personality and needs, which were quite distinct. It was important to me to find someone who could support my needs and growth and foster a positive relationship while doing so. Because of that, Dianne was the obvious choice. Dianne: When Danielle approached and asked me to serve as her mentor, I was pleased but also a little unsure. My experience

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  139 as a mentor had all been with tenure-track faculty and not instructional (non-tenure-track/primarily teaching) faculty. I was not sure I would be the best person to support Danielle (an instructional faculty member) since some roles and expectations are different. I discussed my reservations with Danielle, who assured me it would not be a problem. Knowing that we both came to higher education directly from the P-12 setting, I felt comfortable that I could support her. I took the approach that if I did not know an answer to a question, we could discover it together, or I could connect her with the appropriate resource/person. Danielle: What I particularly loved about this process is that I had no guidelines to follow. Usually, this freedom is hard for me, as I am very indecisive, but it allowed me to find someone I felt I would work well with. Once I asked Dianne, and she accepted, I let our Department Chair know whom I was picking, and he sent me the template for the MOU. Shortly after, I was sitting in Dianne’s office, sharing my thoughts and goals while she typed them into the document (she is the wordsmith of the two of us!). Dianne: I have mentored several colleagues, but this was the first time I was asked to sit with the other person and work on the MOU together. Our discussion allowed me to get to know Danielle and what was important to her and determine the focus of our mentoring sessions. We determined the content/goals in the MOU, how we would go about meeting the goals, and when and where we would meet. The MOU we designed focused on orienting her to the department, college, and higher education in general. Danielle: We finalized our MOU, signed it, and sent it for approval by our Department Chair and Assistant Dean. Although very open-ended, I enjoyed never feeling like I was forced into a partnership or that the needs and goals I expressed were not enough. The selection process was unique to my needs, and upon reflection, I realized it was necessary. Training and educational opportunities for mentors and mentees At the beginning of our partnership, no formal training was provided for mentors or mentees. Since then, a PCOE Mentor Leader Program (MLP) has been implemented for anyone wishing to be a mentor to ensure mentor competence and consistency in expectations across mentoring experiences. Currently, there is still no training for mentees. Although not a formal training opportunity, new instructional faculty

140  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar have been provided time each year to meet with other instructional faculty members to discuss progress toward promotion. This was not a time set aside for the mentoring program, yet it allows faculty to understand expectations for promotion better. The newer faculty members could then discuss this information with their mentors. Strategies to monitor and support the relationships The PCOE mentoring guidelines did not provide us with expectations or strategies for monitoring and supporting our relationship. Instead, we moved forward with what felt authentic and helpful to both of us. We informally checked in with each other at the start and end of each meeting. Dianne intentionally asked how things were going, how Danielle felt about what she was learning, and where she wanted to head next. Dianne was always open to hearing what new questions Danielle had since our last meeting or what barriers she encountered and wanted to break down. Formative and summative evaluation No formal method of formative assessment was required for our work, and we did not feel the need to create any. Danielle shares, “Our measurement of progress was based on my perceived growth, understanding, and confidence as a new faculty member. It was enough for me to feel more comfortable and knowledgeable in my role – that is how I knew it was working.” Dianne made informal notes during and after our meetings so we would know where we left off, what resources might need to be located, and what next steps were needed. The closest thing to a summative assessment was that Danielle was required to submit a Summary of Accomplishments and Activities. She remembers creating this and the feeling she had while doing so and states: The sense of growth within myself when I wrote the summary of accomplishments and activities was unlike any other I’d experienced since becoming a faculty member. This gave me an opportunity to reflect on not only the original goals we had created but also the additional skills I had developed since. The original MOU had three goals listed; the summary had 11 accomplishments. I was leaving my first year as a faculty member with knowledge and skills that built a strong foundation for sustained practical work as a faculty member in our department. Funding of the mentoring program According to the PCOE mentoring guidelines and MOU, mentors receive compensation for their work. Once a summary of activities is

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  141 submitted at the end of the year, the mentor is compensated $500/ semester, which the department and dean’s office split. Sustaining the mentoring program There is no expectation for pairs to continue to meet after completing the MOU. However, we decided to continue working together based on our established relationship and our reciprocal learning opportunities. Dianne shares one example of the reciprocal and ongoing nature of our relationship: Although trained in special education, my work in higher education has been focused on other areas for the past several years, which left me needing a refresher. In addition, Danielle’s question, “why do we…?” got me thinking beyond the traditional ways we always did things. Observing and learning about studentcentered practices, inclusiveness, equity, and justice from Danielle was transformational. Having these concepts and ideas modeled helped move them from surface-level discussions/understandings to deep reflection and critical thinking about my beliefs, leading me to new practices. Additionally, we connect daily to share information, troubleshoot work-related situations, discuss shared readings, and plan for courses. Our collaboration has expanded to include formal projects such as this case study, conference presentations, and other writing projects. Outcomes and lessons learned In summary, formal outcomes outlined in the MOU included: (1) developing a deeper understanding of higher education processes, practices, and structures at the departmental, program, and university levels (i.e., hiring, accreditation, dossier development, program coordination, resources); (2) establishing connections with the program, departmental, and university faculty members, students, and community partners; and (3) implementing and developing strategies for advising students, and supporting their individual needs. Although these formal outcomes greatly influenced Danielle’s growth and success as a faculty member, many other informal outcomes resulted from our partnership. From the beginning, we recognized the importance of allowing our relationship to organically grow and develop and not be constrained by the MOU. We learned that our shared values provided a solid foundation for the reciprocal relationship we developed, allowing us to continue to learn from each other. Danielle

142  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar noted, “Our partnership became reciprocal because of who we authentically are and what we each have experienced.” Over time, we began to complement one another and the steps we were each taking toward designing a more equitable, student-driven learning process.

Case Study: Reciprocal mentoring: a community mentoring culture in a COE Dwan V. Robinson, Beth VanDerveer, and Dianne Gut-Zippert This qualitative case study highlights a mid/advanced career mentoring training experience that emerges to be reciprocal in nature. This case study examines a professional development MLP in a COE. This learning community for mentors emphasized a reciprocal mentoring experience that organically evolved into a bi-directional and mutually enriching learning opportunity among MLP participants. The reciprocal nature of the dialogue in the MLP led to new learnings about appreciative mentoring and culture (organizational and social identity). The shared interactions during MLP sessions led participants to glean new understandings and perspectives about mentorship experiences and each other. Participants benefited from interactions, open discussions, and collaborative efforts. Throughout the program, the information exchanged facilitated organizational learning and contributed to further mutual understanding. This MLP was not initially designed to be reciprocal but evolved into a community of practice with characteristics of mutual support and knowledge sharing (Smith et al., 2016). Consequently, this training model offered elements of a mentoring program that framed mentoring as reciprocal (Dominguez, 2013), collective and collaborative (Smith et al., 2016) and trusting, and mutually beneficial (Dominquez & Kochan, 2020). The program leveraged the frameworks of “mentoring with” and advanced the ideas of mentoring as an act of caring (Goerisch et al., 2019, p. 1740), mentoring as a partnership (Zellers et al., 2008), and mentoring with multiple networks (Tsen et al., 2012). Finally, this study provides evidence of programming that depicts elements of trust and a sense of support (Johnson, 2015) where faculty share knowledge and resources with one another. At a doctoral/research-extensive university in the Midwest, an MLP for mid/advanced career faculty was launched in the fall of 2020. The faculty in the COE recommended to a dean’s advisory committee that a training program be developed for mid/advanced career faculty to mentor early career faculty in other areas to better guide early career faculty in aspects related to collegiality.

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  143 Faculty believed other areas for inclusion could include: (1) conflict resolution/mediation; (2) interpersonal communication; (3) understanding cultures in academia; (4) available university resources to support teaching, research, and service/outreach; (5) navigating the research publication process; and (6) cross-cultural dynamics. Faculty and administrators in the COE recognized that effective mentoring practices enrich an organization’s culture and climate. Strengthening the infrastructure of the mentoring program facilitates the installation of “mentoring as a cultural value and core institutional responsibility…[and] evaluation for continuous improvement” (Fountain & Newcomer, 2016, p. 485), and garners support for mentoring from organizational leaders and faculty (Peters & Boylston 2006; Zeind et al., 2005). A steering committee consisting of leadership from four departments was tasked with developing a formal mentor training program. Steering committee members and two doctoral students met over six months to review innovative models and program configurations to develop programming in response to faculty concerns and needs. The MLP was designed to provide consistent, theoretically grounded baseline knowledge for mentors to help support and strengthen a collegial culture across the college. Program features include engaging learning activities in the form of PowerPoint presentations, discussions, sharing of experiences, and committee-curated and participant-selected mentoring articles and resources. Based on feedback from participants and restrictions from COVID-19, training sessions have been fluid and flexible and have evolved. Although initially conceptualized for three-day-long, face-toface sessions, the MLP is now comprised of one three-hour and twohour online synchronous meetings held over the course of a semester (opening, mid-point, and final). This delivery configuration supports the development of relationships, encourages reflection through implementation, and aligns with characteristics of high-quality professional development, meaning, among other aspects, the training is sustained (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Essential to developing a successful mentoring program is the investment of top administrators, ambassadors from the training program, and other stakeholders who act as advocates for a sustainable mentoring culture. In our case, each cohort included a “Welcome” from the dean, who further supported recruitment efforts by asking department chairpersons to identify mid/advanced career faculty in their areas who might benefit from the MLP. During the final sessions, participants in each cohort were recognized and awarded a framed MLP certificate and a book on mentoring in higher education. Steering committee members acknowledged the

144  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar department chairpersons’ role of advising early career faculty and revised the college’s formal MOUs to enable chairpersons to take the lead with early career faculty in identifying an internal mentor. An administrative specialist supported communication and data collection strategies. All mid/advanced career faculty received multiple email invitations to participate in the MLP. It was an open invitation to empower those passionate about mentoring to self-select into the training. Only tenure-­ track faculty participated in the initial cohorts, but subsequent cohorts have involved more instructional (non-tenure-track) faculty. We find this advantageous in building a mentoring culture as the university hires more instructional rather than tenure-track faculty. We encourage mentors to create a safe and welcoming environment for mentees. To facilitate transparency and agency, mentors create a profile that mentees can review to help them self-select a mentor. Mentor profiles also assist department chairpersons in facilitating the process. In addition to demographic questions related to higher education and mentoring experiences, the profile contains mentors’ responses to four open-ended questions: “What do I want a potential mentee to know about me.” “How I maintain a work-life balance/recreational hobbies/interests.” “Why I want to be a mentor.” and “Best advice to new faculty/mentees.” Evaluation of the MLP is ongoing and not standardized. Participants complete a survey at the end of each of the three sessions. Participants rate their skills in several areas of mentoring. Examples include “Identifying mentee’s strengths, passions, interests, hopes and visions”; “Identifying and understanding the complexity of social identities”; “Working with mentees to co-create an action plan”; “Recognizing implicit biases, acknowledging microaggressions, and addressing challenges mentees face”; and “Engaging in culturally responsive mentoring.” They are also asked to respond to overall impressions of the training (i.e., usefulness and quality). At the end of the opening session, participants are asked to suggest additional topics of interest to be included in the remaining sessions to ensure that content is relevant and responsive to their needs. A “reunion” of all participants across cohorts was organized at their request. This allowed for more discussion, engagement with mentoring concepts, and continued collaborative development of an organic, reciprocal mentoring culture. Initial data from faculty evaluations indicate that the MLP is effective. All respondents reported that the content and discussions were valuable or highly valuable. They were asked to rate the value of articles presented by participants and discussed by the group. All respondents recommended continuing this activity. All respondents indicated they had accessed online curated resources after the mid-point sessions.

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  145 All participants indicated that discussions about mentor–mentee relationships, mentoring confidence, cultural competence, and appreciative mentoring were valuable or extremely valuable. Participant responses to open-ended questions soliciting suggestions for program improvement focused on experiential opportunities, models, and structure. Suggestions for experiential opportunities involved requesting additional information about current mentoring practices in the college (nuts and bolts), mentor self-assessments to identify areas of growth, and strategies for improving the mentor–mentee relationship. Recommendations included a request for more varied content regarding culture and virtual mentoring (e.g., blogging, social media). Structural suggestions included: condensing the program time frame, discussing how to navigate specific challenges, and having a reunion and follow-up with all participants. The most valuable aspects identified by participants included discussions/conversations, content, and structure. They appreciated interactive and robust discussions/conversations, allowing individuals to share different perspectives and input into selecting session topics. For example, one participant said, “I think people must be willing to share. This was a highlight for me – the honesty and vulnerability shared about ourselves and our college culture.” Content identified as most useful included: culturally responsive mentoring (organization and social identity), appreciative mentoring, mentoring characteristics and qualities, discover and dream strategies, takeaways and visioning, and participantled presentations/article discussions. Participants appreciated having a small group, time to engage with helpful and supportive colleagues, the length of sessions, and participants’ willingness to share. Participants consistently reported that the program information and discussions were worthwhile and beneficial. They appreciated the steering committee members for their expertise and effort in developing and facilitating the program. Given the time constraints and responsibilities facing faculty in higher education, the accurate measure of the benefits and success of a program can be found in whether they would recommend the program to others. The responses to this question were overwhelmingly positive. Prior to the MLP, available resources and funding to support mentoring initiatives were limited. The original mentoring framework provided opportunities for pre-tenured and new instructional faculty to request a MOU once they identified a mentor with whom to work. Faculty were eligible to request a mentor for one semester to support their transition to the university and the development of their tenure dossier and research agenda. The MOUs delineated the mentor and mentee’s collaborative projects and initiatives. Participating mentors were eligible for $750 in remuneration following

146  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar the successful completion of the MOU. Mentees were entitled to have up to two MOUs during their journey toward tenure and/or promotion. Initially, funding to support a robust mentoring program was limited, and mentees were not afforded extensive mentoring experiences. Further, no opportunities existed for mentor training. Following a request from the faculty, the administration decided to offer mentor training and provided administrative support and summer compensation for two doctoral graduate assistants to help develop the program. MLP established a faculty learning community for prospective mentors that included three sessions each semester, culminating in a certificate of completion and a mentoring book. To incentivize faculty to participate in the MLP, changes were made to the MOU. Mentors who attended training would receive $600.00 per semester or $400.00 without training. Based on the steering committee members’ experiences, evaluations, and participants’ suggestions, the sustainability of a high-quality mentoring program means holistically reassessing mentoring practices in the COE. To strengthen the mentoring culture in the COE, further definitions of our mentoring culture are needed. College committees, administrators, and other stakeholders should discuss, assess, and allocate resources for the various mentoring activities. Revisions include expanding the steering committee composition (i.e., regional campus and non-tenure-track faculty), exploring online platforms for mentoring activities, and providing compensation and/or other incentives for those involved in the mentoring initiatives. Our MLP offered ongoing programming for participants and engaged faculty from varied departments on the steering committee. The training was available to mid/advanced career tenure-track and instructional faculty members and integrated diverse mentoring perspectives in the approaches offered. Finally, training components incorporated mentoring leadership, theory, and best practices. Information and discussions about diversity and inclusion were critical for our MLP. The social identity wheel activity encouraged participants to identify and discuss their identities and reflect on how they impact the ways others perceive or treat them. Our interdisciplinary group of participants was invited to contribute articles shared with the group to reinforce and support our community. Based on insights from Curran et al. (2016), we provided space for colleagues to share reflections and afforded them opportunities to offer perspectives during activities and discussions. One unintended outcome was the organic evolution of multi-directional, mutually engaging, and respectful interactions among participants and session leaders. Jipson and Paley (2000, p. 38) noted that in co-mentoring, collaboration, and mentoring are closely intertwined “because no one gets there alone.”

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  147 Case Study: Reciprocal mentoring: sharing funds of knowledge to develop well-prepared adjunct faculty Dionne Clabaugh, Christine Carducci, Sandy Baba and Suji Venkataraman This case study describes the purpose, structure, and impact of a unique adjunct faculty mentoring program at Pacific Oaks College in California. Pacific Oaks College is a Hispanic Serving Institution, does not have exam-based entrance requirements, and offers MA and BA programs in Human Development, Education, and Psychology. This program was facilitated at a satellite campus from 2014 to 2020. The purpose of the Well-Prepared Adjunct Faculty mentoring program was to develop preservice adjunct faculty applicants into well-prepared applicants. Participants were alumna familiar with our pedagogy without college teaching experience or non-alumna with college teaching. Still, they needed to learn our pedagogy through pre-service experiences to learn and apply Pacific Oaks College pedagogy using autonomy-supportive strategies. This program was uniquely grounded in the tenants of Self-­ determination Theory (SDT), developed by Richard Ryan and Edward Deci: motivation spurs us to act. Mentee–mentor selection, matching, and program activities were grounded in SDT, Autonomy-supportive Instruction (ASI), and reflective practice. Formative and summative measures assessed individual growth and program success and informed program improvements. Highly engaged and skilled adjunct faculty were invited to be mentors, self-selected to participate, and trained in ASI. Mentors and mentees observed each other, then shared their documentation and thinking during reflective practice conversations. The intention was to leverage each person’s funds of knowledge to promote each other’s growth in instructional decision-making, group facilitation, and student engagement strategies. Program purpose The Well-Prepared Adjunct Faculty Mentoring Program was designed to develop Pacific Oaks College adjunct faculty applicants who were either alumni or non-alumni. Both groups needed to develop pedagogical knowledge and skills using relational teaching delivered using autonomy-supportive strategies and discussed during reflective practice conversations. The program occurred during the fall and spring semesters via reciprocal mentoring. Description of need

Before the mentoring program, adjunct applicants were developed during in-service training, co-teaching, and monthly learning dinners.

