The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan 9781648022852, 9781648022869, 9781648022876

Citation preview

          ­     €      ‚  ƒ     „     … „   

†€   IAP—INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING P.O. BOX 79049 CHARLOTTE, NC 28271-7047 WWW.INFOAGEPUB.COM

       

                        

 

         



Art  SCIENCE

 







  

The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan

The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan

Edited by

Ellen H. Reames Linda J. Searby

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Data The CIP data for this book can be found on the Library of Congress website (loc.gov). Paperback: 978-1-64802-285-2 Hardcover: 978-1-64802-286-9 E-Book: 978-1-64802-287-6

Copyright © 2021 Information Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS

P A R T

I

INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND PERSONAL TRIBUTES 1. Foreword: Honoring Dr. Frances K. Kochan.......................................... 3 Carol A. Mullen 2. Prologue: The Constellations.................................................................... 9 Ellen H. Reames P A R T

I I

THE ART AND SCIENCE OF MENTORING: CONCEPTS AND RESEARCH 3. The Art and Science of Mentoring......................................................... 15 Tammy D. Allen and Lillian T. Eby 4. Wait. What? Looking Back/Moving Forward...................................... 23 Lois Zachary 5. Behind the Questions............................................................................... 29 Bob Garvey v

vi • CONTENTS

6. Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE: Averting Judgementoring and Enhancing the Professional Learning, Development, and Well-Being of Teachers..................................................................... 49 Andrew J. Hobson 7. A Work of A.R.T.: Advocacy, Responsiveness, and Transformation................................................................................. 75 Angel Miles Nash and Michelle D. Young 8. Creating and Facilitating Co-Mentoring Circles: A Guide................. 87 Kathleen M. Cowin 9. The Future of Mentoring....................................................................... 101 David Clutterbuck P A R T

I I I

THE ART OF MENTORING: THEORY TO PRACTICE 10. Prologue: A Tribute to Dr. Kochan, the Model Mentor..................... 113 Sydney Freeman, Jr. 11. Mentored in Authorship........................................................................ 117 Mary Barbara Trube 12. Mentored in Career Development........................................................ 123 Sheila Moore 13. Mentored in Self-Efficacy...................................................................... 129 Maysaa Barakat 14. Mentored in Skill Development............................................................ 135 Jason C. Bryant 15. Mentored Through Sponsorship.......................................................... 141 Dana M. Griggs 16. Mentored in Research............................................................................ 151 Bill Bergeron

`

Contents • vii

17. Mentored in Dual Commitments.......................................................... 157 Virginia R. Knight 18. Mentored Through Wholeness............................................................. 163 Mirna I. Ramos-Diaz 19. Mentored in the Academy..................................................................... 169 Amy Serafini 20. Epilogue: Frances K. Kochan and Her Place in the Constellation of the Mentoring World................................................. 175 Linda Searby Biographies............................................................................................. 179

PART I INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND PERSONAL TRIBUTES

CHAPTER 1

FOREWORD Honoring Dr. Frances K. Kochan Carol A. Mullen

Keywords: collaboration, equal sign, Festschrift, Frances K. Kochan, mentoring Festschrift, a tradition in academia of honoring someone influential who has enriched a field, has long celebrated the contributions of men—male scientists, physicists, philosophers, politicians, literary writers, and so forth. She, who is a pioneer, leader, and mentor in a discipline, is rarely acknowledged in this tradition. At least that’s my impression from having combed many such texts before stumbling across one honoring social psychologist Marilynn Brewer. The rarity of this Brewer’s Festschrift amongst a long line up of “gents” makes the point that one is hard-pressed to find a book in the Festschrift tradition that recognizes a female for her remarkable accomplishments in a valued area. As the writer of this Foreword, I hope to create much more of an opening for remedying this contemporary deficit while paying tribute to a remarkable scholar–practitioner and human being. Professor Frances K. Kochan is a distinguished scholar and mentor in the educational leadership discipline and lifelong colleague and friend. Among the many accolades, Frances (“Fran”) has received in her career is the prestigious Jay D. Scribner Mentoring Award from the University CounThe Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 3–7. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