148  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar Training content focused on being a faculty member, college policies, and educational technology, facilitated using relational approaches that invited adjuncts’ funds of knowledge. However, the content did not convey Pacific Oaks College pedagogy to non-alumni applicants. Operational definition

In this case, reciprocal mentoring relies on both individuals “to mentor and be mentored” within their pairing. Pairs share funds of knowledge (Gonzales and Moll, 2002), creating a two-way developmental network (Higgins & Kram, 2001). Theoretical frameworks

The mentoring program was grounded in SDT, ASI, and reflective practice. SDT describes the relationship between a person’s motivation, regulation, and determination (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Self-determined learners are intrinsically motivated to learn. When three psychological needs (autonomy, belonging, and competence) are satisfied, learners use intrinsic motivation to promote their engagement (Deci et al., 1991). ASI uses three teacher behaviors and three classroom structures to promote learner agency by meeting these three psychological needs (Jang et al., 2010). Reflection is the second step in The Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb & Kolb, 2017). After substantial experience (observing each other teach), mentor–mentee pairs used reflection to discuss their observations of each other’s ASI strategy used during teaching. Abstract conceptualization was used to co-construct theory about student engagement, then ASI strategies were reapplied as active experimentation to increase student engagement through belonging and competence. Mentoring context Pacific Oaks College offers Human Development BA and MA degrees to non-traditional adult learners in education and human services who want to become change agents. Satellite campus enrollment increases required more well-prepared adjuncts. Accreditation required 50% of adjuncts to be non-alumni; however, they did not know Pacific Oaks College’s culture-­centered pedagogy; alumni applicants rarely had college teaching experience. The mentoring context was developmental (Dominguez & Hager, 2013), reciprocal, and situated in the mentor’s course, where mentee–mentor pairs applied education and human development knowledge during co-teaching. The program developer (first mentor) used

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  149 SDT, ASI, and reflective practice to design the program and materials and to facilitate training and relationship-building. The program operated from Fall 2014 to Spring 2020 with ten mentors and 18 mentees. There were 8–15 students in each classroom, which provided rich observation and reflective practice opportunities. Mentors were in-service reliable adjuncts, skilled in relational teaching and cultural competence, and interested in mentoring. Mentees were pre-service adjuncts, underprepared for Pacific Oaks College pedagogy and/or college teaching with non-traditional adult learners in human development courses (theory, communication, diversity, fieldwork, research, and capstone). The primary program goal was to develop pre-service adjuncts into poised faculty who could promote non-traditional students’ engagement and bachelor’s or master’s degree completion. Sustaining mentor–­mentee program engagement through autonomy support and including participants’ voices in all aspects of the program was the secondary goal. The program director supported these goals by building effective mentoring relationships, using reflection to make personal and program adjustments, and promoting participant engagement and self-determination. Healthy relationships influence mentors’ ability to develop mentees’ psychosocial skills and activate their motivation for goal attainment. Program infrastructure Infrastructure, organizational support, and communication

Mentor–mentee pairs met each semester before, during, and after three teaching weekends. Pairs planned, observed each other’s ASI strategy use, documented observations, then used reflective practice to construct instructional understanding. Reflective practice led to active experimentation with facilitation skills, culture-centered responses, and student trust-building. Each weekend’s concrete experiences informed upcoming ASI strategy use during teaching. Campus leadership supported the program ideologically and encouraged mentor participation and campus-wide presentations. Classrooms, technology tools, and office materials were provided to develop and market the program and materials and to facilitate training and feedback meetings. Recruitment, selection, and matching strategies

Responsive, communicative, skilled adjunct faculty members were invited to be mentors, then self-selected to participate. Mentees were adjunct faculty applicants without experience in college teaching or

150  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar Pacific Oaks College pedagogy who self-selected after being invited to participate. Mentees were matched with a mentor based on compatible interests, differing skills, and prior college teaching. Training

Mentors attended interactive ASI training in the spring and summer mentor–mentee orientation, which modeled ASI strategies. Pacific Oaks College pedagogy, ASI, adult learning theory, and college policies were covered. Mentors were matched with their mentees, then pairs reviewed the program activity cycle of planning, co-teaching, reflective practice, and feedback meetings. The training ended with reflective practice activities. The value of solid mentor–mentee relationships, the impact of being mentored, and ways to apply what was learned to the classroom were discussed in program meetings. Dionne: Co-planning with my mentees was enlightening. Their ideas expanded my thinking about course content and student context, deepening my cultural competence. PO alumna mentees sensitized me to student hardships I wasn’t aware of. As mentee competence for adult learning pedagogy increased, students had less learning stress. Sandy: I had inquiries on pedagogy and adult teaching theories and wondered, would this or that fit and integrate well with this content and the culture of the class? Through observing my mentor’s teaching-in-action, trying out my ideas in practice teaching, and receiving feedback from students and my mentor, my comfort and confidence level grew. Program learning objectives, curriculum, length, and evaluation tools

Learning ASI and Pacific Oaks College pedagogy were program objectives. The “curriculum” was differentiated based on the mentor–­ mentee pair’s funds of knowledge and content expertise; each program cycle yielded new learning for mentors. Evaluation tools were four focus group dinners (qualitative measures), six ASI documentation analyses (quantitative measures), and mentor–mentee suggestions. Dionne: As program director, participants looked to me for guidance. We shared pedagogy and ASI perspectives for culture-­ centered teaching, brainstormed solutions to facilitation challenges, and discovered ways to meet students’ needs through belonging and competence. These were emergent trainings — we

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  151 learned from each other, and an observer might not distinguish between mentors and mentees. Suji: As a PO alum, I received more varied experiences from my mentor than from non-PO alumna mentees. I already had higher education teaching capabilities, confidence, and enthusiasm. My mentor recognized these, listened to my thoughts and ideas, and provided scaffolding that connected PO pedagogy to adult education. This mentor program was unique due to relationship-­building, interactions with my non-PO mentor, and our co-reflection processes. We reflected on our collaborative curriculum, teaching styles, and impact on our students. Sandy: Toward the end of the semester, my mentor invited my observations and assessment of students’ needs so we could compare our perspectives. I valued the inter-rater reliability check experience. This invaluable exercise led to many conversations sharing perspectives on ASI. ASI is not a conventional higher education teaching method, and it should be. I appreciate that I have had an opportunity to experience it. Mentoring and supporting relationships

The program director used reflective practice conversations in response to mentor inquiries, concerns, and resource requests, as an example for them with their mentees. Suji: My mentor’s willingness to collaborate opened doors to mastering curriculum writing skills. As we reflected on the students’ learning, we co-created agendas, suggested topics, and I designed activities. This increased my teaching confidence as I continued developing my ideas and strengths. Interchanges between mentees were essential to building relationships with other mentors to learn various teaching styles. Visiting other mentors’ classrooms showcased beneficial partnerships and co-teaching between faculty, and one mentor continued co-teaching with me after the program finished. Chris: Building and maintaining relationships was intentional in this program. Through formal and informal training, meetings, dialogue, and shared meals, we came to relate with each other in professional and personal ways. It was a joint experience — we were in it together; there weren’t hierarchical relationships. Funding

All program development, administration, and assessment aspects occurred during regular hours. The satellite campus funded the program

152  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar director’s mentoring conference attendance, but participation time was not compensated. Program assessment and lessons learned Evaluation

Mentoring practices and assessments were grounded in SDT, ASI, and reflective practice. The program director used SDT to assess participant motivation, applied ASI strategies to promote competence and belonging, and held reflective practice conversations to facilitate relationships and assessment conversations. Mentors applied SDT and ASI to promote mentee development. Using reflection, mentors articulated their impact on students’ engagement. Mentor–mentee pairs shared funds of knowledge to co-develop cross-cultural competencies for inclusive, relational teaching. A mentor’s knowledge was sometimes efficacious, but not always. Reciprocal mentoring allowed mentees to contribute to their mentor’s development, especially regarding ASI feedback, which helped them learn unfamiliar content and practice the ASI strategy, Giving Informational Feedback. Mentor development was assessed using mentor–mentee observation documentation. ASI observation results were aggregated and then used to describe how effective ASI strategies were applied. The program director corrected misconceptions through reflective practice and encouraged continuous goal setting. Focus group dinners assessed program effectiveness, communication, resources, participation, and unmet needs. Results were reported annually and presented at mentoring conferences. Mentors typically requested program improvements to add resources for teaching adults, find conference opportunities, and fund mentoring participation. Outcomes and lessons learned

Reciprocal mentoring practices developed instructional skills; pairs felt accountable for each other’s learning and application of ASI and Pacific Oaks College pedagogy. Across all program years, mentors and mentees volitionally described the impact of participating to absorb SDT, ASI, and reflective practice. Chris: An observation worksheet was created to record mentormentee use of ASI strategies as self-evaluation and for mentees and mentors to document our strategy use. Reflective practice conversations helped me plan the curriculum and reflect on instructional language. My mentee noticed things I said and did

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  153 that fit ASI strategies even when I didn’t recognize them. This dialogue was helpful to our teaching and ASI skills practice. Chris: I’m now a more confident and well-rounded instructor. A guided step-by-step process was invaluable to stretching my skills from a content focus to adult learning strategies. Being paired with PO graduate mentees offered insightful perspectives on our students’ points of view. I now consider each student’s unique learning style and adapt my teaching strategies. Dionne: Facilitating adjunct faculty’s growth and development was an honor. I’m a better colleague and learning facilitator. Our funds of knowledge were welcomed, and both mentors’ and mentees’ suggestions for improvement were invaluable. This program has improved more through its synergistic input than anything I could create. Sandy: I was skeptical at first in this new environment. My mentor was welcoming and invested personal and professional interest in my growth. As I developed my “try out” lesson plans, she provided feedback and patiently explained options and strategies so I could reach my goal in several ways. Over time, I grew increasingly committed to preparing curricula. Personal and professional lessons learned

The mentoring program structure brought theory and practice to life. We experienced SDT, ASI, and reflective practice individually and collectively applied ASI and SDT to collaboration, communication, respectful interactions, and reflective practice during the program, which established developmental relationships. Further, we authors co-­constructed this chapter using SDT, ASI, and reflective practice, which intuitively applied reciprocal mentoring to our writing process. We integrated reciprocal mentoring into the context of articulating our teaching and learning practice. Although the program has ended, several mentors and mentees work together in multiple settings. Here are important lessons learned: Chris: Each time I mentored different mentees in various classes, I gained new skills and self-awareness as an instructor. I recognize my comfort in teaching topics I am more knowledgeable about, which allowed me to thrive as a mentor. Conversely, when teaching less comfortable or familiar topics, I focused more on the coursework than on supporting my mentee. Suji: As faculty, we must be open about making mistakes – this is how we learn. Flexibility in teaching (curriculum to meet the

154  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar adults’ learning needs) and setting a space for trust solidifies student and faculty relationships. Accepting mistakes with humility allowed me to know course content along with our students. At the same time, I learned about myself. This reciprocity between faculty and students is integral in PO pedagogy and ASI. Further, our mutual respect, compassion, and trust, combined with my quest for learning, created a safe space to banter about teaching and learning styles. This accounted for reflective learning with each other; it was an authentic, reciprocal partnership. Chris: I learned from each mentee’s unique funds of knowledge within our reciprocal relationships. I worked to be an intentional and purposeful mentor. I always built upon my mentee’s strengths, which led to effective learning for our students. Sustaining and future of the program This program ended when the satellite campus’ enrollment declined during COVID-19, leading to campus closure. The program director then mentored one main-campus faculty to develop a similar program during 2020–2021. To sustain faculty mentoring programs, program directors should build a reciprocal mentoring community of practice grounded in SDT and ASI to promote mentor–mentee motivation, engagement, competence, and relatedness.

Case Study: A department’s journey with reciprocal faculty mentoring using appreciative inquiry Michele A. Parker This case study describes reciprocal mentoring in an academic department with 20 clinical, tenure-track, and tenured faculty. The ­department uses a team-based mentoring program that connects faculty with peers to develop expertise, build community, enhance communication, and increase retention. In the department, we mentor from a strengthsbased framework. Each person in the mentoring relationship identifies goals, develops a plan for mentoring, and engages in mutually beneficial dialogue. Fundamentally, while the department handbook guides mentoring, the mentoring relationship is organic and reciprocal, evolving according to the needs of the mentor and mentee. We recognize that mentorship operates differently depending on the faculty member’s experience level. Hence, new faculty are oriented to the mentoring program through meetings and conversations during

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  155 their initial semester. We focus on understanding the academy and the university specifically. Mentoring entails relationship-building with colleagues, orienting them to institutional expectations, understanding the tenure and promotion process, goal setting, time management, and personal support. Annually, faculty members identify a mentor: 1 In the same academic program. 2 External to their program affiliation. 3 Internal or external to the department (e.g., college, university, or external to the university). To actualize reciprocity, we use an appreciative inquiry guide consisting of specific questions during formal and informal mentoring conversations. Mentors and mentees meet regularly to discuss and leverage each other’s strengths to help achieve their respective and departmental mentoring program goals. Purpose and objectives of the mentoring program The reciprocal mentoring program intends to support faculty in all aspects of the academic role, including progress toward reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT). It is meant to develop a collegial, supportive professional environment and retain quality faculty. Mentoring context This case study is situated within a regional research-intensive institution of higher education in the United States. Approximately 20,000 students are enrolled at the university, with most being undergraduates. There are 900 faculty across several colleges. Within each college, there are departments. While there is a university-wide mentoring program through the Center for Teaching and Learning, it focuses on new faculty. Within colleges and departments, mentoring is decentralized. Within a specific college and department, the faculty handbooks provide guidelines for mentoring. There are 20 tenure-track, tenured, and clinical faculty – most hired within the last three years. Yet, disparities in mentoring practices were becoming increasingly evident among new and tenure-track faculty in the department. The newly established faculty development committee decided to revamp mentoring within the department. One committee member had recently completed Appreciative Inquiry (AI) facilitator training. She suggested using an AI framework to reorient faculty professional development processes. AI

156  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar encourages people to share stories, dialogue, and collaboratively co-­ create their futures (Cockell et al., 2020). Inspired by the strength-based approach of AI, the committee moved from existing one-directional mentoring to reciprocal mentoring. This approach acknowledges and builds upon the strengths of each faculty member as they assist one another with professional development and goal attainment. Mentoring program infrastructure The Department Chair is responsible for the oversight and sustainability of the mentoring program. New faculty mainly participate in structured mentoring as a cohort. They are oriented to the mentoring program through meetings with the Department Chair and workshops during their initial year. For new faculty, the focus is on understanding the university and orienting them to institutional expectations. Given existing guidelines, mentors and mentees are expected to meet at least three times annually to discuss identified focal area(s). Additional infrastructure is needed for departmental mentoring. Hence, the faculty development committee is working diligently to develop the infrastructure for a comprehensive support system that envelops mentoring. At its core, mentoring should be self-directed, organic, and driven by the needs of the parties involved. Information delivery should be multidirectional and mutually beneficial as individuals learn from each other. Recruitment, selection, and matching strategies After deliberating discussions, the faculty development committee suggested that reciprocal mentoring occur in teams that consist of one person and three faculty mentors. Each faculty mentor should meet one of these criteria: 1 One faculty member with the same program affiliation with the department. 2 A faculty member external to their program affiliation within the department. 3 One faculty member internal or external to the department (e.g., college, university, or external to the university). Department members recognize that mentorship operates differently depending on the faculty member’s experience level. For new faculty, the department chair assists with selecting mentor(s) by making suggestions. Mentor selection occurs independently or in consultation with the department chair for faculty who have been at the institution.

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  157 The faculty member can converse with the individual/s to decide about working with them in a mentoring capacity. Annually, faculty members are asked to identify mentors who may guide one (or more) of the three main aspects of the job: (1) teaching, (2) scholarship, and (3) service or community engagement. Each person identifies and provides a brief written justification of their mentor selection on their professional development plan for the current academic year. Training and educational opportunities While reciprocal mentoring was integrated within the department, the institution has become a National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity (NCFDD) member. Each university faculty member can access various resources and webinars (previously recorded and live) about topics that can facilitate reciprocal mentoring. The webinars are typically an hour and scheduled on Eastern Time. The NCFDD Library includes the categories: • • • • •

Academic publishing, Teaching, Writing and research productivity, Strategic planning, and Race and diversity.

Online sessions such as “Mentorship: Efficient and Effective Practices” can be viewed conveniently. In addition to the library and resources, the NCFDD staff sends weekly emails. One senior faculty member uses the NCFDD emails as mentoring prompts when communicating with mentees. Training and educational opportunities present themselves regularly through NCFDD, the university’s Center for Teaching and Learning, and department initiatives. There are appreciative inquiry training sessions at the institution, including a four-day in-person gathering where faculty learn in-depth facilitation strategies. Every semester, workshops are scheduled for RPT at the department, college, and university levels. These information sessions can reinforce what mentors and mentees discuss and guide future conversations. At the department level, faculty learn about and experience reciprocal mentoring formally using the “Peer Meeting Guide,” created by the faculty development committee (Oxendine et al., 2022). The guide is used in peer meetings to help faculty identify strengths and achievements and consider how these strengths can be leveraged when planning future goals and professional development. The guide is based on the five generic processes of AI (Mohr & Watkins, 2002). Each process

158  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar or category, such as “Discovery (reviewing the Past)” and “Dream (Imagining the future),” contains two to four questions. The open-ended questions, also known as appreciative interview questions, are intentionally framed positively so that each party feels affirmed throughout the process. Each peer meeting consists of a group of senior faculty meeting with a faculty member (called a participant from here onward). One set of questions is for the senior faculty, and the second is for the participant. Since we can all benefit from each other’s strengths and expertise, we focus on what inspires us. For instance, new faculty may be using innovative research methodology or teaching with new technology, and this information can benefit senior faculty or vice versa. Typically, a senior faculty member leads the conversation (role modeling for newer senior faculty). Meanwhile, the participant receives the guide ahead of the scheduled meeting. The person experiences the process when meeting with the group of senior faculty about their progress toward RPT. This formal conversation occurs once during the academic year and lasts one hour. The Department Chair takes notes based on the discussion and may meet with the participant afterward. Followup conversations may occur among the participant and mentor(s). About mid-year, there is an AI presentation (15–20 minutes) during a monthly department meeting. This refresher serves as a reminder for mentoring conversations. Strategies to monitor and support the relationships Reciprocal mentoring, framed by AI, has helped build and sustain relationships among colleagues and increased a sense of community within the department. During the academic year, the department chair asks mentors and mentees about their well-being and the professional or personal support needed. Subsequent workshops may address the mentioned topics to be responsive to the faculty. Formative and summative evaluation During conversations, the Department Chair learns how the mentoring process is going when talking one-on-one with faculty. The chair solicits and collects feedforward (Hearn, 2015) that can be shared with mentors about what is working. The discussion can allow mentees or mentors to reassess mentor matching and strategy. If desired, a mentoring pair can exit the relationship (Landry, 2022). At the end of the year, faculty restate who their mentors are, and each department member must write about the outcomes per their

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  159 goals within their professional development report. This report is submitted to the Department Chair. It provides an opportunity to selfevaluate one’s accomplishments and identify the support needed for the upcoming year. Recently, the Department Chair began end-ofyear evaluative meetings by asking (1) what are you most proud of in teaching, research, or service? and (2) what is the most important for supporting your goal attainment? Informally, the Department Chair uses questions from the peer meeting guide to generate conversation about faculty success and evaluate mentoring. It has been several years since the Department Chair distributed a questionnaire about mentoring practices. Moving forward, we should be methodical about process monitoring and formative and summative evaluation. The information gleaned from this can enhance future mentoring practices. Funding for the mentoring program Previously, funds were used to purchase mentoring books distributed to faculty within the department. Faculty can request books and materials on an ad-hoc basis to support mentoring. We bought a specific mentoring book at an African American faculty member’s request. The book, “The Black Academic’s Guide to Winning Tenure—Without Losing Your Soul,” was given to new faculty who are African American. As the program develops, faculty can request that department funds be allocated for the mentoring program. Sustaining the mentoring program We build relationships by sharing and listening to each other’s stories and experiences (Bushe, 2007). Using the AI approach to build on our individual and collective strengths can foster and sustain reciprocal mentoring. We should continue sharing success stories in the department to maintain the positive energy created. We need to create forums to share information casually and regularly. This suggestion has frequently arisen in department meetings. Faculty want opportunities to discuss their syllabi and course materials. New faculty want to learn about and discuss publishing venues that senior faculty are familiar with to facilitate publishing their scholarship. Outcomes and lessons learned We have learned that the peer meeting guide fosters interchange, which carries over to mentoring relationships. Using the guide during formal meetings, we have determined that select questions on the guide

160  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar generate more conversation than other questions. For instance, now we routinely ask, “Without being humble, what is one [small] thing you have done that brought you a feeling of success or accomplishment?” This question provides insight into the participants beyond what they typically share in writing or a portfolio. Faculty can use similar questioning techniques during mentoring conversations. Although the peer meeting is not called group mentoring, it could be perceived this way. For this mentorship to be efficient and effective, the senior faculty should review the application while using the questions in the peer meeting guide when a person approaches an RPT milestone. We have found it helpful to project the RPT application on a large screen (in a room or via screen share, if virtual). On a computer, we scroll through each section (teaching, research, and service) so that the participant can hear and answer questions while receiving constructive feedback directly from senior faculty. Also, this approach allows the participant to ask questions and obtain answers from senior faculty. Over time, we have learned that AI is more than focusing on the positives, unicorns, or rainbows. We must discuss opportunities for growth with colleagues who have yet to receive the information (Bushe, 2007). Reciprocal mentoring can be instrumental in this regard. Colleagues who have decided to work together in a mentoring capacity can ask one another a series of generative questions to encourage each other to think about and examine reality differently. This questioning may create conditions for positive change. The AI process is surprisingly affirmative and touches people’s hearts. Meanwhile, reciprocal mentoring allows us to leverage each other’s strengths as we progress toward goals.