3

4 • CAROL A. MULLEN

cil for Educational Administration for recognition of her contributions made to the field through mentoring the next generation of scholars and education leaders. I first came into contact with Fran in 1997 when I invited her to join my mentoring faculty group in Tallahassee, Florida. She had long lived and worked in Florida, having obtained her PhD degree in Adult Education and Policy Studies from Florida State University. At the same time, I was new to the state and country, with a PhD from the University of Toronto. The work that took over a year in Florida became the book New Directions in Mentoring (Mullen & Lick, 1999), to which Fran produced two chapters. One, with a colleague of hers, was on “personal journeys in mentoring from a female perspective” (p. 87). The other narrated a restructuring effort in her K–12 leadership capacity that touched her soul. At its core was the building of an empowering school culture that changed an organization from a school into a family. Sensing the enormity of her spirit and humanity—and the relational values she enacted not only in studying mentorship but also in her very being—I was eager to continue our journey. Fran and I began working on a project that she initiated at the time as Director of the Truman Pierce Institute and Associate Professor in Educational Leadership. It was 1998, and I had just joined the faculty at Auburn University on a tenure-earning line in Educational Leadership, moving from Florida to Alabama. I accepted the faculty position knowing she was there. My partner Bill and her beloved Bill (since departed) never met, but we knew each other’s spouse. I felt thrilled working alongside Fran on meaningful projects of our own making and programmatic curricular work to benefit the program. One of the very first projects we embarked on was a mission involving Holmes Scholars. We were guestediting a special issue of a journal devoted to building academic capacity for African American academics by actually guiding the article writing of contributors from this minoritized population (Kochan & Mullen, 1999). Our synergies were seamless and intentions in sync. Mentorship and culture were fused. Fran and I engaged in long, in-depth discussions regularly. We would talk over meals and in her office, in meetings, and at conferences. I would see her responding line-by-line to dissertations of students whose committees she was chairing. These quiet moments of steadfast commitment and scholarly devotion would shift to a charismatic leader as she spoke into a microphone when addressing an audience, moving gracefully through space while expressing herself without missing a beat. I internalized her role modeling. Those were impactful, joyful times of my life—being in her company and absorbing her wonderfulness. And, I enjoyed that we had nerdy “pet peeves” like the masculinist academic convention of authorship order. We considered this practice, which “forces” authors who are equal contributors to a manuscript to default to last name alphabetical order, inherently unequal. We came up with metaphors like “briar patch of twisted brambles” to capture the nuanced politics and linearity of collaborative authorship in higher education (Kochan = Mullen, 2001a). So, we resisted the

Foreword • 5

norm of name order, wrote extensively about our vision and practice, and got busy negotiating with publishers. We even started—unapologetically—to use an equal (=) sign between our names in manuscripts instead of the conventional ampersand (&), seeing to it that our articles reflected the equal sign and explanation we gave for using it (e.g., Kochan = Mullen, 2001a, 2003; Mullen = Kochan, 2001). When academic presses honored our wishes, we were delighted. We hoped that this feminist practice would be carried forth by others where appropriate, or at least pondered during discussions of authorship. An aspiration was that coauthors who used the equal sign would carry on the practice of moving their name to the front position in the entry on their own vitae when their name was listed second (third, etc.) in a published work. Together, Fran and I navigated, with fluidity, teacher education and educational leadership—both of us having been schooled in these domains. Because of this, we were able to nimbly mentor each other in our scholarly and feminist development, and contributions to shared projects and the disciplines. We also researched our lived practice of creating a collaborative leadership network, making use of it as a platform for presenting an organic view of change, which an educational leadership journal published (Mullen = Kochan, 2000). And, we produced a study of collaboration in higher education from feminist perspectives that appeared in a teacher education journal (Kochan = Mullen, 2003). Without a doubt, we generated a significant undertaking for ourselves with our guest-edited themed issue for the Journal of School Leadership in which complex ideas of accountability in educational leadership were probed by leading academics (Kochan = Mullen, 2001b). From 1999 to 2002, Fran and I presented numerous times, including locally at Auburn University, at regional conferences in places like Mobile and at national conferences like the American Educational Research Association, where we shared our research in Seattle and New Orleans. We also presented on a large panel with renowned scholars that explored alternative constructions of leadership. Even though I had moved to another higher education institution by the year 2000, Fran and I continued collaborating while expanding our own networks. Fran has produced numerous editorial projects with many colleagues in the field over the years. She has included chapters of mine in her co-edited volumes The Wiley Handbook of Mentoring; The SAGE Handbook of Mentoring; Creating Successful Telementoring Programs; Global Perspectives on Mentoring; The Organizational and Human Dimensions of Successful Mentoring Programs and Relationships, and so forth. And, I have included her contributions in my editorial projects, such as her coauthored article in my co-guest-edited special issue for Theory Into Practice titled “New visions of mentoring”; her coauthored chapter in my coedited book The SAGE Handbook of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, and so on. We have also introduced many people to each other, mainly potential mentees, researchers in mentoring, and collaborative feminists.

6 • CAROL A. MULLEN

Mentoring and culture is a persistent thread in much of Fran’s work—to be admired for its contemporary and enduring relevance. When I reviewed a co-edited book of hers titled Uncovering the Cultural Dynamics in Mentoring Programs and Relationships for the Mentoring & Tutoring journal (Mullen, 2015), what stood out to me was the critical social justice perspective brought to bear on mentoring and culture. Fran emphasized the importance and value of integrating cultural values into mentoring endeavors, particularly when those values are not the primary ones held by those in the larger society. (Kochan, 2015b, p. 209)

In that collection, she encouraged readers to follow in the footsteps of her chapter contributors who “stress[ed] the need to develop mentoring programs that are culturally appropriate and respectful when working with . . . groups that [are] marginalized within a social structure” (p. 209). Bringing culture to the forefront of mentoring, Fran wrote that cultural traditions could enrich our lives and that, while we should be aware of and eliminate those that hinder and control people’s minds and hearts in negative ways and limit their ability to succeed and become, we should also seek ways to cherish those that connect people, expand ideas, cultivate the imagination, and foster the human spirit, and integrate them into the way we define and implement mentoring programs and relationships. (Kochan, 2015a, pp. xiii–xiv)

Readers, you are in good hands with Editors Reames and Searby’s Introduction to this book. In these pages, we hope to convey that one cannot possibly know Fran without being deeply moved by her humanity, hope, faith, and love. In her company, we are transformed by her humbleness and other beautiful qualities, and by the deep listening she brings to our stories and selves. Academia, schools, and beyond are enriched by the brilliance in which Fran weaves human, organizational, and cultural ideas, and by her boundless capacity for making each of us feel special and more empowered to do good in the world. REFERENCES Kochan, F. K. (2015a). Introduction. In F. K. Kochan, A. M. Kent, & A. M. Green (Eds.), Uncovering the cultural dynamics in mentoring programs and relationships: Enhancing practice and research (pp. xiii–xiv). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Kochan, F. K. (2015b). Society, culture, and mentoring. In F. K. Kochan, A. M. Kent, & A. M. Green (Eds.), Uncovering the cultural dynamics in mentoring programs and relationships: Enhancing practice and research (pp. 207–210). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Foreword • 7 Kochan, F. K., Kent, A. M., & Green, A. M. (2015). (Eds.). Uncovering the cultural dynamics in mentoring programs and relationships: Enhancing practice and research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Kochan, F. K., & Mullen, C. A. (Eds.). (1999). Opening new doors: Research by Holmes Scholars. The Professional Educator, 22(1). [special issue] Kochan, F. K. = Mullen, C. A. (2001a). Collaborative authorship: Reflections on a briar patch of twisted brambles. Teachers College Record, 1–9. Retrieved from: https:// www.tcrecord.org (ID# 10661) Kochan, F. K. = Mullen, C. A. (2001b). Guest editors of “Probing Accountability in Educational Leadership: For Whom and for What?” Journal of School Leadership, 11(3). [special issue] Kochan, F. K. = Mullen, C. A. (2003). An exploratory study of collaboration in higher education from women’s perspectives. Teaching Education, 14(2), 153–167. Mullen, C. A., & Kochan, F. K. (2000). Creating a collaborative leadership network: An organic view of change. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(3), 183–200. Mullen, C. A. = Kochan, F. K. (2001). Issues of collaborative authorship in higher education. The Educational Forum, 65(2), 128–135. Mullen, C. A., & Lick, D. W. (Eds.). (1999). New directions in mentoring: Creating a culture of synergy. New York: Routledge. Mullen, C. A. (2015). Uncovering the cultural dynamics in mentoring programs and relationships: Enhancing practice and research. [book review]. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 23(2), 178–182.