Chapter conclusions and summary The four cases share that reciprocal mentoring is a discovery journey in which dialogue, engagement, and interaction lead to personal and professional growth while collaboratively building energetic communities of practice. The first case by Feeney and Gut-Zippert describes the development of a mentoring relationship between an experienced and new faculty member at Ohio University. A theme that runs throughout the case study is co-creation. Feeney and Gut-Zippert co-created their mentoring agreement, the approach to their mentoring sessions, monitoring, and ongoing review of the mentoring relationship. The mentee and mentor co-created their case study for inclusion in this chapter. In their case study, they describe how the mentoring relationship began from the Patton College mentoring program for new Instructional faculty. The mentoring program supports the traditional mentoring relationship, whereby an experienced faculty member (mentor) supports a

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  161 novice faculty member (mentee). The mentee and mentor reflect on their initial thoughts about the mentoring program, needs, expectations, and the approach to mentoring. At the outset of the mentoring relationship, the mentor refers to the potential for co-discovery and the role of networks and resources, particularly in the context of prior experience and mentoring for tenure-track vs non-tenure-track faculty. The mentoring relationship continues beyond the expectation of the program. The mentor and mentee purposely decide to continue to work together, recognizing the reciprocal benefits of the mentoring relationship. In particular, the mentor describes engaging with deep reflection and critical thinking about her beliefs, leading her to new practices. The mentee reflects on the formal and informal outcomes that result from the learning partnership. Overall, their commitment to the mentoring relationship, each other and their shared values provided a solid foundation for their reciprocal mentoring relationship. The second case by Robinson, VanDerveer, and Gut-Zippert depicts a formal mentoring program for junior faculty in a COE that evolved into a rich community of practice. The case study examines a professional development MLP in a COE. Similar to the first case study, the mentoring program supports the traditional mentoring relationship, whereby a mid/advanced experienced faculty member (mentor) supports an early career faculty member (mentee). The program encompassed elements of reciprocal, collective, and collaboration in the context of the mentoring relationship. The program structure includes a steering committee, investment in administrators and program ambassadors, along with key stakeholders to sustain the mentoring program, training provision to provide mentors with theoretically grounded baseline knowledge, ongoing monitoring, support, and evaluation. The MLP established a faculty learning community for prospective mentors which yielded positive results and enhanced mentor engagement. The MLP was not designed to be reciprocal but evolved into a community of practice, including the evolution of multi-directional interactions among the program participants and session leaders. The third case by Clabaugh, Carducci, Baba, and Venkataraman describes the development of a mentoring program for adjunct faculty applicants at Pacific Oaks College grounded in self-determination theory for adjunct faculty. Mentors were in-service adjuncts and mentees were pre-service adjuncts. Typically, mentors were skilled in relational teaching and cultural competence, interested in mentoring. The mentees were underprepared for Pacific Oaks College pedagogy and/or college teaching with non-traditional adult learnings. The program structure includes ongoing leadership support, processes, and systems to support participant engagement, recruitment, training, ongoing support, and evaluation. The campus leadership team supports the program, training provision to support mentors and mentees encompasses aspects such as adult learning, college practices, activity cycle planning, coteaching, reflective practice, feedback meetings, and the value of solid mentor–­ mentee relationships. The ongoing evaluation of the mentoring program and

162  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar relationships provides evidence of reciprocal mentoring outcomes. One example provided was the mentee and mentor co-development of cross-cultural competencies for inclusive, relationship teaching. Finally, the fourth case by Parker describes a team-based mentoring program, connecting faculty with peers to develop expertise, build community, enhance communication, and increase retention. The mentoring program aims to support faulty in all aspects of their academic role. The emphasis is reciprocal in nature, encouraging the mentor and mentor to discuss and leverage each other’s strengths to achieve their individual and departmental mentoring program goals. The program structure includes ongoing leadership support – the Department Chair is responsible for the oversight and sustainability of the program – processes and systems to support participant engagement, recruitment, training, ongoing support, and evaluation. The training provision to support the program participants is broad in remit, including aspects such as appreciative inquiry, facilitation strategies, and peer mentoring. The ongoing evaluation of the mentoring program and relationships provides evidence of reciprocity. The approach of appreciative inquiry and reciprocal mentoring enables participants to mutually leverage strengths, share success stories, maintain the positive energy created, and increase a sense of community within the department. In this chapter, the case studies identify a number of challenges faced by newcomers and junior faculty, in what was described earlier as a highly competitive sector with set rules for promotion and tenure achievement. All case studies illustrate and how reciprocal mentoring initiatives and relationships in various configurations assist participants in their personal, professional, and overall career development to successfully transition in academic life. Designed as reciprocal or reciprocal by outcome, the case studies demonstrate mutual learning and development, in addition to the broader benefits of organizational cultural shifts, supporting colleagues to navigate their career, ultimately increasing job satisfaction and career success. Similar to Chapter 6, the four cases presented in this chapter provide evidence of effective practices in designing, implementing, and evaluating reciprocal mentoring relationships; demonstrating that reciprocal mentoring is a discovery journey in which dialogue, engagement, and interaction lead to personal and professional growth while collaboratively building energetic communities of practice. References Bloom, J.L., Hutson, B.L. & He, Y. (2008). The appreciative advising revolution. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing. Bushe, G.R. (2007). Appreciative inquiry is not (just) about the positive. OD Practitioner, 39(4), pp. 30–35. Cockell, J., McArthur-Blair, J. & Schiller, M. (2020). The tenets of appreciative inquiry. In Appreciative inquiry in higher education: A transformative force (2nd ed., pp. 27–39). Victoria, BC: Friesen Press.

Reciprocal mentoring for faculty in higher education  163 Curran, W., Hamilton, T., Mansfield, B., Mountz, A., Walton-Roberts, M., Werner, M. & Whitson, R. (2016). Will you be my mentor? Feminist mentoring at mid-career for institutional change. Gender, Place & Culture, 12, pp. 721–739. DOI:10.1080/ 0966369X.2019.1638347. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M.E. & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development research brief. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute, pp. 1–8. Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., & Ryan, R.M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), pp. 325–346. Dominguez, N.G. (2013). Mentoring unfolded the evolution of an emerging discipline (DPhil Dissertation, University of New Mexico). Dominguez, N., & Hager, M. (2013). Mentoring frameworks: synthesis and critique. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(3), pp. 171–188. Dominguez, N. & Kochan, F. (2020). Defining mentoring: An elusive search for meaning and a path for the future. In The Wiley international handbook of mentoring: Paradigms, practices, programs, and possibilities (pp. 1–18). Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell. DOI:10.1002/9781119142973.ch1. Fountain, J. & Newcomer, K.E. (2016). Developing and sustaining effective faculty mentoring programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22, pp. 483–506. DOI: 10.1080/15236803.2016.12002262. Goerisch, D., Basiliere, J., Rosener, A., McKee, K., Hunt, J. & Parker, T.M. (2019). Mentoring with: Reimagining mentoring across the university. Gender, Place & Culture, 26, pp. 1740–1758. DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2019.1668752. González, N., & Moll, L.C. (2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to funds of knowledge. Educational Policy, 16(4), pp. 623–641. Hearn, S. (2015). Using ‘feedforward’ in employee performance reviews. Retrieved from https://clearreview.com/feedforward-employee-performance-reviews/. Higgins, M.C., & Kram, K.E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), pp. 264–288. DOI:10.2307/259122. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E.L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), p. 588. Jipson, J. & Paley, N. (2000). Because no one gets there alone: Collaboration as co-mentoring. Theory into Practice, pp. 36–42. DOI:10.1207/s15430421 tip3901_6. Johnson, B.J. (2015). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Kolb, A.Y., & Kolb, D.A. (2017). Experiential learning theory as a guide for experiential educators in higher education. Experiential Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 7–44. Landry, A. (2022). Mentorship: Efficient and effective practices. National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity. Mohr, B.J. & Watkins, J.M. (2002). The essentials of appreciative inquiry: A roadmap for creating positive futures. Arcadia, CA: Pegasus Communications. National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Annual reports. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved August 8, 2022 from https:// nces.ed.gov/surveys/annualreports/.

164  Nora Dominguez and Julie Haddock-Millar Ohio University Patton College of Education. (2019). The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education mentoring program for instructional faculty. Athens, OH: Ohio University Patton College of Education. Oxendine, S.D., Robinson, K.K. & Parker, M.A. (2022). Transforming departmental culture: Empowering a department through appreciative inquiry. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 41(2), p. 7. DOI:10.3998/ tia.594. Peters, M.A. & Boylston, M. (2006). Mentoring adjunct faculty. Nurse Educator, 31, pp. 61–64. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. Handbook of Self-Determination Research, 2, pp. 3–33. Smith, E.R., Calderwood, P.E., Storms, S.B., Lopez, P.G. & Colwell, R.P. (2016). Institutionalizing faculty mentoring within a community of practice model. To Improve the Academy, 35(1), pp. 35–71. DOI:10.1002/tia2.20033. The World Bank. (2020). Understanding poverty. Retrieved August 8, 2022 from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/teachers. Tsen, L.C., Borus, J.F., Nadelson, C.C., Seely, E.W., Haas, A. & Fuhlbrigge, A.L. (2012). The development, implementation, and assessment of an innovative faculty mentoring leadership program. Academic Medicine, 87(12), pp. 1757–1761. DOI:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182712cff. Zeind, C.S., Zdanowicz, M., Macdonald, K., Parkhurst, C., King, C.E. & Wizwer, P. (2005). Developing a sustainable faculty mentoring program. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69(5), pp. 1–13. DOI:10.5688/aj6905100. Zellers, D.F., Howard, V.M. & Barcic, M.A. (2008). Faculty mentoring programs: Reenvisioning rather than reinventing the wheel. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), pp. 552–588. DOI:10.3102/0034654308320966.

8 Mentoring in membership organisations Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson

This chapter will focus on mentoring within membership organisations. A membership organisation is any organisation that allows people to subscribe to join and often requires them to pay a membership fee or subscription (AbouAssi & An, 2017). Typical examples of membership organisations include professional associations/bodies, (some) non-profit organisations, e.g. churches, and clubs (sports and social organisations). Such organisations are of interest in a study of reciprocal mentoring because, as Tapia (2019) argues, in her study of a membership organisation in the United States, they are often based on what she calls a relational organising culture. Such cultures are argued to support organisational goals and to promote fruitful mutual exchange between members by focusing on reciprocal benefits that organisational members gain from their social interactions. She also argues that they promote activism by fostering a strong sense of collective identity and mission. Such ‘mission’ organisations readily found as Third Sector organisations (e.g. charities, social enterprises and NGOs) will be covered elsewhere in this volume (see Chapter 4). However, there is an overlap between membership organisations and Third Sector organisations due to the spirit of volunteerism that is embedded in both. Volunteers (those who are not paid but contribute time and effort to the organisation in question) are, almost by definition, motivated to work by a belief in the goals and mission of the organisation they work for. Nesbit, Christensen and Brudney (2018) offer an interesting typology for volunteerism which we allude to briefly here to draw out some useful concepts when exploring reciprocal mentoring in membership organisations. Firstly, Nesbit, Christensen and Brudney (2018) argue that it is important to analyse the nature of any organisation considering using volunteering, examining several key characteristics: factors, resources and capacity; source of funds; structures; outputs or services; mission and location. They argue that it is also equally important to consider what factors are down to design choices – they call this ‘nurture’ and list factors such as leadership, culture, staff receptivity to volunteers and communication. Putting these two things together, they state that it is possible for organisations to develop a volunteer management strategy, whereby key stakeholders within the organisation reflect on the capacity that the organisation has to work in this way and to identify core work DOI: 10.4324/9781003302537-8

166  Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson practices that are conducive to that way of working. As we mention above, we are making a distinction between membership organisations and Third Sector organisations which means that the latter are more likely to use a greater volume of volunteers for fundraising and community-based action. Nevertheless, Nesbit, Christensen and Brudney’s (2018) concepts of nature and nurture can be usefully applied to membership organisations as it is likely, as our case studies below show, that some element of volunteering was present. Arguably, reciprocal mentoring behaviours could be seen as core work practices that move a membership organisation towards Tapia’s (2019) notion of having a relational organising culture. Case Study: The Australian Human Resources Institute Melissa Richardson The Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI) is a professional membership association for Human Resources professionals in Australia. As part of their professional development offering to members, AHRI has been working in partnership with Art of Mentoring since 2017 to operate a member-to-member mentoring programme. Art of Mentoring is a specialist mentoring firm based in Australia. The AHRI Mentoring Program uses Art of Mentoring’s software platform and educational resources for mentors and mentees. The AHRI programme has always been designed as a “traditional” mentoring programme, where more senior HR professionals share advice, knowledge and experiences with more junior or entry-level AHRI members. Like most “traditional” programmes, the AHRI programme has always demonstrated a strong mutuality of benefit, with both mentors and mentees yielding positive benefits and outcomes as a result of their participation. Anecdotally, Art of Mentoring has observed a tendency for at least some of the AHRI mentor/mentee pairs to step beyond mutuality, towards a “reciprocal” style of mentoring – where mentors and mentees reverse roles and mentees provide advice, knowledge and experiences to their more senior mentors. We decided to test the waters by adding a question about reciprocity to the closing survey in AHRI’s 2021 mentoring programme. Whilst AHRI’s programme is designed as a “traditional” mentoring programme, 53% of mentees and 48% of mentors said that at least on occasion their roles reversed. We believe that this unplanned, natural transition from a “traditional” mentoring relationship to reciprocity is driven by the nature of professional associations and their members. To better understand this tendency, we conducted interviews with two pairs from the AHRI Mentoring Program, Kelly and Cheryl from the 2020 programme and Jane and Lily (names changed for privacy reasons) from the 2021 programme to explore themes and reviewed literature around those themes.

Mentoring in membership organisations  167 In the next section, we will provide a detailed overview of the programme purpose and infrastructure and then discuss the evidence for both mutuality and reciprocity in “traditional” professional association mentoring programmes and our theories as to what drives these outcomes. Programme purpose and infrastructure The purpose of the AHRI Mentoring Program is “to facilitate mentoring relationships so that experienced mentors can share advice, knowledge and experiences with mentees to assist building HR capability and career progressions, resulting in a mutually beneficial professional development relationship.” Both mentors and mentees must be members of AHRI to participate in the programme. Mentors were expected to have at least 5 years of relevant HR experience. Mentees could be recent entries to the HR profession, HR graduates or more experienced HR practitioners wanting to move into a new HR role. Mentees paid a fee of $220 to participate. ­ igure 8.1), The 2021 programme operated per the flow chart (see F which is in keeping with programmes in prior years. AHRI members completed registration via the dedicated AHRI Mentoring Program Portal (powered by Art of Mentoring) which includes training videos and resources. Pairs were matched and a programme information webinar was held to induct both mentors and mentees. From this point, the mentees and mentors largely managed the relationship on their own, but AHRI’s Program Adviser was available to assist with relationship check-ins and admin support. A mid-term Zoom session enabled a programme check-in with both mentors and mentees and a programme close Zoom session ended the program. Surveys were conducted at both the mid-term and programme close. MATCHING PROCESS & TRAINING

PROGRAM REVIEW

Month 2 Quick check-in with participants Progress Review Workshop & evaluation about half-way through

Month 0 Matching is done Training for mentors and mentees

1

2

PROGRAM APPLICATIONS Month -1 Marketing and call for applications

September 2020 to January 2021

3

4

5

PROGRAM INTRODUCTION

PROGRAM CLOSE

Month 1 Program Launch Workshop outlining program information

Final Month Short Workshop to close program

March 2021

Figure 8.1  The reciprocal mentoring process map.

July 2021

November 2021

168  Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson Mutuality Mutuality of benefit was built into the programme design, with both mentors and mentees expected to gain value from programme participation. The anticipated benefits as outlined in the AHRI Mentoring Program Information Guide are set out in Figure 8.1. Table 8.1  Benefits for mentees and mentors Mentees

Mentors

• • Excellent networking opportunities • Developing new skills – problem • solving • Gaining a role model • Identifying professional growth • • and development areas • Develop communication skills • • Set goals and develop processes • with mentor to achieve them • Mentoring hours qualify as part of CPD hours

Further development of mentoring skills including: providing feedback, communication and interpersonal skills Gaining a sense of personal and professional satisfaction Contributing back to the profession Contributing to AHRI Mentoring hours qualify as part of CPD hours Staying in touch with emerging issues relevant to less experienced HR professionals

The survey conducted at the close of the programme confirmed that both mentees and mentors felt the programme had delivered personal and career benefits (Table 8.1). Both parties were asked to rank the impact of the programme on a range of 18 personal and career outcomes. Tables 8.2 and 8.3 show the top five benefits ranked for ratings of highly positive and somewhat positive impact. This is then compared to the ranking of these benefits across an average of all Art of Mentoring exit surveys incorporating the same 18 benefits. Table 8.2  Mentees’ outcome scores Outcome

% rating highly/ somewhat positive impact

Rank AHRI 2021

Rank Art of Mentoring Average

Personal learning and growth Self-awareness Attitude to my job Self-confidence Likelihood of continuing in my profession

93 86 86 84 83

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 5 4

Mentoring in membership organisations  169 Table 8.3  Mentor outcome scores Outcome

% rating highly/ Rank AHRI Rank Art of somewhat positive 2021 Mentoring impact Average

Meaning and purpose Personal learning and growth Self-awareness Professional reputation Career satisfaction

80 78 72 72 70

1 2 3 4 5

3 1 2 7a 6a

Other items were ranked 4 and 5.

a

The results demonstrate a clear mutuality of benefit, with both mentees and mentors indicating that the programme had delivered positive impact. These results are consistent with the average results across all Art of Mentoring programs. The only notable difference being a higher ranking for professional reputation amongst AHRI mentors versus the broader average. This is likely a reflection of the fact that the AHRI Program is specific to the HR profession, whereas the average would include pairings not related to profession. Mutual benefit should be an outcome in all well-designed mentoring programs. We see no evidence that mutuality is more or less prevalent in programs conducted by professional associations. Reciprocity We have long observed that professional association mentoring programs seem more likely than corporate programs to move beyond mutual benefit for mentors and mentees into actual reciprocity, where mentors and mentees operate on a more non-hierarchical basis, exchanging information and perspective. To test this theory, a question was added to the 2021 AHRI Mentoring Program closing survey. (Q: During the mentoring program, to what extent did you feel that roles switch? (i.e. you became the mentor/mentee to your partner on particular topics) We found that 48% of mentors and 53% of mentees claimed to have experienced role reversal at some point in the relationship (see Table 8.4 for frequency scores). This is despite the fact that the AHRI Program structure and mentor/mentee matching parameters were not originally designed to foster a reciprocal relationship.

170  Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson Table 8.4  Mentees and mentors’ frequency scores

Seldom Sometimes Often Frequently Total

Mentees (%)

Mentors (%)

27 25 1 – 48

27 19 2 – 53

We hypothesise that mentor/mentee role reversal and reciprocity happen more naturally in a programme run by a membership association, particularly a professional association. We also believe that these results may be at least in part impacted by the shared trauma and move to digital communication precipitated by the COVID pandemic. We summarise below the four key factors which we believe have driven these results. 1 Opportunities for cross-industry, cross-cultural learning Pairs in a professional association programme like AHRI’s will come from different cultures and industries. This means that mentors are far more likely to have the potential to learn from mentees’ experiences than they might in a corporate program. We spoke to two pairs in the AHRI Mentoring Program who confirmed that cross-industry learning had resulted in reciprocal learning. Jane, an HR professional in the finance industry, mentored Lily, a less experienced HR administrator in the not-for-profit sector in the 2021 AHRI program. Kelly, an HR professional with multiple-­sector experience (including with architecture and engineering firms) who runs her own consultancy, mentored Cheryl, an HR junior in the construction sector. In each case, the mentors discovered a degree of reciprocity, gaining professional knowledge and ideas from their mentees. Jane (mentor to Lily): “…the lines became a bit back and forth because I would learn ways that she was dealing with things or the business that she was working for dealt with things…The process that they follow and the way that they approached and handled the situation was different to the way that I had previously…That is one example of how I took away a different approach or process to handle a situation.” Kelly (mentor to Cheryl): “I’d ask a question about what she was doing about a particular topic…‘what’s your planned response to this?’ And I’d think, ‘oh, good idea!’ So, in a way it doesn’t really matter where someone is in their career.”