CHAPTER 2

PROLOGUE The Constellations Ellen H. Reames

Keywords: mentoring constellations During our lifetime, some people cross our paths and change us forever. A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan is a tribute to such a person. The people who have written chapters in this book all know Frances Kochan personally. Some contributors to the book are colleagues, some are former graduate students, and some she has mentored. All would call her friend. This festschrift in honor of Dr. Frances Kochan is organized into three sections. Part I includes a prologue by the editor, Ellen H. Reames, and a forward by Carol Mullen. Part II contributors are mentoring experts from around the world who are known among mentoring circles for their theoretical contributions. All of the Part II authors have worked with Dr. Kochan in professional mentoring settings. Part III consists of a collection of vignettes from various individuals whom Dr. Kochan has mentored. She has mentored and supported the development of many higher education and K–12 faculty and administrators. Part III contributors were given a specific aspect of mentoring and were asked to relate how Dr. Kochan supported their development in those areas. In Part IV, Editor Linda Searby concludes the volume with an Epilogue. The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 9–12. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

9

10  •  ELLEN H. REAMES

As for myself, I see Fran Kochan as the brightest star in my mentoring constellation. We selected the cover of our book, Starry Night, by Vincent Van Gogh, to feature this constellation aspect of mentoring. In my constellation, I have people who cheered for me, held me up when I was falling, helped me spread my wings, and encouraged me to continue my life journey as I developed in my career and personal life. Some have been brighter stars than others, but almost all who live in my constellation have known Fran Kochan. Somehow, those connections between my “stars” have happened over the years. I like to think that God planned it that way because he wanted me to have a deep and rich constellation of support. I have known Fran since she came to Auburn University as an Associate Professor in 1993. I was a graduate student in educational leadership at the time and was working towards completing my doctorate in school administration. I was no different than most students in our field. I worked fulltime as a teacher and school leader and went to graduate school at night. I will never forget our first meeting before taking one of her courses. She was so kind and supportive. Twenty-seven years later, I truly value our friendship, our collegial relationship, and the support she has given me through mentoring—all of which have become more intertwined and much deeper. For those of you who do not know this about Fran, she is guided by a deeply spiritual and religious calling. Her day starts with prayer. Her work with others is centered around what I like to refer to as contemplative practices. Her path, her daily life, and her journey encourage all who know her to do their best and live a full, rich, and meaningful life. So, when I look at my constellation, there is one star that seems to shine the brightest. That star is Fran Kochan. The front cover of our book is the famous Starry Night by Impressionist artist, Vincent Van Gogh. Van Gogh was also a very spiritual person. Van Gogh, like Fran, knew God was in us, in others, in the world, and nature. The impetus for this book first came with a phone call in October 2016. Bill Kochan, Fran’s husband for 55 years, called me on the telephone and remarked that no one had ever written a book about Fran. Bill was trying to find a way to honor a very courageous woman who became the first female principal in Wakulla County, Florida; the first female Director/ Superintendent of the Florida State University School in Tallahassee, Fl.; and the first female Associate Dean and then Dean of the Auburn University College of Education. Bill had been fighting cancer, and I had no idea that he was near death, but I agreed with Bill that it needed to be done. I promised a book about Fran would happen. When discussing the project with Linda Searby, co-editor of this book, Linda suggested we create a book called a festschrift, which is an edited volume of essays that honors a person while he/she is still living. The idea has now come to fruition. Part I: The Prologue and Forward includes the purpose of the book and a tribute to Fran Kochan, written by Carol Mullen. Part II. The Art and Science of Mentoring: Concepts and Research includes chapters from mentoring experts well-known in the field. In Chapter 3, The Art and Science of Mentoring, Allen,

Prologue • 11

and Eby make a strong case that mentoring has characteristics of both an art and a science. It is a symbiotic relationship where innovation and creativity are part of the scientific process. In Chapter 4, Wait, What? Lois Zachary suggests five essential questions will continue to move the art and science of mentoring forward. Zachary borrows from James Ryan’s book, Wait, What? And Life’s Other Essential Questions. Essentially, five crucial questions can move the mentoring field forward. Those questions are “wait, what?, I wonder if, couldn’t we at least?, how can I help?, and did you get what you wanted out of life, even so?” Zachary suggests that these questions are what mentoring researchers and practitioners should continue to explore to advance the field. Robert Garvey, in Chapter 5, Behind the Questions, queries the differences between coaching and mentoring. He concludes that regardless of our view on coaching and mentoring, the conversations should be cyclical and power free. In Chapter 6, Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE: Averting Judgementoring and Enhancing the Professional Learning, Development, and Well-being of Teachers, Andrew J. Hobson shares the development of the ONSIDE Mentoring Framework. Hobson describes the framework as offline, non-judgmental, supportive, individualized, developmental, and empowering, whereby, the mentor provides these supports to the mentee. The mentors use these foundations to be “allies, champions, and advocates for their mentees” (Hobson, 2016, p. 100). In Chapter 7, A Work of A.R.T.: Advocacy, Responsiveness and Transformation, Angel Nash and Michelle Young, describe the development of the University Council of Educational Administration (UCEA) mission to create a more diverse professoriate and Fran Kochan’s leading role in this endeavor. As the 2002–2003 President of UCEA, Fran was able to provide leadership and the impetus to develop a mentoring program to attract minority candidates to higher education as faculty and administrators. During her time as president, the Barbara Jackson Scholars Network was born. Kathleen M. Cowin, in Chapter 8, Creating and Facilitating Co-mentoring Circles: A Guide proposes a model for mentoring new principals. Her model is based on the combination of relational mentoring and co-mentoring. From this, Cowin has established six elements of co-mentoring circles. Those are group norms, reflection, “hopes and concerns,” self-assessment in regard to communication and behavioral styles, creation of timelines, and a self-portrait. Cowin concludes that the model is a continuous process that provides support for school leaders. Part II concludes with Chapter 9, The Future of Mentoring by David Clutterbuck. Clutterbuck suggests that concepts of mentoring have evolved. The field sees mentoring as including many variables with not so distinct borders. His chapter outlines some of the current and emerging trends. These include developmental trends, such as maternity mentoring and ethical mentoring. Clutterbuck further outlines emerging trends such as mentoring and artificial intelligence (AI) and indigenous mentoring.

12  •  ELLEN H. REAMES

In Part III: The Art of Mentoring: Theory to Practice, the reader is provided with short vignettes from graduate students, beginning scholars, and more seasoned scholars and practitioners. Chapters 10 through 15 provide snippets of how Fran Kochan has mentored them to current professional positions. Authorship, career development, self-efficacy, skill development, sponsorship, and research are the topics discussed. Most suggest that the mentoring from Fran Kochan is not only professional but also touches their hearts and personal lives. We conclude Part III with two special vignettes from authors who Fran met along the way and has mentored them into the academy. These two women had courageous life stories as they moved from successful practical world careers into the professoriate. Mirna Ramos-Diaz speaks to her transformation from a clinical physician to a medical professor at a major university. Fran met Mirna at the International Mentoring Conference in New Mexico. Mirna was struggling with the transition to higher education. She was a brilliant doctor who felt uncomfortable with her surroundings in academia. It was unfamiliar terrain for a physician who had spent her life helping patients. Amy Serafini met Fran at a faculty dinner while attending the 2018 AERA Conference. Shortly after this, Amy would depart from New York on Southwest Flight 1380. Amy was sitting in the seat behind passenger Jennifer Riordan. Riordan was fatally injured during the malfunction of the engine, which broke the window, and Amy was a witness. Fran learned of Amy’s traumatic experience a few days later. She has continued to reach out and mentor Amy into life in the academy. In closing, Linda Searby and I hope readers of this book will feel the entire range of human emotions that can be a part of mentoring experiences. We offer the volume as a way to reflect on your mentoring practice or personal mentoring experiences and connect mentoring with yourself, your friends and colleagues, your families, and your spiritual nature. Mentoring is for everyone at every stage of life, and through this book, we hope that you will come to see how one extraordinary woman, Dr. Frances K. Kochan, has demonstrated that fact.

PART II THE ART AND SCIENCE OF MENTORING: CONCEPTS AND RESEARCH

CHAPTER 3

THE ART AND SCIENCE OF MENTORING Tammy D. Allen and Lillian T. Eby

Is mentoring an art or is it science? The authors of this chapter define how art and science are relevant to mentoring theory. They suggest that it must be a balance of both art and science and note that, like all relationships, each mentor/protégé relationship will require a unique balance.