Mentoring in membership organisations  171 The mentees did observe the reciprocity, but tended to be humbler about their contributions. Lily (mentee to Jane): “I can’t remember a time where she said, ‘Wow you are mentoring me now’. But I think I was telling her how complex some of our grievance cases are… She definitely would have gone away having learned from that.” Cheryl (mentee to Kelly): “She said she had learned a lot and I’m always like ‘what did you learn?’… (But) there were a few light bulb moments for both of us.” There was general concurrence that this type of reciprocal sharing of information, processes and ideas was far more likely in a crossindustry, cross-company partnership than when pairs come from the same company. Lily (mentee to Jane): “If we were in the same company, she would have just been going, ‘oh, I know that’ or ‘I’ve had that experience before’. It (the reciprocal sharing of information) was just because of the cross industry.” 2 Mentors more willing to be vulnerable in a relationship outside their organisation For a reciprocal relationship to be initiated in a traditional mentoring program, the mentor must be willing to admit that they don’t have all the answers, which can feel like a risky admission of vulnerability. Literature suggests that older adults (often the case for more senior mentors) will avoid career development activities where the risk of failure is perceived to be high. Older adults fall victim to performance orientation, avoiding situations likely to place them at a disadvantage in comparison with younger workers (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004). We would argue that the risk associated with acknowledging you don’t have all the answers is lower between a senior and junior professional who share the same profession but do not work for the same organisation than for a senior/junior pairing of employees in the same firm. When we asked the two mentors interviewed if they felt the sharing of information and reciprocity of the relationship would have been the same if they were paired with a mentee from their own organisation, their responses supported this premise: • Jane (mentor to Lily): “No, because I would think that I’m the one that should know or be the expert.” • Kelly (mentor to Cheryl): “I’d have to be a bit careful about that obviously, because I’ve got a different role to play there.… I’ve just got to be mindful of confidentiality and things like that, and trust in my own business.”

172  Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson With internal company mentoring programs, mentors feel less free to step away from the role and responsibility of their hierarchical position and be vulnerable enough to learn and share with someone junior. The sense of not wanting to be “found out” as not all-knowing is diminished when dealing with mentees outside their own organisation. 3 Voluntary nature of associations lends itself to reciprocity Members join professional associations because of “some combination of common interests, personal interest and sense of professional responsibility” (Svara & Terry, 2009: 1005). The mentors in a professional association mentoring programme are volunteers who are “giving back” to their profession. There is no obvious career advantage in giving their time and expertise. We believe that this may make mentees more inclined, even subconsciously, to seek ways to give back, not only to their profession, but specifically to their mentor. 4 The pandemic may have acted as a leveller between mentor and mentee The last two AHRI Mentoring Programs have been conducted through the COVID pandemic. This may have contributed to the reciprocal nature of mentoring relationships because of the levelling effect of a shared trauma – particularly for those pairs operating in Melbourne, which had one of the longest and most severe lockdowns in the world. Kelly, whose mentoring relationship was based in Melbourne, indicated that the shared professional difficulties did positively impact the relationship. • Kelly (mentor to Lily): “HR really got pushed to the front of that whole situation. We were dealing with job keeper and…lockdowns and mobilising workforces…. I think just that common understanding. I don’t think we even talked about it particularly, but I do think it was something to recognise through that period of time.” Of course, the other significant change precipitated by the pandemic was a shift away from face-to-face sessions to a reliance on video conferencing and email. Kelly and Cheryl did not actually get a chance to meet face to face until after the mentoring programme had finished. They both felt that digital communication had helped to focus their relationship, which may also have contributed to an openness to reciprocity. • Kelly (mentor): “Sometimes with Teams…you can see when they’re really flat or when they’re tired… If you’re in a restaurant or a café, sometimes that dulls (your focus) a little bit.” • Cheryl (mentee): “There’s a lot of additional factors you have to think about when you’re meeting in person. There’s a lot more time constraints and location stuff… We were able to remain really consistent.”

Mentoring in membership organisations  173 Implications for mentoring practice We have only just started to understand the potential for traditional mentoring pairs to lean towards reciprocity, where mentors and mentees become more equal partners in the process of learning. The question that was included in AHRI 2021 Program on role reversal will now be replicated for all future Art of Mentoring program close surveys, so we will have a better quantitative understanding of how often this happens across corporate, government, association and other sectors. Meanwhile, these initial results do suggest a tendency towards reciprocity in mentoring programs conducted by professional associations. This should be recognised by professional associations as a meaningful advantage. Mentoring programs conducted to benefit their members may actually deliver more learning and professional development, particularly to their mentors, than a similar in-company program. With further study, this may also have implications for matching of pairs of mentoring programs. It may be advantageous to seek to match mentors and mentees from different industries, to help foster greater learning.

Case Study: Reciprocal mentoring at British Standards Institute Amanda Edwards and Nicki Seignot The organisational context British Standards Institute (BSI) is a global organisation with approximately 5,500 colleagues worldwide. We work in 31 countries serving 193 countries and 84,000 clients. More than half of our people work out of the UK and US offices. We have invested significantly in leadership development in general and coaching development specifically. In contrast, mentoring as a development activity was typically conducted at an individual level with little formal structure or measurement. More recently, there has been increased energy and appetite for mentoring with mentoring programmes established for talent mentoring in China and a highly successful mentoring programme for parents in 2019. Outside of these programmes, there had been little formal mentoring nor mentoring training across the organisation. For the reciprocal mentoring programme then, it was important to establish a solid foundation of mentoring practice. Some of the executives had completed mentor training in other roles and organisations, but it was important to establish a common baseline of knowledge as well as a shared understanding of the purpose and outcomes for this specific programme.

174  Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson Recruitment, selection and matching strategies The programme was designed around the Group Leadership Team as the executive members of the mentoring partnerships. As the most senior group of leaders in the business, this team is seen as pivotal in role modelling change. More diverse perspectives would have a direct impact on their levels of insight and decision-making as well as signal to the wider business that we take matters of inclusion seriously. The colleague mentors came to the programme through three main channels: 1 Internal promotion of the opportunity via companywide communications and Yammer. We were explicit that any colleague from any group felt to be underrepresented in BSI was welcome to volunteer. 2 HR business partners were also offered the opportunity to nominate potential candidates, recognising that some individuals may be reluctant or unsure about putting themselves forward. 3 Finally, we had a committed group of colleagues already volunteering as part of an existing diversity group (Creating Human Connections) formed in response to the death of George Floyd. Leading BSI’s work in this space, it made sense that these colleagues were also offered the opportunity to participate. It was an important principle that participating colleagues came as volunteers and were in no way pressurised to join the programme. Colleagues could be at any level of the organisation though we were hoping for a good cross section of professions, ages and divisions in addition to other underrepresented characteristics. In summary, our programme included ten colleague mentors: eight women and two men. 50% of mixed or black African American or African Caribbean heritage, two lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and more (LGBTQ+) colleagues and two colleagues of Indian heritage. These colleagues were based in different countries (US and UK), held positions at different levels of the organisation and were from a variety of professional roles and disciplines. Despite much effort, we did not receive any volunteers from our colleagues in Asia Pacific. Matching was a complex balancing act. We had 15 potential colleagues to match for 10 partnerships. Because of the small numbers, match selection was managed by the programme team who worked with their knowledge of the individuals, balancing a range of factors including personality fit, opportunities for learning and growth and time zone practicalities. Potential matches were then discussed with both colleagues and executives before confirming and moving ahead with the mentoring partnerships.

Mentoring in membership organisations  175 Setting the programme up We invested heavily in high-quality external development for both executives and colleagues. A partnership between Professor David Clutterbuck (David Clutterbuck Associates) and Nicki Seignot (Purple Shark Consulting) provided more than 15 learning hours of support for executives and colleagues as well as valuable consultancy to support programme effectiveness. Executives and colleagues were invited to attend digital workshops which included: • Setting the context • What Reciprocal Mentoring is, the value and benefits • Diversity Mentoring – from equal opportunities to leveraging ­difference – the shift and progress of ambitions, actions and conversations relating to diversity • Key roles and responsibilities • Key skills of effective mentoring • Ensuring relationships work well • Skills of diversity dialogue • The trajectory of a mentoring relationship • Tools to underpin the relationship at each stage • Troubleshooting, e.g. managing issues of relative power Following on from the initial workshops, the complete cohort of executives and colleagues came together as one group for a single focused workshop. The aim was to be a catalyst to conversations, and discussion of BSI’s diversity story – What is? What was? What could be? The dynamics of this mentoring with the executives in the role of mentees were intentionally disruptive. We were aware that inadvertently the executives may find themselves stepping into the role of mentor and in doing so, place the responsibility on their colleague to bring topics/ questions/challenges. The focus was for them to come as learners moving from “Let me help you navigate the system that we have,” to: “Let’s together change the system.” Mixed breakout groups were invited to look at BSI as a complex, adaptive system and to explore how the mentoring programme could help to address the systems, rather than just individual relationships. We gained early commentary about how the mentoring was getting underway. 1 30 minutes became 90 minutes 2 We’re over the first hurdle – no longer strangers 3 Smooth conversations. Getting to know each other, shared expectations, how we expect the mentoring relationship to flow

176  Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson 4 Different in our realities and perspectives. That small moment when you realise I don’t see it like that. The programme was supported by separate supervision review sessions, delivered virtually, for the two groups, where we captured formative evaluation and learning. These sessions also gave us a window into what could be done differently and provide participants with additional useful tools. Evaluation We conducted an online survey of all participants to establish learning, how the mentoring relationships had changed perceptions and to gather recommendations for improvements. In this analysis, we were concerned with comparing colleague and executives’ responses to the following aspects: satisfaction with the mentoring relationship (e.g. the opportunity to explore issues in sufficient depth, the time participants were able to commit), the quality of the relationship (e.g. the extent to which participants felt they had come to know each other, whether they felt conversations were confidential), commitment to mentoring (e.g. making the mentoring work, the investment in time, preparation, actions to enable the relationship succeed). Additionally, we were curious to understand the different perspectives and learning of executives and colleagues. For colleagues, this was in relation to; helping their mentee see issues from different perspectives, the extent to which they felt they had succeeded in raising their level of self-awareness and understanding of diversity. For executives, we wanted to understand had they gained fresh insights to help implement lasting change, had they raised topics and issues they didn’t feel confident to explore previously and the extent to which they felt they had had their thinking challenged through the mentoring relationship. The results of the evaluation surveys were shared with participants via online workshops. In a spirit of bringing the pilot to a close, there was an invitation to then commit to one further session. The aim was to discuss the (evaluation) data as a mentoring pair, to review learning and what they were doing differently as well as share some of their individual/personal actions. They were also challenged to agree three systemic actions BSI wide which could be communicated to a wider audience. Outcomes and lessons learned This pilot programme provided rich insights and learning at many levels. For us in our preparation and support of the participants, and also for them in the ongoing practice and conversations. More than 50% of

Mentoring in membership organisations  177 the partnerships chose to continue to beyond the supported life span of the programme. Here are some illustrative quotes: • ‘We both came in with an expectation and it wasn’t like that’ Colleague • ‘Our conversations were all about leadership and he is just the most exceptional leader. I learned so much’ Executive Colleague feedback: We can talk truth to each other about anything We each stepped up – reached a level of trust We challenge each other. Give feedback. Both of us driving this equally Executives reported a level of insight hitherto unseen. Some even took learning into their personal and familial context. There was an opportunity to engage in conversation with someone whose journey was completely different to their own and the realisation of seeing the senior leadership team through a different lens. As executives, the challenge was how to encourage all to be mentees, to come to these relationships as learners. The reminder that as leaders we have to be constantly learning, to build curiosity into our lives and be open to hearing and changing. Executive’s feedback: This gives us a barometer – how the culture shift is landing through her eyes, her experiences in terms of getting a voice, engaging people. Her view on things – a different voice. We see the world through the meetings we have with our directs, with clients. We’re missing a big part of the picture. This gives us more pixels. BSI Executive Programme management This programme required an intensive amount of support to bring it to fruition. The challenge of co-ordinating fast-moving executive diaries, managing across global time zones, supporting individual needs and troubleshooting required careful programme management throughout the whole journey. We also had to manage the challenge of executives leaving the business during the programme. Three out of ten leaders left the business during the lifespan of the programme. The evaluation process and subsequent conversations highlighted important considerations for the future. It is hard for both parties to articulate specific learning objectives when by its very nature, mentoring is a process of learning discovery with many surprises along the way. One of the most helpful aspects of this pilot programme is that it allows

178  Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson the partners to articulate what they have gained from the programme to help others see how this kind of intervention may contribute to their own development. This learning can then shape communications and expectations for future participants. Looking ahead A key take-away from the programme was the importance of integration and alignment. Whilst this programme was underway, BSI was simultaneously running a more conventional talent mentoring programme in China as well as exploring how to develop a comprehensive global approach to mentoring for all applications. It became clear that it was important to integrate this work, embedding the approach to reciprocal mentoring within an overall global mentoring approach, which would be an integral part of a leadership development strategy. This programme has helped us to deepen the overall understanding of the power of mentoring and to contribute to a richer and powerful mentoring culture in the organisation. The global approach to mentoring has now developed to the point that the business has more than 180 leaders who have volunteered and been trained in mentoring. Using our HRIS (HR Information System), those individuals looking for a mentor can search for a match, based on a range of requirements. We will need to consider how we overlay this approach with the foundational mentoring development that forms the basis of this programme with the insights and considerations we now know are important for a successful diversity and/or reciprocal mentoring relationship. The use of the HRIS allows much more effective tracking and evaluation as relationships are established which in turn can continue to drive more learning and refinement of the approach. Another consideration is that the roles of mentor and mentee may interchange at different times in the relationship. In the diversity context in particular, an executive leader can usefully become a learning and support resource for the more junior colleague in navigating some of the issues they choose to present in the mentoring relationship. The need to rigidly define who is mentor and who is mentee can become challenging when a relationship is two-way, and both members may occupy each seat at different times. As a result, it felt more accurate to describe the relationship as one of ‘mentoring partners’, allowing space for each individual to occupy the role that best suited the challenge presented at that time. Careful and explicit contracting is therefore an ongoing and essential component of the mentoring partnership. Additionally, having regular supervision reviews where participants can bring learning, questions, concerns and be resourced – either by us as programme owners or the group self-supporting – will continue to be a feature of programmes moving forward.

Mentoring in membership organisations  179 Case Study: Resilient Pilot Mentoring Programme Stuart Beech, Samantha Sloan, Johanna Hooper and Julie Haddock-Millar Resilient Pilot (RP) is a not-for-profit membership organisation established in May 2020, born out of the pandemic, to provide support for pilots and crew around the world. RP has provided free mentoring and coaching to hundreds of pilots around the world since it launched in 2020. The virtual programme offers monthly learning and development opportunities either via one-to-one mentoring/coaching, sharing professional best practice during workshops, or via scenario-based training and development delivered by a team of qualified Competency-Based Training Instructors (CBTi). Pilots have the opportunity to self-assess using pioneering evidence-based software ‘Quantum’ created by Use Before Flight (UBF). The total system competency-based approach is designed to ensure continuous performance-based learning and development. Participants in the programme are supported through access to regular professional development events and resources. RP adopted the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) Global International Standards for Mentoring and Coaching Programmes (ISMCP) as an overarching framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of the programme. The RP Mentoring Programme was accredited at EMCC Global ISMCP Gold standard in 2022. The reciprocal aspect of the programme is evidenced in both the interim and summative evaluation participant feedback. Evaluation data show that the mentoring programme and the mentoring relationships are having a significant impact on both the mentee and mentor learning and growth. Introducing RP RP is a not-for-profit membership organisation established in May 2020, born out of the pandemic, to provide support for pilots and crew around the world. RP has provided free mentoring and coaching to hundreds of pilots around the world since it launched in 2020. The Resilient Crew Room entitles members to access all RP’s support, services and the growing range of resources that have been designed by crew, for crew. To join the Resilience Development Programme, individuals will need to have registered for at least the free plan to be able to be connected to a mentor or coach, join webinars, link with collaborators and make use of the resources. There is a choice of free and monthly subscription membership options available. RP’s vision is to be a global, evidence-based, virtual mentoring, coaching and training organisation to develop continuous personal and

180  Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson professional resilience to enhance performance. Resilience is defined as the ability to build adaptive capacity and perform with confidence and competence in any situation, founded in and developed through the understanding and demonstration of behaviours that mobilise the relevant: knowledge, skills and attitudes. The organisational objectives include: 1 To provide free and confidential mentoring and coaching for the aviation community from initial training to retirement. 2 Normalise standards and practices for mental health, wellbeing and resilience development in the aviation community. 3 Be a leading industry voice working for policy innovation to introduce continuous personal and professional development with a focus on BTi and Resilience. 4 Support pilots to develop their confidence, competence and connections (Resilience) to ensure they are ready to contribute effectively and enhance operational safety within the industry. 5 Support pilots to develop their confidence, competence and connections (Resilience) to ensure they are ready to contribute effectively and enhance operational safety within the industry. 6 Foster partnerships with regulators, National Aeronautic Associations and organisations to support our Next Generation of Aviation Professionals (NGAP) and Leaders for the future sustainability and futureproofing of The Aviation Industry. Mentoring programme purpose Resilience is key in today’s industry; it’s a vital characteristic for pilots and a ‘buzz word’ in airline recruitment and training. Resilience is developed by improving confidence, competence and connection. In the absence of the support of the normal working and training environment (e.g. during a period of furlough or displacement, and whilst awaiting employment opportunities), the Resilient Crew Room provides our pilot and cabin crew members (whether on the free membership or monthly subscription tier) with a range of resources and industry connections to help develop effective strategies to maintain competency, confidence, connection and build resilience. RP’s original mission, borne out of the pandemic, was ‘Keeping Crew: Supported. Current. Connected.’ This has since evolved to ‘Keeping Crew: Confident. Competent. Connected.’ Our new missions feel more relevant to the post-pandemic world and the direction of travel for the aviation industry. RP focuses upon three main elements: Competencies,

Mentoring in membership organisations  181 Wellbeing and Diversity. Competency or Evidence-Based Training for pilots has been widely adopted by our industry. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and other bodies promote eight competencies, and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) includes ‘knowledge’ as a 9th core competency. The RP concept focuses on helping crew develop, embed and sustain these competencies through mentoring and signposting relevant resources. At RP’s heart is the focus on maintaining wellbeing and helping to encourage diversity. The (ICAO) competencies have also been aligned with the eight EMCC competencies for seamless integration intertwined by both global standards in their perspective industries. When we gained the ISMCP accreditation, this demonstrated just how much we have achieved in two short years. The past few years for the airline industry have probably been the most difficult in history. We weren’t flying. We weren’t recruiting. Many of us lost our jobs, our careers, our confidence, our income, our way of life, our purpose, even our joy. And, for those who aspired to join our industry, confidence was knocked, and doubts set in. Our RP mentors help with both the practical and psychological aftermath of what may have happened to colleagues during the pandemic. RP champions best practice and signposting useful resources to suit pilot and cabin crew needs. RP has 70 volunteer pilot, cabin crew and specialist mentors and coaches from around the world with a whole range of different types of experience and skillsets potential mentees can benefit from. The volunteer mentors and coaches are all passionate about the industry and determined to support friends and colleagues across the pilot and cabin crew community. Mentoring programme framework for design and development RP adopted the EMCC Global ISMCP as an overarching framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of the programme. The framework ensures that mentoring programmes are thoughtfully designed, systematically managed and contribute to the strategic drivers of the organisation and wider stakeholder objectives. RP Mentoring definition RP define mentoring as: “We believe in practicing a blended mentoring and coaching approach within a safe confidential space fostering

182  Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson continuous personal and professional development that allows us coach the whole person. We seek first to understand the drivers and motivations of the mentee, develop the relationship to build confidence and competence through regular interventions, and explore mindset and behaviours relevant to their success. Our mentors empower and challenge perspectives, Help identify personal and professional countermeasures (behaviours) and co create strategies to develop resilience through an evidenced based approach.” The programme recognises the two-way nature of the mentoring relationship and that both mentees and mentors develop, learn and grow through the mentoring relationship and ongoing engagement with the programme developmental opportunities. Recruitment, selection and matching of participants There are clear criteria for the participation and selection of mentors, as evidenced through the mentor brief and associated mentor application forms. The voluntary nature of the RP Mentoring Programme is clearly communicated via the website, mentor brief and all marketing activities. RP has a clear target audience and therefore attracts mentees which meet the participation requirements via their website and working with industry-specific partners. Mentees have ownership of the selection process, as they self-match based on mentor profiles presented on the RP website. This was confirmed via the mentee interviews. Mentors and mentees have the opportunity to decline a match or discontinue a relationship at any point. Mentors are briefed in detail at various points including mentor reflection and development sessions and one to ones with the programme manager. Mentees are informed in the pairing emails they receive from the programme manager. The RP team works with their mentors to keep their workload to five mentees or less so that we can preserve the quality of the service. We also provide an advisory service to mentees when their chosen mentors are unavailable. In the aviation industry, countermeasures are a collection of behaviours we deploy to improve our confidence and competence. Training and educational opportunities The mentoring training for this programme is offered through the EMCC Global EQA Coaching with Purpose Programme at a Foundation level (EQA 20200252). The mentor induction and standardisation training alongside the mentor reflection and development sessions

Mentoring in membership organisations  183 provide robust support for the mentors. The mentees also receive onboarding support and have ownership of the selection process, as they self-match based on mentor profiles presented on the RP website. Mentors have access to regular supervision (mentor reflection and development sessions) that are a requirement for their participation in the programme. Formative and summative evaluation The mentoring programme has a robust evaluation framework in place which supports the continuous improvement of the programme, the collation of evidence of achievement against the programme’s aim and objectives to share with stakeholders and identification of lessons learned to inform the potential future programmes and wider audiences. The evaluation consists of several phases, including interim and summative feedback. Mentees are given the opportunity to check-in after three and six months via a survey, along with an end of mentoring survey sent at the conclusion of the relationship. We use a range of tools and models to help provide the evidence base including Quantum, Survey Monkey and themes from the mentor reflection and development sessions. During the recent EMCC Global ISMCP accreditation review, the EMCC Global External Verifier commented: “Mentees described the benefits as multi-layered. One Mentee described the purpose of the programme was primarily professional development. She reads about the pilot competencies and then meets with her mentor to discuss and explore the competencies, think through scenarios. They have also had conversations about her application situation and trying to find a job. Her Mentor cares but he is not someone involved in her life which is helpful. Friends and family are too familiar with her, the mentor suggests things they would not. Another mentee works with two mentors: one was a technical mentor, 20 years flying ex-captain, supported the mentee to get through the course and manage his stress levels. The second Mentor was recommended by first mentor to specialise in confidence building and was more of a coach, addressing non-technical issues. For the third mentee interviewed, the mentor increased confidence to peruse her goal; increased resilience in moments of stress; friendship and fellowship with someone further down the line – understanding that this is the industry, and this is a universal experience that pilots go through. The Mentee described her Mentor’s kindness and unflagging support – a role model. The Mentee shared that when she becomes more experienced that is how she would like to be.”