Keywords: Mentor, mentee, mentoring, protégé Not art and science serve alone; Patience must in the work be shown. —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) Is mentoring an art or a science? Or might it be both? At first glance, art and science may appear to be opposites. Art is often associated with emotion and subjectivity, while science is more often associated with data and objectivity (Maeda, 2013). However, there has long been a deep connection between art and science (Pomeroy, 2012). Both are involved in inquiry and in the process of learning through the feedback that occurs by thinking and doing. Indeed, the symbiosis between science and art is growing in recognition through efforts such as STEAM (science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematics) approaches to eduThe Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 15–22. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

15

16  •  TAMMY D. ALLEN & LILLIAN T. EBY

cation that recognize creativity and innovation are essential elements of the scientific inquiry process (Pomeroy, 2012). A distinguishing feature of science is the development of accurate, useful, and evidence-based explanations of how and why phenomena occur (Grand et al., 2018). The scientific enterprise has the goals of understanding how the world operates and the application of that information to improve the lives of people. By identifying patterns of associations between phenomena, science allows us to predict human behavior, which in turn, can promote individual growth and well-being. For example, by identifying the factors that predict student success in college, we can develop interventions that facilitate success, as well as identify strategies to help remove obstacles to individual achievement. With these defining characteristics of scientific inquiry in mind, mentoring can indeed be considered a science. That is, mentoring processes can be and have been examined through the methods of science. For example, a wide variety of hypotheses concerning mentoring relationship effectiveness have been developed and tested (Pfund, ByarsWinston, Branchaw, Hurtado, & Eagan, 2016). Moreover, a vast array of research methods have been used to understand mentoring from a scientific perspective, including qualitative approaches (e.g., Allen, Poteet, & Burroughs, 1997; Straus, Johnson, Marquez, & Feldman, 2013), field studies (e.g., Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006; Baker, Hocevar, & Johnson, 2003), experimental research (e.g., Evertson & Smithey, 2000), and meta-analytic reviews of the literature (e.g., Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008; Raposa et al., 2019). This array of research methods highlights the fact that the science of mentoring comes in many different shapes and sizes. Notwithstanding the scientific basis of mentoring, we also recognize that the practice of mentoring is also an art. We elaborate on these ideas below. THE EVIDENCE FOR MENTORING AS A SCIENCE In his review of the literature concerning faculty mentoring of graduate students, Forehand (2008) referred to mentoring at present as, “being an art rather than a science” (p. 752). This evaluation was based on limited research in existence and few conceptual frameworks to guide the way. Has there been progress in the past decade that has followed Forehand’s review? First, to answer that question, we underscore that Forehand was specifically referring to student-faculty mentoring. Researchers conduct mentoring scholarship across different disciplines, often divided into three categories: youth, student-faculty, and workplace (Allen & Eby, 2007). Each of these categories of mentoring relationships has their literatures that have different strengths and weaknesses. Importantly, there are differences in the state of the evidence-base across these different categories of mentoring relationships. For example, in our view, youth literature is the most advanced concerning the evaluation of formal mentoring programs (see for example DuBois, Herrera, & Rivera, 2018). By contrast, although some conceptual frameworks (e.g., O’Neil & Wrightsman, 2001) and empirical research (e.g., Tennenbaum,

The Art and Science of Mentoring • 17

Crosby, & Gliner, 2001) exist on student-faculty mentoring, this area of scholarship is more limited (Johnson, Rose, & Schlosser, 2007). Nonetheless, looking across these three types of mentoring there is an extensive body of research that provides useful knowledge concerning mentoring phenomena. Meta-analytic studies demonstrate that there are robust relationships that transcend the different types of mentoring (Eby, Allen, Evans et al., 2008; Eby, et al., 2013). For example, interaction frequency is positively associated with the perceived receipt of psychosocial and instrumental mentoring and with perceived relationship quality (Eby et al., 2013). Likewise, mentor-protégé similarity concerning “deep-level” characteristics such as personality, work styles, and life experiences is a strong and consistent predictor of protégé perceptions of mentoring received and relationship quality (Eby et al., 2013). Lending further credence to the notion that mentoring is a science, the study of mentoring is funded by federal scientific funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation (e.g., Sorkness, Pfund, Ofili, Okuyemi, & Vishwanatha, 2017). In addition, in 2017 the National Academy of Sciences convened a committee charged with conducting a consensus study entitled The Science of Effective Mentoring in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics that includes identification of the successful elements of effective mentoring relationships in STEMM education (http://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/bhew/mentoring/ index.htm). Similar efforts have been undertaken to collate evidence-based practices for youth mentoring programs focused on science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (Kupersmidt, Stelter, Garringer, & Bourgoin, 2018) as well as youth mentoring in organizational contexts (Kupersmidt, Stelter, & Garringer, 2019). Research-based evidence also exists to support the practice of mentoring. Those who design mentoring programs have a science base to help guide them in program design and implementation (Allen, Finkelstein, & Poteet, 2009; Clutterbuck, Poulsen, & Kochan, 2012; Lunsford, 2016). Similarly, research exists concerning the elements of effective mentoring that can be used to help steer mentors and protégés (Johnson & Ridley, 2018). Moreover, in so much that mentoring is an interpersonal relationship, the vast literature on relationships can also be used to help inform our understanding of mentoring (Campbell & Campbell, 2012). As an illustration, self-expansion theory (Aron & Aron, 1986) proposes that people are inherently motivated to increase resources, perspectives, and identities that facilitate personal goal achievement. Developing relationships with others is a primary mechanism for self-expansion, and this widely supported theory may help explain the motivation to enter a mentoring relationship as well as the extent that individuals are likely to benefit from them. Likewise, the application of attachment theory (Ainsworth, 1989) to close adult relationships may offer insight into how mentors may serve as both a secure base for protégé personal and career exploration as well as a haven for protégés when they encounter stressful situations.

18  •  TAMMY D. ALLEN & LILLIAN T. EBY

THE ART OF MENTORING Although there is a strong scientific base, mentoring is a collaborative relationship that develops and evolves across time (Pfund et al., 2016). The contexts within which mentoring relationships develop and the people who participate in the relationship are diverse, resulting in no two mentoring relationships that are the same. Each relationship is based on a complex interplay of cognitive, affective, and interpersonal factors (Hawkey, 1997), which manifests in unique and idiosyncratic interaction patterns between mentors and protégés (Eby, Rhodes, & Allen, 2008). A mentoring relationship also reflects the personal and professional goals of a given protégé, which is unique to that individual. Mentors also have different skill sets, life experiences, and motivations that they bring to a mentorship. Moreover, the same mentor is likely to engage in different behaviors with different protégés, depending on the protégé’s goals, motivations, and behavioral responses to the mentor’s actions. The extent that a mentor can provide the “right type” of support at the “right time” to a protégé is at the heart of the art of mentoring. Because mentoring relationships are so varied and complex, a rigid template for what will make for the most effective relationship does not exist, and mentors and protégés often must adapt their behavior to fit the given situation. As noted by Pfund (2018), “Consider a faculty member with a decade of mentoring experience who has engaged in hours of mentor training. This mentor is likely to have a wealth of knowledge and deep skill set with approaches for addressing a wide range of mentoring challenges. Some would argue that there is an art to deciding when to use specific approaches for optimal impact. In many ways, this scenario parallels that of a well-trained artist, who possesses all of the supplies needed (e.g., paints, brushes, canvases) and all of the skills required to paint. Despite all of this preparation, the artist must still decide what, where, and when to paint.” Therefore, effective mentoring of others requires the consideration of evidencebased practices, but also often the use of new approaches and creativity. Drawing from scientific evidence while also integrating the sensibility of an artist can enable the mentor to adapt and respond to the unique needs of each protégé. FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS Over a decade ago, Ragins and Kram (2007) suggested that the field of mentoring could be likened to a garden, noting that some parts of the garden were highly matured while others have been relatively neglected. Although the science of mentoring has grown and evolved considerably over the past several decades (Allen, Eby, Chao, & Bauer, 2017), fallow fields that need tending remain across the vast mentoring landscape. Below we elaborate on several areas in which we believe future research is particularly needed. Much of the research on mentoring is based on static, between-person approaches that provide a limited snapshot of a mentoring relationship. This research is useful for understanding phenomena such as who is more or less likely