184  Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson Outcomes, lessons learned and sustainability The RP programme team are considering a longitudinal impact measurement to evaluate the long-term impact of mentoring on the participants, the organisation as well as the aviation industry will help to build on and strengthen of the current evaluation process. However, current evaluation data show that the mentoring programme and the mentoring relationships are having a significant impact on both the mentee and mentor learning and growth and addressing key topics. RP occupies such as incredibly important space in supporting individuals (mentees) to develop and enhance their confidence, self-esteem, resilience, particularly in times of stress. To have access to a mentor that understands the industry, that can provide professional friendship, companionship and advice is so crucial. At the same time, RP is building a network of mentors who are further developing their knowledge and expertise in this space. As with any mentoring journey, RP are just embarking upon the start, with a huge amount of work to continuously improve and provide a world-class Resilience Development System for the aviation professional community. RP are about to implement pioneering software (Quantum) that will provide both organisation and confidential evidence for individuals providing objective data to tailor effective training and development for both RP volunteers and members. RP would like to take the model to other industries in the future, advocating a competency-based approach to blended mentoring, coaching and developmental training to improve resilience and performance.

Chapter conclusions and summary Reviewing and comparing the three case studies examined in this chapter, a number of themes can be identified. Firstly, in two of the three cases, the reciprocal nature of each of the mentoring programmes was emergent, rather than being reciprocal by design. The BSI case study is perhaps the closest to being reciprocal by design in that mentors and mentees were more commonly referred to one of the mentoring partners and reciprocal mentoring training was given as part of the scheme orientation. However, in all three cases, the original design of the mentoring programmes did designate participants as either mentors or mentees, although at the same time, acknowledging the relationships to be two-way. Another key theme that seems to unite the three examples is that of maintaining and containing professional integrity of the

Mentoring in membership organisations  185 participants. This was particularly the case with AHRI and RP, where the maintenance of professional standards in HR and piloting, respectively, were key expectations and elements of the programmes. Clearly, for BSI, professional and technical standards are their core competence and raison d’être but it is noticeable that enhancing and maintaining professional standards inside the organisation was also important. Related to this professional focus, it was also important in each case that the mentoring was predicated on the core principle of mutuality. In turn, mutual benefit from mentoring was only possible if both participants in the relationships were willing and able to set aside hierarchy and power differences within the organisational structure and focus on how they can each add value to the other. Of course, as the case analyses themselves reveal, it is not possible to completely divorce mentoring relationships from organisational hierarchy and culture; indeed, to try and do so would militate against the intended outcomes from each programme. However, pursuing a more reciprocal approach to mentoring scheme design might enable scheme organisers and participants to accrue some of the advantages of mentoring, e.g. personal and professional development of participants, strengthening of a relational organising culture (Tapia, 2019) as well as mitigating some of the potential weaknesses of such schemes, e.g. fostering dependency relationships with mentors, nepotism. Finally, the cases do seem to suggest that membership organisations – ­particularly those with professional body characteristics – do seem to lend themselves to reciprocity in mentoring relationships. We speculate that this is due to the prevalence and importance of peer relationships in professions more generally. Professional bodies in particular have always been based firmly on the principle of peer review and assessment so it is unsurprising that participants within such organisations would find mutuality in mentoring relationships to be a relatively easy fit. Also, as we argued at the beginning of this chapter, membership organisations are often also forged on the principle of voluntarism, which is also the case for mentoring itself. In conclusion, we would expect to see reciprocal mentoring schemes become much more common in this sector in the future. References AbouAssi, K. & An, S.-H. (2017). Gender representation and organizational size: Examining opportunities for members’ involvement in membership organizations. Public Management Review, 19(10), pp. 1437–1454. AHRI Mentoring Program Information Guide 2021. Available at: https://www.ahri. com.au/ahri-membership/ahri-mentoring-program/how-it-works Kanfer, R. & Ackerman, P.L. (2004). Aging, adult development and work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), pp. 440–458. Nesbit, R., Christensen, R.K. & Brudney, J.L. (2018). The limits and possibilities of volunteering: A framework for explaining the scope of volunteer involvement in public and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 78(4), pp. 502–513.

186  Paul Stokes and Melissa Richardson Svara, J.H. & Terry, L.D. (2009). The present challenges to ASPA as an association that promotes public professionalism. Public Administration Review, 69(6), pp. 1050–1059. Tapia, M. (2019). “Not fissures but moments of crises that can be overcome”: Building a relational organizing culture in community organizations and trade unions. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 58(2), pp. 229–250.

9 Reciprocal mentoring in private sector organisations Sue Round

Introduction Large private sector organisations have a long history of deploying mentoring, both formally and informally. Arguably, it offers a low-cost, easy-access method of supporting staff development. More recently, new forms of mentoring have gained popularity, notably reverse mentoring often framed as the young teaching old dogs, new tricks, predominantly in relation to technology. Reciprocal mentoring is less well established, but as the benefits become more widely known that could be set to change. In this chapter, we explore the use of reciprocal mentoring in two different contexts. The first describes the use of reciprocal mentoring as a mechanism for increasing understanding of the issues surrounding women’s career equality within a single organisation, British Petroleum (BP), at a time of significant change. This includes the individual and organisational learning that emerged as well as the resulting shift in perspectives. The second describes an approach named LOTUS that has been used extensively across the Far East highlighting the potential to challenge the prevailing culture and hierarchy. It includes some recommendations for others to use in terms of setup and support as well as pointing towards the potential to leverage technology to drive further and more effective participation.

Case Study: Creating shared understanding of women’s career equality at BP Sue Round This case study explores the experience of participating in a reciprocal mentoring programme between mixed-gender pairs designed to influence shared understanding of women’s career equality challenges within BP. The depth and breadth of the findings indicate that the

DOI: 10.4324/9781003302537-9

188  Sue Round reciprocal nature of the dialogue enabled the organisation to challenge some long-held assumptions. Purpose and objectives of the mentoring programme The issue of female representation and slow progression through to senior positions is not new; however, a raft of government-backed reporting requirements, e.g. The Hampton Alexander Review (2016) and the UK Gender Pay Gap (2018), have raised the profile of the problem. This has intensified focus within organisations that have been frustrated by the seeming lack of traction of multiple strategies to accelerate progress. This effort has included sponsorship programmes, diversity training, women-only leadership programmes, women’s networks, coaching and mentoring schemes, etc. I was curious as to why such a flurry of well-meaning activity seemed to be having only limited material impact and as I began to engage in the literature it became clear to me that this was a complex and multifaceted problem, one that I wanted to explore in depth, to understand more and to bring a fresh perspective to. The literature revealed three recurring themes: firstly, the gendered organisation (Acker, 1990; Kanter, 1977; Hearn & Collinson, 1998); secondly, second-generation bias (Ely et al., 2011; Sturm, 2001); and thirdly, women’s career equality (Kossek et al. 2017). These described a complex landscape from which an interesting dichotomy was emerging, should we be fixing the women or creating organisations fit for women? (Ely et al., 2011; Wittenberg-Cox, 2013). A lot of activity thus far had been focussed on initiatives rooted in helping women to change, to fit in, arguably, to be more like men and with, as demonstrated by the data and speed of change, limited success. Mentoring had been a core part of this approach and in its traditional form was being challenged as it was arguably contributing more to the perpetuation of the status quo that enabling meaningful change (Chandler & Kram, 2005; De Vries, 2011; Ely & Meyerson, 2000; Harvey et al., 2009; McKeen & Bujaki, 2007). McKeen and Bujaki (2007, p. 218) specifically reviewed gender and mentoring research and concluded that mentoring can be a very powerful process but that currently it “seems intended to assimilate women into the dominant masculine corporate culture.” Reciprocal mentoring appeared to offer a more progressive option in that it is deliberately designed to facilitate mutual learning for all those participating. Table 9.1 frames its position alongside other forms of mentoring.

Reciprocal mentoring in private sector organisations  189 Table 9.1  Definitions of reciprocal mentoring Traditional mentoring

Reverse mentoring Reciprocal mentoring

A relationship A relationship between a between a senior senior member member and a and a junior junior member of member of an an organisation organisation that is created to created to help the junior help the senior member develop in member learn the organisation from the junior member Technical Emphasis Supporting career knowledge and on advancement for current trends young employees for senior Sharing information executives about how to Often focussed navigate the on specific organisation knowledge or General guidance and skill support Internet, Role of Coaching technology Mentors Acting as a sounding assistance board Increasing employee Knowledge of new tools visibility Role modelling Sponsorship Counselling Sharing organisational history Technical Best for Existing knowledge of acquiring organisational current trends knowledge and and crosscareer advice cultural global Visibility and access perspectives. to networks CrossSupport for generational advancement relationships Definition

A non-hierarchical relationship specifically designed for the dyadic exchange of information and perspective

Deepening understanding of each other’s perspective and sharing personal experience of a particular environment Sharing insights Creating mutual learning Psychological support Being a thinking partner Providing a safe and open space for dialogue A different view of the world Deeper understanding of another’s point of view Increased organisational knowledge

In summary, reciprocal mentoring seeks to create the exchange of perspectives and mutual learning through participating in non-­ hierarchal dyads.

190  Sue Round Organisational context BP is a multinational integrated energy company which at the time of the launch of the reciprocal mentoring programme had a strong bias towards technical expertise particularly in the operational parts of the business. It was typical within the industry in terms of gender representation in that it was male-dominated, with a standard negative correlation between the level of seniority and the percentage of women. At the time of the programme, the organisation was open to challenging itself through exploring new ways of tackling the issue of female progression. Programme structure This pilot reciprocal mentoring programme consisted of mixed-gender pairs. The male mentors were all senior managers and volunteers, and the female mentors were part of an identified group of high potential middle managers. All the participants were fully briefed on the programme objectives with supporting materials specifically highlighting the difference in the intention from traditional mentoring and some guidance on how to hold the partnership with a particular focus on working without hierarchy. We also conducted a mid-programme check-in with all the mentors which proved helpful in terms of reinforcing the reciprocal nature of the programme. The default to sharing wisdom in a traditional sense was strong, and the mentors found they needed to work hard to overcome it. Careful thought was put into matching pairs, though it was hard to meet all our criteria: those that didn’t know each other, perceived shared areas of interest and compatible time zones. We overlaid our knowledge of the individuals to create the most productive dynamic. To measure the programme’s success for the individuals and share any emerging organisational learning, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the mentors before and after the programme to identify any shift in their understanding of women’s career equality issues created through their participation. There were three categories of findings: (1) New understanding of women’s career equality challenges; (2) a shift in perspective; and (3) implications for mentoring. These are explored in more detail below. New understanding of career equality challenges There were five areas that emerged for the mentors; whilst not all are entirely new concepts, they were new to the mentors and provided fresh insight into the case study organisation.

Reciprocal mentoring in private sector organisations  191

1: Women’s congruence in the workplace

The concept of women’s congruence seemed significant for both groups of mentors. The female mentors reported to have been really surprised to have learned through the dialogue that they could be themselves and be valued. They described how they felt under pressure to create a “work version” of themselves to fit in and succeed. The realisation for the male mentors that these women had been grappling with their work identity explained their discomfort with the style many had adopted which seemed incongruent with the women they knew outside the workplace. 2: Agentic leadership bias

Whilst women’s career equality seemed imbalanced at the time within BP, a preference for a certain personality type at senior levels seemed to be having a bigger impact on diversity than gender bias. The Insights Discovery model (Benton, 2008) was frequently mentioned by the mentors, and it is widely used within BP and has cultural traction. The model uses colours to differentiate personality styles, and red was dominant within the senior executive leadership cadre. The underpinning characteristics of the red profile align well with the concept of agentic behaviours identified by Eagly and Karau (2002) and hegemonic masculinity as described by Connell and Messerschmidt (2005). Through their reflections, some of the mentors of both genders were able to recognise under-representation of other types and thus the opportunity for proactively constructing more diverse teams incorporating style. 3: Organisational readiness for career equality

The above sparked my curiosity as to why one such personality type would be so highly regarded and almost exclusively present and thriving at senior levels in the organisation. The connection with colours expressing human behaviour led me to explore Spiral Dynamics, which was initiated by Professor Clare Graves in the 1960s and developed into its current form by two of his students, Don Beck and Chris Cowan (Beck & Cowan, 2006). Their work resulted in a hierarchical model of eight levels (each describing a world view or meme, these world views can manifest themselves on an individual or a societal (organisational) level). According to Beck and Cowan’s (2006) explanation, unless an organisation moves beyond orange (enterprise) level and into the green (communitarian) level it is difficult for the concept of equality to gain

192  Sue Round traction. BP at the time of the intervention was at a critical transition point, preparing to launch its new purpose and net zero ambition, moving towards being a communitarian business and concurrently becoming much more open to the equality discussion. The reciprocal mentoring programme provided a mechanism to accelerate some new understanding. 4: Flexibility stigma

Whilst flexible working policies emerged strongly from both groups of mentors as a potential enabler of women’s career equality, so did an associated stigma. The consequence of this as described was that men avoided participating in flexible schemes and the practice remained associated with women and a lack of commitment. The received wisdom within organisations appears to be that flexible working is a key driver of progress, what seemed to emerge here was that it could also have unintended negative consequences. Data are available on the impact of home working and home-schooling pressures on women’s careers during COVID-19. I would suggest that there is an opportunity for organisations to pay close attention to stigma and any other unintended consequences of flexibility as they explore their post-pandemic working policies. 5: Diversity and inclusion is a business, not just a human resource issue

The findings revealed that diversity and inclusion is still very much seen as the responsibility of Human Resources (HR) to drive. This appeared to be getting in the way of progress for two reasons. Firstly, that diversity was viewed as a moral rather than a business issue and, secondly, that the HR teams, as seen by their clients, were lacking the confidence or permission to hold the business to account in the discharge of organisational HR policies and processes. In my conversations with the male mentors, I observed that some of them, even though they were very senior leaders, had an expectation that HR were predominately responsible for creating the environment for career equality. Through their dialogue, for some of the mentors there was an emerging recognition of the role they as senior leaders had to play. A shift in perspective Whilst new understanding of women’s career equality was created as described above, the opportunity to interview all the mentors also

Reciprocal mentoring in private sector organisations  193 revealed some shifts in attitude and an increased empathy for other’s perspectives. Tables 9.2 and 9.3 below summarise these shifts: Table 9.2  Female mentors’ perspective during reciprocal mentoring programme Female mentors before the reciprocal mentoring programme

Female mentors after the reciprocal mentoring programme

Feeling like victims Sense of helplessness – they could not control their circumstances Cornered – there was no way out Lacking Choice – and that they should be grateful for opportunities Ignored – as though their views and opinions did not matter Limited – the amount of influence they had was finite Incongruent – as though they didn’t belong

Better informed, braver More ownership for their own issues and empowerment More in control and more supported Prepared to be more demanding Better understood and listened to More confident about speaking up Less different, less isolated

Table 9.3  Male mentors’ perspective during reciprocal mentoring programme Male mentors before the reciprocal mentoring programme

Male mentors after the reciprocal mentoring programme

On message – with a clear, collective view of the world Guarded and wary of saying the wrong thing. Slightly defensive Indulgent – duty bound to engage as part of their senior responsibilities Confident that all the right things were happening

Reflective and less sure of their position Empathetic and motivated to understand more Attentive and interested

Polished and professional (informed and in control) Slightly fatigued by the topic

Embarrassed at how little they knew and slightly guilty at the part they are playing unwittingly Less certain and more human Open-minded and inquisitive

These powerful shifts appear to build the foundations for more sustainable change and suggest that reciprocal mentoring might have broader application in other contexts where there is a desire to create greater understanding between diverse groups. There are many areas where difference is held as a barrier, rather than an opportunity to learn, for example in respect of: age, nationality, race, gender, and sexuality.

194  Sue Round Implications for mentoring practice Traditional mentoring is widely practised, reverse mentoring has emerged and is gaining traction as a progressive step with an opportunity to shift the flow of learning. Reciprocal mentoring is an emerging form, as described in Table 9.1 could provide further evolution through its differentiating, prescribed mutuality of dialogue. As mentoring practice evolves, highlighting the purpose, desired attributes process involved and application of different types of mentoring, as described in Table 9.4 below, would, I believe, enable more effective targeting of mentoring interventions. This in turn could enhance the value gained for those participating enabling mentors and interventions to be targeted to meet specific objectives. Table 9.4  Distinctive mentoring definitions Traditional mentoring Definition

Purpose

Process

Attributes needed from participants

Reverse mentoring

A more senior A more junior person, guiding person imparting and supporting knowledge and a more junior skills to a more senior person person Imparting Keeping senior advice, making managers up to recommendations, date with new acting as a concepts and sounding board technologies and in touch with emerging generations Demarcation of Demarcation of roles, though roles: mentor hierarchically talks and the reversed, mentor mentee listens. learning from Underpinned by mentee with a the premise that the mentor knows defined outcome of knowledge or best skill transfer Experience, wisdom, Willingness to share patience, a desire expertise and a to help desire to learn

Reciprocal mentoring Non-hierarchical pairs engaged in mutual exchange To share perspectives and create understanding between diverse populations

Equality of roles. Both participants talking and listening underpinned by the premise that both will learn perspectives from each other Dialogic mindset, openness to new perspectives

Reciprocal mentoring in private sector organisations  195 Case study: The LOTUS mentoring programme Author: Catherine M. Mao Cultural context Reciprocal mentoring is a development intervention that stems from the models of traditional mentoring but with important differences. In some Asian countries, the principle could originate from the Confucius Quote “He was of an active nature and yet fond of learning, and he was not ashamed to ask and learn from his inferiors.” “When I walk along with two others, they may serve me as my mentors. I will select their good qualities and follow them, their bad qualities and avoid them.” In the modern system, the pairs are equal partners in the process of learning and the relationship is reciprocal. We named the reciprocal mentoring programme as “LOTUS,” which describes the individual and collective journey of growth that we intend to achieve. The journey of the Lotus Flower is quite amazing. The seed starts in the mud of a swamp where it germinates and begins its life. The flower grows up through the water and into the air, reaching up into the warm rays of the sun. Here, it blooms showing all of its beauty to the world. The LOTUS programme allows employees to deep dive into the own being, uncovering potential and overcoming barriers. It is an inclusive model which makes sure that employees are heard, seen, valued, respected, and able to make a bigger contribution. The mutuality of reciprocal mentoring breaks down barriers and prejudices, allowing for mentoring relationships to dispel hierarchical and organisational political biases in Asian culture. This has been applied in a wide range of companies from start-ups to mature international organisations with employee numbers from 100 to 10,000 in the Asia Pacific Region. The varieties of functions and industries include Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), technology, automobile, pharmaceutical, logistics, finance and business services, and more. The scheme has driven new and meaningful experiences that link purpose to performance. Our approach Have clear objectives

It’s important for senior management, programme participants and other stakeholders to have clarity about the programme purpose, particularly the intended outcomes and how these align with organisational values. For example, is the goal to encourage collaboration and

196  Sue Round communication among colleagues from different backgrounds, or for sustained leadership development? The more we can quantify what we hope to achieve, the more effective it will be. Be structured

Our approach was systematic, leveraging expertise, solutions and technology with a deep understanding of how sustainability factors contribute to business success across the entire value chain. As per the Cambridge Dictionary, “A reciprocal action or arrangement involves two people or groups of people who behave in the same way or agree to help each other and give each other advantages.” Within the LOTUS programme, the employees take turns mentoring each other, rather than advice going only in one direction. They take turns being both mentor and mentee in the mentoring partnership, and each party is encouraged to both give and receive advice and support. That dynamic reduces relational discomfort and promotes effective communication by enabling the parties to learn from each other. The co-learning partnership seeks to bring about both individual and organisational awareness and change. Encourage vulnerability

The requirement for both the mentor and the mentee to step into a vulnerable space and take risks in their conversation enables deep learning and behavioural change towards a more inclusive culture. It helps mentors remain curious in the space of learner rather than expert, which is a real challenge as we get more senior. Consider reciprocal reverse– mentorship structures when leaders can learn a lot from newcomers and where cross-gender reciprocal mentoring supports diversity initiatives by connecting individuals in a way that enables them to discover the unique strengths of each gender. Running a successful process Below are the steps we used to maximise the return on the programme (Figure 9.1)

Figure 9.1  Mao’s reciprocal mentoring process.

Reciprocal mentoring in private sector organisations  197 Recruitment: Recruit appropriate participants by realistically describing the programme’s aims and expected outcomes. Screening: Screen prospective mentoring partners to determine whether they have the time, commitment, desire, and personal qualities to build a safe and effective mentoring relationship. Assessment and Training: Assessments and learning activities help to increase self-awareness and track progress. Educating both parties in creating a “power-free” environment and relationship is of critical importance. High-impact reciprocal mentoring requires both participants to feel as though they’re gaining something of equal or greater value to whatever they’re giving. Matching and Initiating: Match mentoring pairs and initiate the mentoring relationship using strategies likely to increase the effectiveness and endurance of mentoring relationships. Monitoring and Support: Monitor mentoring relationship milestones and build peer network of support for the duration of each relationship. Have plenty of supervision to keep on track, and regular calls to check and tweak the process. Frequent and targeted pulse check-ins help participants feel more engaged in the mentoring journey. Reflection and Feedback: Facilitate bringing the match to closure and assess the experience. Offer the opportunity to prepare for self-­ reflection and feedback. Immediate feedback is more powerful in changing behaviours. The above reciprocal mentoring programme generally takes place over six months. Participants can self-direct the content of their mentoring sessions to make it as relevant and meaningful as possible. Many mentoring relationships continue beyond the formal programme. Participants would need to be able to commit to two development sessions: Four to six one-hour mentoring sessions over a 6-month period (dates to be arranged by mentoring pairs); one mid-way review and feedback session. The reciprocal pairs choose the themes to tackle. Every mentoring session needs to start with some contracting to discover the joint purpose of the meeting and to explore what participants need to collectively achieve together by the end. It’s incredible to see the power that one hour of conversation has when the partners meet again in the following session. Enabling sustainable learning Matching

In this context, reciprocal mentoring is a process where a junior member of the organisation is partnered with a more senior and experienced

198  Sue Round member to learn from each other. The first and most foundational element of success is getting the partnership right. Specifically, it’s designed to help the more senior person understand the younger’s lived experience of working in the business, and employees are emotionally balanced to best serve the relationship. The matching with someone very different in a work context provides opportunity to hold difficult conversations that are often shut down due to fear of saying the wrong thing. Running an initial workshop using the MBTI® personality type tool helps members get to know each other quickly and to understand each other’s strengths, weaknesses and preferred ways of working. We need to put a lot of thoughts into marrying up two people who will gel and mutually benefit from the experience. Particularly for the more junior employee, knowing that they will be matched with someone appropriate gives them confidence in the process. Data help us learn more about mentoring expectations, such as skills development gaps or career aspirations. Al-based algorithm generates better matches by factoring in numerous and individualised parameters, and support scaling reciprocal mentoring in the organisation. Support

With appropriate support such as having a forum, participants can seek both expert guidance and peer acknowledgement, and experience the deepest and most significant learnings. Along the way, mentors and mentees “hold space” to build the context and boundaries of the conversation, ask probing questions, such as “What’s your contribution to the problem that you’re complaining about?” and develop the theme such as “What types of kindness the systems and the boss could offer to the individuals?” They guide each other towards specific goals, without interjecting their own ego. Integrating reciprocal mentoring programme into existing HR tools

The blended online and in-person mentoring encourages mentoring partners to experience a combination of online and in-person interactions. The digital reciprocal mentoring platform allows HR teams to see how participants are working on their focus areas and their progress towards their goals. HR teams can measure the development and Return on Investment (ROI) through HR management dashboard, such as adding new participants, extending

Reciprocal mentoring in private sector organisations  199 mentoring development programme, tracking goal achievement based on continuous assessments and feedback. Participants track development, celebrate successes and milestones achievement directly in the app. The e-reciprocal mentoring platform optimises the way the participants interact and engage throughout the programme for the best outcomes but also enjoy the process. It helps to overcome the challenges and doubts from employees: We already have heavy schedules; will we be able to fit in mentoring as well? Not enough time to prepare properly for the sessions. Need to be committed and disciplined. How to overcome the power difference in the relationship when we have additional relationship beyond just mentor and mentee? Impact and measurement It is challenging to measure the success of reciprocal mentoring as it involves changing people’s behaviour and attitudes. The advisory committee and HR strategists have developed an anonymous survey and feedback. It includes questions about what participants learned, whether any stereotypes were broken, and the positive outcomes resulting from improved mindsets and behaviours. Robust programme reporting and surveys gave the team a great idea on what was working, what was not working and how to improve the programme overall based on the input of both parties. The additional training allows participants to share questions arising from the mentoring conversation and look at them in depth with support from others. We anticipate the positive feedback, such as “We feel like we are working with a completely different person, and like this person better.” Outcomes A traditional and top-down organisational chart in some Asian countries shows the C-Suite at the top, followed by other senior management, middle managers and so on. Organisations have a clear hierarchical organisational structure that dictates organisational processes. Traditional mentoring is built around the concept of the knowledge economy where ideas and innovation spread from the top down. Mentoring in organisations is ideal for helping to retain top talent and build a leadership pipeline. In the learning economy, the personalised, measurable and scalable reciprocal mentoring programme is developed for the entire workforce, regardless of department and seniority level. It

200  Sue Round integrates a multi-generational workforce and recognises that everyone can contribute to knowledge-sharing. We have seen the added value of a formal and structured reciprocal mentoring programme, where the pairs share their learning in the process of reciprocity and look at ways to influence the system collectively. Leaders can gain a better understanding and respect for the advice they preach through mentoring relationships, as well as new perspectives on how their strategies apply to various business scenarios. Junior employees can contribute a fresh take on problem-solving. The knowledge-­sharing helps businesses solve the channel dilemmas of unsold products and services, unexplored relationships and underpenetrated markets. When the top and the bottom work together, anything is possible! Our reciprocal mentoring solution helps create meaningful employee experiences of potential progression to mentally stretch out own boundaries and build a highly motivated workforce in synonyms with corporate objectives. We can imagine reciprocal mentoring as an intervention to overcome a range of issues, such as burnout, inequality, working across cultures. A peer mentor with a different communication style and approach to challenges can bring interesting and new ideas to navigate and advance the goals. There is huge potential here, arguably organisations can reap a multitude of benefits, including stronger job performance, lower turnover intentions, higher organisational commitment and higher workplace engagement. Individual outcomes include higher job satisfaction, greater goal attainment, higher resilience, lower stress levels, greater purpose and meaning, and higher life satisfaction. Future impact The shifts of digitalisation, automation and artificial intelligence sit alongside changes in organisational structure. In many parts of the world, these help to reduce hierarchy. All individuals, regardless of their organisational level, can arguably innovate and lead. An empowering view is to think of an organisation like a grape tree, with the CEO on the bottom. The individual contributors are the grapefruit, the people doing the work, and managers are their supportive branches. Reciprocal mentoring programmes can be available to employees at all skill levels, including entry-level employees. It is a key tool for ensuring the teammates fully ripen and can help improve business outcomes in six ways as illustrated below (Figure 9.2).

Reciprocal mentoring in private sector organisations  201

Continuous feedback: Monitor and optimize key moments across the mentoring journey, and have space to reflect on how to improve.

Future-looking and transformational: Help senior executives rethink strategic issues, leadership and work approach. Break through own boundaries, and open the flood gates of ideas and strategies to reach the goals. Broad experience and deep capabilities: Align with business goals and contribute to the business success with innovative mentoring capabilities. Crafting strategies is a skill to be nurtured and applied at every level of an organization.

Extensible and customizable platform: Agile and flexible enough to connect and extend as needed.

Proven and trusted partnership: Help mentoring partners work together, with others and within their wider environment to create lasting change by developing safe and trusting relationships.

Experience-first approach: Engage meaningful and end-to-end mentoring experiences to redesign potential, and help employees bring out the very best of self. A critical moment to consider employees experience at work.

Figure 9.2  Reciprocal mentoring programme benefits.

Connectivity in a virtual world In virtual world, reciprocal mentoring can encourage remote workers a reciprocal exchange of ideas and experiences, reduce stress and remain engaged. The partners feel supported and championed in the attainment of the goals. The goal is not to come up with solutions to each other’s problems, instead help each other develop ways to deal with situations using own knowledge and self-awareness. The increased technological innovation, workplace transformation and ecological change, call for cultural, systemic and contextual awareness. As part of learning to work with increased diversity, and across functions, locations, generations and countries, reciprocal mentoring helps to create connections for knowledge to flow across barriers. Summary “LOTUS” is a powerful reciprocal mentoring programme that enables shifts in personal and business challenges and builds an extensive partner ecosystem. Employees will learn new skill sets and deepen selfawareness to fully embrace the unique contribution to the system we are in. Reciprocal mentoring supports employees to navigate power dynamics, share knowledge, hold one another accountable and achieve the business goals in the experience economy (Figure 9.3).

202  Sue Round

Belonging

The Sounding Board

Play a huge role in influencing and growing inclusive cultures, building trust in leaders and nurturing a sense of belonging for all.

Develop an open and constructive space to communicate changes to be made at senior level, and the leaders learn how to reduce unconscious bias from decisionmaking.

Voice of the System

Diversity & Inclusion

Business Acumen

Business Analytics

Experience Build a culture the power where and mentoring is an recognize the essential voice of the companion and system. Help available to all the team to employees who are motivated see itself as a system to be their best. within a Have fun, be system, and creative and achieve partner with collective ruthless intelligence. compassion.

Transform the culture not just how we observe and understand diversity, but also how we make decisions that cultivate a diverse and inclusive workforce.

An excellent way of developing skills to analyze and interpret information to enable a diagnosis of a situation and develop an executable strategy.

Learn the skills, technologies and practices for continuous investigation of business performance to gain insight, and drive business planning for success.

Thinking Companion

Reciprocal mentoring as a key tool to achieve business goals in the experience economy

Figure 9.3  Reciprocal mentoring as a key tool.

Chapter summary and conclusion This chapter highlights how reciprocal mentoring has been used in large private sector companies intentionally as a progressive tool designed to disrupt patterns of thinking, remove hierarchy and enable change. In a world that is grappling with understanding difference, this presents exciting possibilities. The phrase “lived experience” has arguably become fashionable and is deployed in organisations as a one-way flow of information from minority to majority groups imposing high emotional load on those sharing their stories. Reciprocal mentoring seeks to shift this dynamic and create much more of a learning partnership. The first case study reflects on the introduction of reciprocal mentoring into a large multinational company with a strong traditional mentoring culture and the unexpected and far-reaching consequences that emerged as part of the evaluation process enabling individual and organisational learning leading to its much wider adoption. The second reflects on a much more mature process situated within the backdrop of Asian culture and recommends a more structured approach that can be used in multiple contexts highlighting, in particular, the need for thoughtful matching and wrap-around support to maximise return. Whilst there were differences in the approaches, the principles of open dialogue, deep listening and disrupting paradigms are present in both as was the perceived pressure on senior executives to operate as experts and advisers regardless of context. Some of them learned to let go.

Reciprocal mentoring in private sector organisations  203 References Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), pp. 139–158. DOI:10.1177/089124390004002002. Beck, D. & Cowan, C.C. (2006). Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership, and change: exploring the new science of memetics. Oxford: Blackwell. Benton, S. (2008). The insights discovery model. Retrieved from http://inside-­ inspiration.com.au/factsheets/insights-discovery-evaluator-validity-and-reliabilityoverview.pdf. Chandler, D.E. & Kram, K.E. (2005). Mentoring and developmental networks in the new career context. In H. Gunz & M. Peiper (eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 548–566). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Connell, R.W. & Messerschmidt, J.W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 19, pp. 829–859. DOI:10.1177/0891243205278639. De Vries, J. (2011). Mentoring for change. Melbourne, Victoria: Universities Australia Executive Women & the LH Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Management. Eagly, A.H. & Karau, S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice towards female leaders. Psychology Review, 109, pp. 573–598. DOI:10.1037/0033–295x.109.3.573. Ely, R.J., Ibarra, H. & Kolb, D.M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(3). DOI:10.5465/amle.2010.0046. Ely, R.J. & Meyerson, D.E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, pp. 103–151. DOI:10.1016/S0191–3085(00)22004-2. Harvey, M., McIntyre, N., Heames, J.T. & Moeller, M. (2009). Mentoring global female managers in the global marketplace: traditional, reverse, and reciprocal mentoring. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(6), pp. 1344–1361. DOI:10.1080/09585190902909863. Hearn, J. & Collinson, D.L. (1998). Men, masculinities, managements and organisational culture. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 12(2), pp. 210–222. DOI:10.1177/ 239700229801200205. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kossek, E.E., Su, R. & Wu, L. (2017). “Opting Out” or “Pushed Out”? Integrating perspectives on women’s career equality for gender inclusion and interventions. Journal of Management, 43, pp. 228–254. DOI:10.1177/01492063166 71582. McKeen, C. & Bujaki, M. (2007). Gender and mentoring. In B.R. Ragins & K.E. Kram (eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 197–222). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. Sturm, S. (2001). Second generation employment discrimination: A structural approach. Columbia Law Review, 101(3), pp. 458–568. DOI:10.2307/ 1123737. The Hampton Alexander Review (2016). “Reports of the Hampton-Alexander review into increasing the number of women in senior positions in FTSE 350 companies”, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, Published 8 November 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/ftse-women-leaders-hampton-alexander-review

204  Sue Round UK Gender Pay Gap Report (2018). “Gender pay gap in the UK: 2018”, Office for National Statistics, Released 25th October 2018, https://www.ons.gov. uk/­e mploymentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/ bulletins/genderpaygapintheuk/2018 Wittenberg-Cox, A. (2013). Stop fixing women, start building management competencies. In S. Vinnicombe, R.J. Burke, S. Blake-Beard & L.L. Moore (eds.), Handbook of Research on Promoting Women’s Careers (Elgar Original Reference, Research Handbooks in Business and Management Series). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI:10.4337/9780857938961.

10 Conclusions Towards a theory of reciprocal mentoring Julie Haddock-Millar, Paul Stokes and Nora Dominguez Introduction In Chapter 1, we set the scene for why it was important to look at reciprocal mentoring now and speculated that there are likely to be three types of reciprocal mentoring programme that we expected to see: 1 Reciprocal by design – this is where a mentoring programme has been deliberately set up so that participants work with each other in a reciprocal way where mutual learning and development is expected and encouraged. 2 Emergent reciprocity – this is where a mentoring programme has not been set up to be deliberately reciprocal, but participants naturally work together in this way and this becomes formalised as the way to participate in the programme. 3 Reciprocal as an output – this is where a mentoring programme has not been set up or designed as reciprocal, with the roles within the relationship continuing to be traditionally defined as mentor and mentee but where benefits are accrued for mentors and mentees. As we also said in Chapter 1, of these three archetypes, we expected reciprocal by design to be the least common category, partly due to the years of cultural history invested in traditional mentoring scheme design. Nevertheless, due to increased frequency of reverse mentoring (Chaudhuri, Park & Johnson, 2022), and its accompanying benefits, we expected to see an increase in twoway mentoring interventions and processes, even within conventional mentoring programmes. As a result, we predicted that we would identify a significant number of programmes which become reciprocal by default, due to the natural evolution of the relationships within mentoring programmes. We also set out in Chapter 1 a number of questions we wanted to explore in doing this case study research: 1 What does reciprocal mentoring programme design look like? 2 How does reciprocal mentoring differ from other modes of mentoring? DOI: 10.4324/9781003302537-10

206  Julie Haddock-Millar et al. 3 What practical design features do programme designers need to put in place to enable reciprocal mentoring to take place? 4 To what extent does reciprocal mentoring challenge traditional notions of mentoring scheme design? 5 What impact does the context in which the mentoring takes place (i.e., sector, culture, history) influence reciprocity? We address these questions in our thematic analysis within the chapters and case studies and revisit aspects in the next section. Case study classification Our analysis of the case studies and classification involved the following questions: 1 What were the programme drivers and overarching purpose? 2 How was the mentoring programme described to programme participants and key stakeholders? 3 How were the participants described in the programme, e.g., mentor and mentee; mentoring partners; peer mentors. 4 To what extent did participant hierarchy, power, position, experience, feature in the mentoring matches? 5 In the programmes where participants were described as mentor and mentee, was there an expectation participants would switch roles interchangeably? 6 What did the training of participants comprise and to what extent was there a focus on training for all programme participants? Table 10.1 provides a summary of our case study analysis. Overall, we found eight cases to be reciprocal by design, five cases to be emergent reciprocity and 13 cases to be reciprocal as an output. Table 10.1  Summary case study analysis Chapter and sector 

Design  Emergent  Output 

Chapter 2: Entrepreneurship Chapter 3: Healthcare Chapter 4: Third sector Chapter 5: PK-12 Education sector Chapter 6: Students and staff in Higher Education Chapter 7: Faculty in Higher Education Chapter 8: Membership organisations Chapter 9: Private-sector organisations TOTAL

-  2  -  1  -  1  1  2  8 

1  1  1  -  -  2  -  -  5 

2  1  2  2  4  1  2  -  13 

Conclusions: towards a theory of reciprocal mentoring  207 Case study analysis We revisit the chapters and identify each case study in terms of whether we see it as reciprocal by design, reciprocal by output or emergent in terms of its reciprocal nature. We also explore the macro societal drivers that influence – and are influenced by – the mentoring programmes we have ­ looked at. In reciprocal mentoring programme case studies by design, we see a number of common features, including: • Explicit reciprocal programme purpose • Mutual understanding of the reciprocal purpose of the mentoring programme • Explicit expectation of a two-way relationship – a partnership or co-mentoring • Reciprocity is embedded in the mentoring programme materials and language • Provision of equivalent orientation and training for all participants • Equivalent focus on the reciprocal mentoring relationship processes and outcomes • Equalise or minimise the influence of power and position on participant learning In the reciprocal by outcome, we see: • Explicit or implicit reciprocal mentoring programme and relationship outcomes • Tacit understanding of the reciprocal nature of the mentoring programme • Hierarchical or power distance in the mentoring relationship • Tendency for mentor-focused training • Focus on the reciprocal mentoring relationship outcomes for all In the emergent, we see: • Change to explicit reciprocal programme purpose • Mutual understanding of the reciprocal purpose of the mentoring programme • Explicit expectation of a two-way relationship – a partnership or co-mentoring • Reciprocity is embedded in the mentoring programme materials and language • Provision of equivalent orientation and training for all participants

208  Julie Haddock-Millar et al. • Equivalent focus on the reciprocal mentoring relationship processes and outcomes • Equalise or minimise the influence of power and position on participant learning Chapter 2 presented three case studies: Bharatiya Yuva Shakti Trust (reciprocal by outcome); Cherie Blair Foundation for Women Mentoring Programme (reciprocal by outcome); and the Royal Academy of Engineering Leaders for Innovation Fellowships (emergent reciprocity). The cases in the entrepreneurial chapter illustrate the distinction between reciprocity in terms of intention and benefits of mentoring, and reciprocal mentoring as a process. A common theme amongst all of these case studies is the fact that whilst both mentors and mentees benefit from the mentoring relationship, at the heart of the mentoring is personal, professional and business growth and transformation. Rather than uni-directional – being offered by one (the mentor) to another (the mentee), the mentoring relationships demonstrate reciprocal outcomes. Whilst there are clearly benefits to all stakeholders in the system, reciprocity and mutuality in mentoring dyads are not at the forefront of the case studies. The contribution the individuals and organisations make to the entrepreneurial ecosystem drives sustainable economic development around the world, creating jobs and strengthening communities. At the macro level, the societal benefits include tackling unemployment and poverty, eliminating the gender gap, building a sustainable society and inclusive economy. Working together as a network, individuals and organisations are able to maximise their collective impact, enabling members to scale their operations to deliver effective support to more entrepreneurs every year. In relation the wider stakeholder impact, all cases demonstrate that reciprocity has the potential to extend beyond the mentee and mentor, which might be referred to as the ripple effect. Chapter 3 presented four case studies: The Nursing Now Challenge (reciprocal by design), Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (reciprocal by design), North East London NHS Foundation Trust (emergent reciprocity), and Transformative Co-mentoring: Fostering Cultural Change in the Medical Profession (reciprocal by design). A key theme from the healthcare chapter is the concept of transformative co-mentoring when it is applied to address systemic inequality. In the chapter author’s analysis, she notes the key themes of inequality and promoting a more inclusive workplace. At the macro level, the societal benefits include improving health and healthcare leadership globally, educate and train healthcare professional in underserved communities, reduce progression gaps between ethnic minority communities and their white counterparts, address barriers to progression at senior levels and improve black and minority ethic representation, tackling unemployment and  poverty, eliminating the gender gap, building a sustainable society and inclusive economy. Working together as a network, individuals and organisations are able to engage in meaningful discussions that foster diversity, inclusion, cultural awareness and respect. In relation the wider stakeholder impact,

Conclusions: towards a theory of reciprocal mentoring  209 similar to Chapter 2, all cases demonstrate that reciprocity has the potential to extend beyond the mentee and mentor, addressing barriers to progression at senior levels and improving black and minority ethnic representation. Chapter 4 presented three case studies: SAVE the Children (emergent reciprocity); the National Institute for Health and Care Research (reciprocal by outcome); and The Middle East Technical University Alumni Association in Istanbul mentoring Programme (reciprocal by outcome). The chapter’s author recognises that mentoring as a reciprocally focused activity facilitates knowledge sharing and highlights the value of being open to lifelong learning and development. At the macro level, the societal benefits include keeping children safe, healthy and learning; improving health and benefits to society and the economy; co-producing an equitable, diverse and inclusive society. The mentoring programme participants are committed to the organisations’ values and purpose, and it is the organisations’ values, purpose and societal drivers that underpin the mentoring programme purpose and design. Chapter 5 included three case studies: Serendipitous Reciprocal Mentoring Effects on Black Male Mentors (reciprocal by outcome); The Color of Teaching Mentoring Program (reciprocal by outcome); Empowering One Another: Leadership Lessons Learned in Co-mentoring Circles (reciprocal by design). A key theme from the chapter is the importance of a collaborative, two-way approach of reciprocal mentoring which strengthens the notion of a culture of support in which students and teachers increase their capacity to identify and solve shared problems for community building and societal change. At the macro level at the societal levels, benefits include reducing educational disproportionality, reducing progression gaps between ethnic minority communities and their white counterparts and empowerment in career transition. A key theme is providing a safe, supportive, professional community which provides mutually beneficial mentoring outcomes. Chapter 6 presented four cases highlighting the processes, benefits and outcomes of reciprocal mentoring relationships amongst undergraduate students, graduate students, prospective students and staff: Florida Gulf Coast University Honors Mentor Program (reciprocal by outcome); Reciprocal mentoring in UK Higher Education (reciprocal by outcome); The ‘Moving ForwardMentoring Others for Career Success’ Programme (reciprocal by outcome); Leadership Lounge (reciprocal by outcome). A key theme in this education chapter is the impact of reciprocal mentoring in increasing the participants’ self-awareness, self-confidence and sense of belonging through dialogue, reflection and shared feedback. In terms of macro drivers at a societal level, a dominant theme across three of the four cases is that of the need to improve educational and employment aspirations for certain groups within wider society. This has impact in quite different ways in terms of the purpose and agenda of the four programmes but with the common theme of improving education standards for all stakeholders. In all four cases, reciprocity was an outcome from the programmes.

210  Julie Haddock-Millar et al. Chapter 7 presents four case studies portraying mentoring programmes that started promoting hierarchical, one-to-one relationships between junior and senior faculty that evolved into meaningful, high-quality, reciprocal relationships: Reciprocal Mentoring in Higher Education (emergent reciprocity); Reciprocal Mentoring: A Community Mentoring Culture in a College of Education (emergent reciprocity); Sharing Funds of Knowledge to Develop WellPrepared Adjunct Faculty (reciprocal by outcome); A Department’s Journey with Reciprocal Faculty Mentoring Using Appreciate Inquiry (reciprocal by design). All four cases share that reciprocal mentoring is a discovery journey in which dialogue, engagement and interaction lead to personal and professional growth whilst collaboratively building energetic communities of practice. In terms of macro drivers for the programmes, these programmes shared common themes around community building and retaining capability within a locale as well as speaking to equality, diversity and inclusion themes in broader society. Chapter 8 presented three cases: Australian Human Resources Institute (reciprocal by outcome), British Standards Institute (reciprocal by design) and the Resilient Pilot Programme (reciprocal by outcome). When examining membership organisations, a number of themes can be identified. Firstly, a key theme that seems to unite the three examples is that of maintaining and containing professional integrity of the participants. Related to this professional focus, it was also important in each case that the mentoring was predicated on the core principle of mutuality. In turn, mutual benefit from mentoring was only possible if both participants in the relationships were willing and able to set aside hierarchy and power differences within the organisational structure and focus on how they can each add value to the other. At the macro level, the societal drivers influencing and impacting here were quite disparate ranging from career progression to equality and diversity. However, a common purpose within each programme was to enhance competence and capability of all participants in relation to navigating the various professional cultures that each group encountered. Chapter 9 presents two different private-sector case studies. The first described reciprocal mentoring as a mechanism for increasing understanding of the issues surrounding women’s career equality within BP (reciprocal by design), at a time of significant change. The second described an approach named LOTUS (reciprocal by design) that has been used extensively across the Far East highlighting the potential to challenge the prevailing culture and hierarchy. A common theme across the case studies is how reciprocal mentoring has been used in large private-sector companies intentionally as a progressive tool designed to disrupt patterns of thinking, remove hierarchy and enable change. The principles of open dialogue, deep listening and disrupting paradigms are present in both as was the perceived pressure on senior executives to operate as experts and advisers regardless of context. Whilst the case studies have different foci, the macro level societal issues are essentially concerned with power

Conclusions: towards a theory of reciprocal mentoring  211 within society and, in turn, how these power structures are replicated within organisations, through tackling gender inequality and empowering individuals through equality of opportunity. Towards a model of reciprocal mentoring At the end of this chapter, in Table 10.2, we provide our detailed analysis of the case studies, applying the types of mentoring programmes previously described: reciprocal by design, emergent and reciprocal as an output. As we have argued above some of the cases feature schemes that are reciprocal by design, whilst for others, reciprocity is an emergent outcome from the programme. Our analysis of the 26 case studies in this book has enabled us to generate some key themes which lie at the heart of reciprocal mentoring as an intervention, which were outlined in the previous section of this chapter. We have taken these themes and developed a model for reciprocal mentoring which has emerged from this analysis (see Figure 10.1). Our intent in offering this model is that it is a vehicle for continuing research and practice in this space. We do not claim it to be representational of all reciprocal mentoring practice, but we have endeavoured to draw our cases from a diverse range of countries, sectors and contexts so as to try and capture the richness of this approach to mentoring. We see in reciprocal mentoring programmes the themes of creative challenge, mutual understanding and respect, self-actualisation and development

• Transition • Power • Disruption

• Equality • Diversity • Inclusion

Creative challenge

Societal drivers

Societal drivers

Programme emphasis Selfactualisation

• Education • Progression • Empowerment

Mutual understanding and respect

Development of networks • Community • Clusters • Collaboration

Figure 10.1  A programme-level model of reciprocal mentoring

212  Julie Haddock-Millar et al. of networks. It is our belief that there is a reciprocal relationship between broader societal contexts and the organisational contexts within which reciprocal mentoring schemes are located. In other words, some of the core themes identified in the cases (see Figure 10.1) will have been derived from organisational/scheme responses to broader societal movements and drivers. In turn, however, we acknowledge that such organisational schemes make – and are often intended to make – an impact on broader society (broader societal drivers are shown in boxes in Figure 10.1). We discuss the reciprocal mentoring programmes the themes of creative challenge, mutual understanding and respect, self-actualisation and development of networks. Creative challenge When we examine the reciprocal mentoring programmes included in this text, we see that creative challenge is a key feature of all of them at programme level. By this, we mean that reciprocal mentoring programmes seem to place more emphasis on challenging dominant cultural norms within their respective organisations. This includes organisational hierarchy and existing power structures within these organisations. This emphasis is drawn from wider societal drivers at play which include drivers for transition and change within broader society and social dynamics around resistance to power and disruption that exist. Mutual understanding and respect Similarly, we see mutual understanding and respect as a feature in many of the mentoring programmes in this text. Mutual understanding and respect are based on a shared belief in the benefits of equality, diversity and inclusion. At the programme level, this appears in purpose, policies and processes which are significantly influenced by the societal drivers. The mentoring programmes intend to foster relationships which address many of the barriers associated with aspects of equality, diversity and inclusion such as career progression, the gender gap, equal and fair access to professional development opportunities. Self-actualisation Self-actualisation, or the achievement of potential, speaks to the broader societal themes of education, progression and empowerment. A number of the mentoring programmes are designed to support transition and the ability to transcend existing circumstances through education and empowerment. Often in the mentoring programmes in this text, we see a key driver and outcome as personal and professional development. The results include competence acquisition, leadership capability and development, raised expectations, choice and self-belief, occupational mobility and retention.

Conclusions: towards a theory of reciprocal mentoring  213 Development of networks For many of the mentoring programmes featured in this text, the development of networks is at the heart of the overarching programme purpose. Derived from the societal drivers of collaboration, clusters and community building, the value of fostering personal and professional networks is recognised in all aspects of the ecosystem. We particularly see this in entrepreneurial reciprocal mentoring programmes, where the benefits to mentees, mentors, organisation and society are mutually advantageous. A number of reciprocal outcomes are shared in the case studies, including commercialisations of innovations, enhanced workforce competence and capabilities, and the opportunities provided by increased market access. We see the relationship between the core themes identified in the cases at programme level as derived from organisation responses to broader societal movements and drivers. Here, there is a reciprocal relationship as the organisational schemes frequently intend to impact on broader society. For example, in all of our cases, there is evidence of a spirit of volunteerism throughout them. This is particularly acute in membership organisations (Chapter 8) and in third-sector organisations (Chapter 4) but, this is in turn linked to a strong sense of mutual investment in expected outcomes, against a backdrop of societal change. In this book, seems to have at the heart of it (via its mutuality and collaborative networks) a commitment to challenging existing hierarchical power structures that exist in organisations and in wider society. It is often viewed as a progressive tool designed to disrupt patterns of thinking, remove hierarchy and enable change. This suggests reciprocal mentoring is particularly well suited to ensuring that there is a strong and symbiotic relationship between social and organisational systems. Furthermore, longer term trends in society such as a desire to build effective communities of practice and for younger generations to want to contribute different things to previous generations (e.g., climate change, greater diversity) are also impacting on (and being impacted by) reciprocal mentoring (Chapter 2). Our cases suggest that there is a greater appetite than ever before to build relational organisational cultures through mutual challenge and collaboration that enable such societal changes to be experienced at an organisational level. Hence, our expectation is that we will see more examples of mentoring schemes that are reciprocal by design as these aspirations gain greater traction. Nevertheless, we are not predicting that the need for other modes of mentoring will dissipate due to the embedded history of traditional mentoring schemes and processes as well as the different societal and organisational drivers that are already in play. To fully understand the emergent reciprocity classification requires greater insight into the mentoring relationship dynamics, the level we referred to in Chapter 1 as episodes or sessions. The mentoring relationships, which consisted of episodes/sessions, which themselves were comprised of mentoring techniques and individual, transformational moments where shifts and changes would occur. Our aim with this text was to consider reciprocity at the

Chapter 3: Healthcare

Youth Business International BYST India

Chapter 2: Entrepreneurship

North East London NHS Foundation Trust   

Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust   

Nursing Now Challenge

Royal Academy of Engineering LIF

Cherie Blair Foundation for Women

Case studies

Chapter and sector

Table 10.2  Detailed case study analysis Design, emergent, outcome

Emergent

Design

Design

Emergent

Outcome

Mentorship to enable the young people in Outcome India to successfully transition into the role of a successful entrepreneur. 

Programme purpose

Mentoring platform supports women entrepreneurs across borders to grow and strengthen their businesses and build their skills, confidence and knowledge. Build a sustainable Mentoring enables innovators to build society and an inclusive their own businesses within a strong economy. support structure, nationally, regionally and globally.  Improving health and Mentoring programme enables nurses healthcare globally and and midwives to engage in meaningful leadership. discussions around global health and leadership. Drive the nursing and midwifery leadership agenda and improving health and healthcare globally.  Reduce experience and Pilot programme increases cultural progression gaps awareness to foster diversity and between ethnic minority inclusion and to support personal and communities and their professional development. white counterparts. Address barriers to The mentoring programme started off progression at senior as reverse mentoring, initially focusing levels, improve BME on race and a desire to increase representation. representation at board level and to have a composition which represented both the workforce and the population served.

Entrepreneurship as a career choice for tackling unemployment and poverty. Eliminate the global gender gap in entrepreneurship.

Societal drivers

214  Julie Haddock-Millar et al.

Chapter 5: PK-12 Education sector

Improve health and benefits to society and the economy.

Keeping children safe, healthy and learning.

Educate and train healthcare professionals in underserved communities. The Transformative Co-Mentoring seeks to create mutual understanding and respect and fostering a lasting change in those involved and in the environments in which they function. Support staff development in their learning and development pathway, reinforcing humanitarian leadership. The mentoring programme aims to support the academic and career development of NIHR postdoctoral communities. The mentoring programme facilitates career development and socialisation of students into industry in Turkey. Outcome

Outcome

Emergent

Design

(Continued)

Outcome The Brotherhood is a middle school mentoring programme designed to support mentees to progress successfully from sixth grade to seventh grade, and increased sense of self-confidence and empowerment. The Color of Teaching Reduce experience and The programme is designed to address Outcome Mentoring Program progression gaps the disparity between the number of between ethnic minority students of colour in the nation versus communities and their the low number of teachers of colour. white counterparts. Design Empowerment in career Co-mentoring circles offer aspiring PKEmpowering One transition. 12 school leaders a safe, supportive, Another: Leadership professional community to learn how Lessons Learned to lead with others uniquely situated to in Co-mentoring understand today’s challenges of PK-12 Circles  school leadership.

The Middle East Co-produce an equitable, Technical University diverse and inclusive (METU) Alumni society. Association in Istanbul Serendipitous Address educational Reciprocal disproportionality Mentoring Effects therefore reduce on Black Male the school-to-prison Mentors  pipeline.

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)

Transformative Co-mentoring: Fostering Cultural Change in the Medical Profession Chapter 4: Third sector SAVE the Children

Conclusions: towards a theory of reciprocal mentoring  215

Chapter 7: Faculty in Higher Education

Florida Gulf Coast University Honors Mentor Program 

Chapter 6: Students and Staff in Higher Education

Societal drivers

Programme purpose

Retention and community The mentoring programme was building. founded to assist student transition and community building by sharing resources.  Reciprocal mentoring Improving educational Enhance the quality of doctoral in UK Higher standards. supervision in a United Kingdom Education Business School. The ‘Moving Forward- Improving education and The mentoring programme aims to Mentoring Others employment aspirations. provide a bridge between Business for Career Success’ School students and prospective Programme students from a local Sixth Form College, enabling mentees to develop the ability to critically analyse and reflect upon their career goals and direction. Leadership Lounge Improving education and The mentoring programme invites employment aspirations. current and aspiring technology leaders in higher education to participate in regular conversations with a mentor panel of experienced college and university Chief Information Officers. Reciprocal Mentoring Improving education and The mentoring programme seeks to in Higher Education  employment aspirations. support development and seeks to support Instructional Faculty in ways that position them for success. The mentoring programme aims to match Reciprocal Mentoring: Employment aspirations mid/advanced career faculty with early and community A Community career faculty to better early career building. Mentoring Culture faculty in aspects related to collegiality. in a College of Education

Case studies

Chapter and sector

Table 10.2 Continued

Emergent

Emergent

Outcome

Outcome

Outcome

Outcome

Design, emergent, outcome

216  Julie Haddock-Millar et al.

Equality, diversity and inclusion.

Resilient Pilot Mentoring Programme 

Chapter 9: Private-sector Creating shared Equality and gender organisations understanding of representation in the women’s career workplace. equality at BP  The LOTUS Empowerment in career Mentoring Program  transition.

Diversity awareness and competence.

British Standards Institute

Design

Outcome

Design

Outcome

Design

Outcome

The mentoring approach has been applied Design in organisations across the Asia Pacific Region to link purpose to performance.

The mentoring programme aims to connect and support Human Resources professionals in Australia to share advice, knowledge and experiences to assist building HR capability and career progressions. The mentoring programme was designed for executives and colleagues to raise their level of self-awareness and understanding of diversity. The mentoring programme was designed to support pilots and crew members to improve confidence, competence and connection, transitioning to focus on competencies, wellbeing and diversity. The aim was to develop a shared understanding of women’s career equality challenges within BP.

The mentoring programme aims to develop pre-service adjuncts into poised faculty who could promote non-traditional students’ engagement and bachelor’s or master’s degree completion. Retention and community The team-based mentoring programme building. connects faculty with peers to develop expertise, build community, enhance communication and increase retention.

Equality, diversity and inclusion.

A Department’s Journey with Reciprocal Faculty Mentoring Using Appreciative Inquiry  Chapter 8: Membership The Australian Human Build capability and organisations Resources Institute supporting career progression.

Sharing Funds of Knowledge to Develop WellPrepared Adjunct Faculty 

Conclusions: towards a theory of reciprocal mentoring  217

218  Julie Haddock-Millar et al. meso level (programme), and we wanted to understand the influence of the macro level (societal) on the mentoring programmes. The next stage would be to explore the micro level (relationship, episodes or sessions) in order to draw out reciprocal lessons as a process. Reference Chaudhuri, S., Park, S., & Johnson, K. R. (2022). ‘Engagement, inclusion, knowledge sharing, and talent development: is reverse mentoring a panacea to all? Findings from literature review.’ European Journal of Training and Development, 46(5/6), pp. 468–483.

Index

Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables and italic page numbers refer to figures. academic development 58, 116 Across Organisation Mentoring Programme (AOMP) 54 adjunct faculty 7, 136, 161; autonomysupportive strategies 147; context 148–149; description of need 147–148; evaluation 152; exambased entrance requirements 147; funding 151–152; infrastructure, organizational support and communication 149; learning objectives, curriculum, length and evaluation tools 150–151; mentoring and supporting relationships 151; operational definition 148; outcomes and lessons learned 152–153; personal and professional lessons learned 153–154; purpose 147–148; recruitment, selection and matching strategies 149–150; sustaining and future program 154; theoretical frameworks 148; training 150 agentic leadership bias 191 appreciative inquiry (AI) 162; faculty members 155; formative and summative evaluation 158–159; funding, mentoring program 159; infrastructure 156; mentoring context 155–156; monitor and support relationships 158; outcomes and lessons learned 159–160; purpose and objectives 155; recruitment, selection and matching strategies 156–157; strengths-based

framework 154; sustaining mentoring program 159; training and educational opportunities 157–158 appreciative mentoring 137, 142, 145 Arredondo-Rucinski, D.E. 97 Austin, J. 44 Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI) 7; benefits, mentees and mentors 168; implications, mentoring practice 173; mentees and mentors’ frequency scores 170; mentees’ outcome scores 168; mentor outcome scores 169; mutuality 168–169; professional development 166; purpose and infrastructure 167; reciprocal mentoring process map 167; reciprocity 169–172; traditional programmes 166 autonomy-supportive instruction (ASI) 147, 148 Baumeister, R.F. 48 Beck, D. 191 Bharatiya Yuva Shakti Trust (BYST) 6, 10, 11, 27; business development services 14; corporate executives 14; entrepreneurship 13; mentoring programme purpose 14–15; programme evaluation 16–17; reciprocal mentoring outcomes 17; recruitment, selection and matching of participants 15–16; training and educational opportunities 16; young entrepreneurs 12, 13

220 Index Black male mentors: educational disproportionality 82–83; formative and summative evaluation 86; funding, mentoring program 86; infrastructure, organizational support and communication plan 84; mentoring context 83–84; monitor and support relationships 86; outcomes and lessons learned 86–87; purpose and objectives 82–83; recruitment, selection and matching strategies 84–85; sustaining, mentoring program and future plans 86; training and educational opportunities 85–86 Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) 30 Black, V.G. 111 British Standards Institute (BSI) 7; evaluation 176; HRIS 178; leadership development strategy 178; organisational context 173; outcomes and lessons learned 176–177; programme management 177–178; programme up setting 175–176; recruitment, selection and matching strategies 174 Brudney, J.L. 165, 166 Bujaki, M. 188 Bull, M. 69 Burdett, J. 112 Business Performance Tracking System (BPTS) 16 Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) 23 career development 7, 58, 59, 68, 114– 123, 131, 135, 136, 162, 171 Carnegie Classification 125 case study: analysis 4, 206, 206–211, 214–217; classification 206 Cherie Blair Foundation for Women (CBFW) Mentoring Programme 6, 10, 27; mentoring programme purpose 18; mentors and mentees 12; programme evaluation 20–21; reciprocal mentoring outcomes 21–22; recruitment, selection and matching of participants 18–19; training and educational opportunities 19–20; woman entrepreneurs 12, 18

Chief Information Officers (CIOs) 7, 123–129, 131 Chief Scientist Office (CSO) 57 Christensen, R.K. 165, 166 civic engagement 107, 109, 130 civic sector see third sector Clutterbuck, D. 2, 6, 30, 44 co-mentoring circles: communication styles and skills 96; components 95; confidentiality 96; educational opportunities and curriculum description 95–98; giving and receiving feedback 96; grade levels 45; group agreements 95–96; hopes and concerns 97; innovative model 6; interns 98–99; professional timeline 97; program structure 94; purpose, context and tensions 93–94; reflection 97; self-portrait 97–98; structural approach 93; systems thinking approach 93; trust 96; work of 98 Cohen, N.H. 105 collaborative engagement 96 Color of Teaching Mentoring Program (CoT): cultural mismatch 87; formative and summative evaluation 91–92; funding 92; infrastructure, organizational support and communication plan 90; mentoring context 88–90; monitor and support relationships 91; national disparity 87; outcomes and lessons learned 92; purpose and objectives 88; recruitment, selection and matching strategies 90; sustaining and future plans 92; training and educational opportunities 91 Combs, J. 96 communication styles/skills 96 community mentoring culture: examples 144; inclusion 143; knowledge sharing 142; learning community 142; mutual support 142; openended questions 144, 145; organization’s culture and climate 143; reunion 144; steering committee 143, 146; tenuretrack faculty 144; training model 142; valuable aspects 145 Competency-Based Training Instructors (CBTi) 179

Index  221 confidence building 66, 116, 131, 183 confidentiality 96, 99 Connell, R.W. 191 continuing professional development (CPD) webinars 63 Cowan, C.C. 191 creative challenge 211, 212 Crossman, J. 112 culture: adjustment 51; awareness 6, 37, 87–92, 208; competence 41, 47, 81, 87, 145, 149, 150, 161 Curran, W. 146 Daloz, L.A. 3 Department of Health and Social Care 57 diversity 37, 39, 51, 68–73, 76, 79, 88, 89, 125, 127, 129, 146, 176, 178, 181, 191, 192, 196, 201, 208, 210, 212 double confidentiality 96 e-reciprocal mentoring platform 199 Eagly, A.H. 191 education sector see PK-12 education sector educational disproportionality 82, 209 emergent reciprocity 3, 205, 206 emotional intelligence 66, 80, 107, 130, 131 engineering-based innovation 12, 23 entrepreneurial ecosystem 6, 10, 12, 27, 208 entrepreneurial mindset 23, 24 entrepreneurship 4, 12, 13, 16–18, 25, 27 Entrepreneurship Development Programme (EDP) 14 entrepreneurship sector: case study 13– 26; context 10–13; SMEs 10 ePortfolio project 106 equity 68–73, 89, 127, 141 Erikson, E.H. 74, 76 Ethnic Minority Network (EMN) 39 European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) 25, 60, 70, 179 European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 181 expanded/diverse networks 24 exploring reciprocal mentoring 2–5 external mentoring consultant 63–65 faculty and higher education: academic landscape 135; campus

leadership team 161; case study 137–160; co-creation 160; community service tasks 136; context 136; formative and summative evaluation 140; funding, mentoring program 140–141; infrastructure 138; mentoring context 137; monitor and support relationships 140; ongoing leadership support 162; operational definition 138; outcomes and lessons learned 141–142; promotion and tenure achievement 162; purpose and objective 137; recruitment, selection and matching strategies 138–139; sustaining mentoring program 141; teaching responsibilities 135; theoretical framework 137; training and educational opportunities 139–140 Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) 195 Feggetter, A.J.W. 119 Fellowship of Engineering 22 Fielden, S.L. 30 Fischler, L.A. 96 Florida Gulf Coast University Honors Mentor Program: affective/ emotional intelligence 107; civic engagement, local and global 107; co-learning and sharing resources 105; communication 108; community engagement 106; elements 106; implementation 105; information literacy 108; integrative learning 106; intercultural knowledge and competence 107; leadership development skills 107; problemsolving 108; qualitative reporting 105; reciprocal learning and growth outcomes 109 Garvey, B. 2, 3, 74 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 71 general programme coordinator (GPC) 71 generativity 6, 51, 74, 76 Gibson, L.A. 104 global health workforce 31–35 Grima, F. 3

222 Index group agreements 95–97, 99 group coordinators (GCs) 71 Grow model 117 Haddock-Millar, J. 2, 6, 7 Hampton Alexander Review 188 Health and Care Research Wales 57 Health and Social Care Public Health Agency (HSC PHA) 57 healthcare 4, 6, 30–33, 49, 208; workforce 6, 30; see also healthcare sector healthcare sector: case study 31–48; generative conversations 48–49; global virtual connection 49; inclusion 30; inequality 30; longterm career 30; proxy measures 48; reverse mentoring 30–31; transformative change 31 Heritage University 44 hierarchical one-to-one mentoring paradigm 80, 100, 131 higher education (HE): faculty 7, 135–162; students and staff 7, 103–131; teaching capabilities 151 Hinson, J. 48 Howlett, B. 44 HR information system (HRIS) 178 Humanitarian Leadership Mentoring Pilot Programme 55 inclusion 6, 30, 36–39, 41, 49, 67, 127, 143, 146, 160, 192, 210, 212 inclusivity 68–74, 76, 110, 112, 113 information literacy 108, 109, 130 intercultural competence 130 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 181 International Coaching Federation (ICF) 70 International Standards for Mentoring and Coaching Programmes (ISMCP) 60, 179 Jipson, J. 146 Karau, S.J. 191 knowledge transmission framework 104 Kochan, F. 44 Kochan, F.K. 95 Kram, K.E. 2 leadership: aspirations 6; capabilities 24, 212; development 32–34, 54, 65, 81, 106, 124, 127, 129, 173, 178

Leadership Lounge program: benefits 124; CIO gender and race/ ethnic identity 126; CIO mentors 128–129; communication and recruitment 127–128; context 124–126; expectations and engagement 128; genesis 123; mentors 125; operational structure 127; outcomes 128–130; participants 124–125, 125; plans 130; program evaluation 128; program managers and sponsors 126; purpose 124; structure and supports 127–128; structured and unstructured engagement opportunities 123; survey of past participants 129–130 Leary, M.R. 48 Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (LYPFT) 6; feedback 38; mentoring programme 36–37; organisation and programme context 36; programme evaluation and impact 37–39 Levinson, D.J. 74 LOTUS approach 8, 187; be structured 196; cultural context 195; enabling sustainable learning 197–199; future impact 200; impact and measurement 199; integrating reciprocal mentoring programme 198–199; key tool, reciprocal mentoring 202; matching 197–198; objectives 195–196; outcomes 199–200; reciprocal mentoring process 196; reciprocal mentoring programme benefits 201; running successful process 196–197; support 198; virtual world connectivity 201; vulnerability 196 McKeen, C. 188 Megginson, D. 1, 3 membership organisations 4, 7, 8, 210; case study 166–184; characteristics 165; collective identity and mission 165; fee/ subscription 165; mutuality 185; professional body characteristics 185; scheme orientation 184; volunteering 165, 166 membership sector 4 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 138, 139

Index  223 mentees: aspirations 114, 115; benefits 168; business perspective 17; career and psychosocial space 66; families 87; feedback 26, 105; formal and informal outcomes 161; frequency scores 170; humility 100; interim feedback 64; micro enterprises 10; narratives 73; NIHR Mentoring Programme 65; orientation training 63, 85; outcome scores 168; participants 24; passion 15; personal and professional levels 65; pre-service adjuncts 149, 161; psychosocial skills 149; robust career-related skills 7, 131; training induction webinars 25; see also mentors Mentor Advisory Panel 15, 16 Mentor Online Learning (MOL) 16 mentor–mentee contacts 15 Mentoring in Action 1 mentoring programme: BYST 14–15; CBFW 18; designers/organisers 5; integrating reciprocal 198– 199; LIF 23–24; LYPFT 36–37; METU Alumni Association in Istanbul 69, 71, 72; NELFT 39–40; NIHR 58–64; NNC 31; participants in 4 mentors: accumulated capital 68; benefits 168; business expertise 12; capstone assignment 106; channels 174; CIOs 125, 128– 129; continuous assessment tasks 118; cultural competence 161; feedback 26; female perspective, reciprocal mentoring programme 193; frequency scores 170; informal matching and unsupervised assignment 136; internal and external context 2; learning and growth opportunity 21; male perspective, reciprocal mentoring programme 193; NIHR Academy Members 62; NIHR Mentoring Programme 65, 66; outcome scores 169; scarcity 81; SDT and ASI 152; statistical data 72; see also Black male mentors; mentees Messerschmidt, J.W. 191 Middle East Technical University (METU) Alumni Association in Istanbul (ODTÜMİST) 6, 51; cooperation programmes 52;

high academic achievement 68; infrastructure of programmes 70–71; mentoring matches (2015–2022) 69; mentoring programmes 69, 71, 72; outcomes 72–73; personal and professional development 76; personal and professional life 68; reciprocal mentoring 68–69; survey data 74 minority stress 83 module evaluation questionnaires (MEQs) 110 Mount Adams School District (MASD) 44 Moving Forward-Mentoring Others for Career Success Program 114–123 Mullen, C.A. 44, 95 mutual understanding/respect 46, 48, 142, 211, 212 mutuality 2, 8, 30, 72, 80, 166–169, 185, 194, 195, 208, 210 National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity (NCFDD) 157 National Health Service (NHS) 31, 58 National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) 6, 51; administration and support 61; career and psychosocial space 66; clarity of purpose 60; definition 59; design features, mentoring programme 62–64; drivers for joining programme 65; evaluation phases 64; high standard of ethics 61; interdisciplinary learning 76; interim feedback 64; leadership and mentoring programmes 58; lessons learned and future intentions 67; matching process 62, 63; measurement and review processes 61; mentoring programme 58–61; mentoring relationship focus 65; mentoring skills and connectivity 66–67; perceived value, mentoring and programme 65–67; postdoctoral communities 59; productivity pressures 58; programme impact and participant experience 64–65; purpose 57; research funders 52; rewards 57–58; selection and matching process 61; stakeholder training and briefing 60–61; structural and cultural challenges 58

224 Index National Institutes of Health (NIH) 44 National University Entrance Examination (NUEE) 68 Nesbit, R. 165, 166 networks development 213, 218 NIHR Academy Mentoring Programme 59, 64 NNC Vygo platform 32–34 North East London Foundation Trust (NELFT): definition 43; mentoring programme 39–40; organisation and programme context 39; outcomes and lessons learnt 42–43; sustaining, mentoring programme 42; training and support 41–42; working principle 40–41 North East London NHS Foundation Trust 6 not-for-profit organisations 12, 18, 22, 52 Nursing Now Challenge (NNC): benefits 33; convictions 32; current participants 33; definition 32; early-career to student 33; educational opportunities 34; evaluation and future plans 34– 35; mentoring programmes 31; middle-career/senior to earlycareer 33; positive outcomes 35; Vygo mentoring platform 31 official development assistance (ODA) 12 organization: environment 80; readiness 191–192; schemes 212, 213 orientation training 63 Osborne, D. 48 Otu, A. 30 Pacific Northwest University (PNWU) 43–45 Paley, N. 146 Paris, L. 81 Pascarelli, J. 44 Patton College of Education (PCOE) 137, 138 peer mentoring: career development 7; critical skills 7; implementation 104; mentee–mentor relationship 27; structured and unstructured networking opportunities 131; webinars 64; see also reciprocal peer mentoring (RPM)

Peer Mentoring Alumni Programme 13, 25, 26 peer support community 24 personal development 13, 116, 120, 122 phases, mentoring cycle 19 PK-12 education 6; adulthood 79; case study 82–98; community of practice 100; context 79–81; diversity disparities 79; humility 100; mentor–protege relationship 80; mutuality 80; personal and economic development 79; teacher shortage crisis 79; theorybased curriculum 100; unique design elements 100 pre-service teachers 81, 88, 89, 92, 100 Principal Certification Program 94 Principal Intern Mentor (PIM) 94 private sector 8, 69, 202, 210; see also private sector organisations private sector organisations 4; case study 187–202; individual and organisational learning 202; learning partnership 202; LOTUS approach 187; staff development 187; women’s career equality 187 professional friendship 39–43, 184 professional timeline 97 programme coordinators (PCs) 71 programme-level model, reciprocal mentoring 211 racial inequity 30 Ragins, B.R. 80 reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) 155 reciprocal as an output 3, 205, 206, 211 reciprocal by default 205 reciprocal by design 3–5, 184, 205–207, 211, 213 reciprocal peer mentoring (RPM): career clarity 120; career development 7, 114; content analysis 114; formative and summative evaluation 118–119; funding, mentoring program 122; graduate skills 120–121; learning practice 119–121; mentoring context 115–116; outcomes and lessons learned 121–122; personal career goals 114; purpose and objectives

Index  225 115; recruitment, selection and matching strategies 116; sustaining mentoring program and plans 123; training and educational opportunities 116–118 reciprocity 169–172; and mutuality 2; appreciative inquiry 155; developmental interventions 69; equity and inclusivity 74; intentional mentor reflection 106; legitimacy 5; mentor learning 3; mutual understanding 46; professional associations 166 reflective practice 64, 147–153, 161 religious beliefs 16 researchers in mentoring 5 resilience 11, 23, 64, 120, 122, 131, 180, 183, 184, 200 Resilient Pilot (RP) Mentoring Programme 7; competencybased approach 179; definition 181–182; design and development 181; formative and summative evaluation 183; organisational objectives 180; outcomes, lessons learned and sustainability 184; purpose 180–181; recruitment, selection and matching participants 182; subscription membership options 179; training and educational opportunities 182–183; virtual programme 179; vision 179 Return on Investment (ROI) 198 reverse mentoring 3, 4, 30–31, 40–43, 194, 205 ripple effect 22, 28, 208 Rodgers, C. 97 Roots to Wings (RTW) 6, 44 Round, S. 2 Royal Academy of Engineering Leaders for Innovation Fellowships (LIF) 6, 10; engineering-based innovation 12, 23; hierarchical and power dynamics 27; influencers and decision-makers 13; innovation and economic opportunity 23; mentoring programme purpose 23–24; programme evaluation 25–26; reciprocal mentoring outcomes 26; recruitment, selection and matching of participants 24;

sustainable society and inclusive economy 22–23; training and educational opportunities 24–25 SAGE Handbook of Mentoring 1, 2 SAVE the Children 6, 51; arrangements 56; background 53–54; funding 56; humanitarian relief commitment 76; infrastructure, monitoring and supporting 55; mentoring context 54; multinational humanitarian charity 52; outcomes and lessons learned 56; purpose of mentoring programme 54 school-to-prison pipeline 82 self-actualisation 211, 212 self-determination theory (SDT) 7, 136, 147, 148, 161 self-portrait 97–98 Singh, S. 110 small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 10 Smart Training for Enterprise Promotion (STEP) 16 social justice 51 Sodeman, W.A. 104 Stephenson, G.N. 30 Stevenson, L. 104 Stokes, P. 2, 3, 69 students and higher education: case study 105–130; context 104; educational disparities 103; knowledge-based societies 103; virtual experience, CIOs 131 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 13, 23 sustainable economic development 27, 208 sustainable global development 12 Tapia, M. 165, 166 Taylor, Z.W. 111 team-based formal programme 7 tenure-track vs. non-tenure-track faculty 161 tertiary education 103, 120 third sector: case study 53–73; definition 52; inter- and intraorganisational mentoring initiatives 51; sharing knowledge 51; themes 74–76, 75; valuedriven nature 51

226 Index transformative co-mentoring (TCM) 6, 208; environment change 47; mutual understanding and respect 46–47; operationalising 45; organisation and context 43–44; programme 48; programme impact 45–46; reciprocal relationship 46; systemic inequality 48; theoretical background 44–45 Trimble, S.B. 95 trust 21, 36, 80, 82, 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 142, 154 Tschannen-Moran, M. 96 UK Business School: formative and summative evaluation 112–113; funding, mentoring program 113; learning culture 110; mentoring context 110; mentoring program 110; mentoring program infrastructure 111; monitor and support relationships 111–112; outcomes and lessons learned 113–114; quality of doctoral supervision 109; recruitment, selection and matching strategies 111; student mindsets and experiences 109; sustaining mentoring program and future plans 113; training and evaluation 111 UK Gender Pay Gap 188 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 53 Use Before Flight (UBF) 179

Vantage Technology Consulting Group 127 Vaulkhard, K. 104 virtual learning environment 70 West, M.A. 31, 48 women’s career equality: agentic leadership bias 191; challenges 190–192; congruence, workplace 191; definitions, reciprocal mentoring 189; distinctive mentoring definitions 194; diversity and inclusion 192; female mentors’ perspective 193; flexibility stigma 192; implications, mentoring practice 194; male mentors’ perspective 193; mixed-gender pairs 187; organisational context 190; organisational readiness 191– 192; programme structure 190; purpose and objectives 188– 189; shift perspective 192–193 women’s congruence 191 Woolnough, H.M. 30 Workforce Race Equality Network (WREN) 36 Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) 36 Yakama Nation (YN) 44 Yakama Nation Tribal School (YNTS) 44 Youth Business International (YBI) 12 Zachary, L.J. 96