The Art and Science of Mentoring • 19

to be mentored or to mentor others and the associations between mentoring with cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. What is lacking is an understanding of the “lived experience” of mentoring (Allen & Poteet, 2011). Such insights will come from person-centered approaches to mentoring and the collection of continuous forms of data. For example, within-person experience sampling studies could be employed that track student-faculty mentoring relationships at their start and through key milestones. This type of research could yield insights into episodes within mentoring relationships that were particularly important or especially salient to mentors and protégés. Observation is a hallmark of science, but such methodology is woefully lacking in the study of mentoring. At first blush, mentoring relationships do not seem to readily lend themselves to examination within the lab or under a microscope. However, the development of wearable devices permits a mechanical form of observation in that they enable the collection of granular data in real-world settings as behaviors and physiological reactions occur. As applied to mentoring research, wearable sensors could be used to investigate episodes of mentoring exchanges. For example, sociometric badges could be used to examine the finegrained speech patterns of mentors and protégés during mentoring exchanges, clothing embedded sensors could be used to assess heart rate variability during those interactions, and electroencephalogram headbands could be used to observe the brain wave patterns of the participants (Izmailova, Wagner, & Perakslis, 2018; Kayhan et al., 2018). Another promising approach to better understand interaction patterns involves micro-behavioral coding of actual mentoring exchanges that have been audio or video recorded. This coding could be accomplished by using observational software that allows for the identification of conversational speaking turns and adapting validated behavioral coding schemes that have developed to identify relational behaviors among romantic couples. Once coded, this approach would allow for the modeling of temporal interaction dynamics using techniques such as lag sequential analysis (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2018). This method would allow for testing hypotheses about which types of relational behaviors by one partner trigger specific behaviors by the other partner. By focusing on the actual, observable behaviors that characterize mentor-protégé interactions we would be able to capture behavior as it happens and obtain data that is both conceptually and methodologically closer to the phenomenon of interest (Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007). Turning our attention to mentor, although a substantial body of research has demonstrated a connection between mentoring and a wide variety of positive outcomes, as alluded to above we have limited understanding of the specific behaviors enacted by mentors that are key to achieving positive outcomes for protégés (Allen, Shockley, & Poteat, 2010; Kraiger, Finkelstein, & Varghese, 2018). Much of the existing literature is based on broad categories of mentor behavior or functions that classifies mentoring as instrumental or as psychosocial (Eby et al., 2013). This classification has inhibited our ability to truly understand what it is that mentors

20  •  TAMMY D. ALLEN & LILLIAN T. EBY

do that is beneficial. Recent research has taken one step toward remediating this gap. Kraiger et al. (2018) developed a new framework of mentoring that takes into account what mentors do (e.g., assign tasks), mentor objectives (e.g., improving protégé skill), and specific behaviors that link objective-action pairings in context (e.g., the mentor describes the assigned task to the protégé and the skills that will be developed to complete the task). This data can be used to provide further study into specific mentoring behaviors as well as used as a tool for mentors. CONCLUSION Embracing mentoring as an art and as a science can be beneficial to researchers and practitioners alike. Mentoring research needs to be informed by practice, while mentoring practice needs to be informed by research. It is through this blending of art and science that mentoring relationships are likely to flourish. The science of mentoring helps us understand foundational elements of effective mentoring. The art of mentoring reminds us that no two relationships are the same and that relational effectiveness reflects a complex (and not easily measurable or predictable) interplay between both mentor and protégé skills, motivations, and goals. REFERENCES Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709– 716. Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2007). Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. London, UK: Blackwell. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Chao, G. T., & Bauer, T. N. (2017). Taking stock of two relational aspects of organizational life: Tracing the history and shaping the future of socialization and mentoring research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 324–337. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentoring behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: Closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 567–578. Allen, T. D., Finkelstein, L. M., & Poteet, M. L. (2009). Designing workplace mentoring programs: An evidence-based approach. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (2011). Enhancing our knowledge of mentoring with a person-centric approach. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Science and Practice, 4, 126–130. Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Burroughs, S. M. (1997). The mentor’s perspective: a qualitative inquiry. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 70–89. Allen, T. D., Shockley, K. M., & Poteat, L. (2010). Protégé anxiety attachment and feedback in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 73–80. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.007 Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love as the Expansion of Self: Understanding Attraction and Satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere. Baker, B. T., Hocevar, S. P., & Johnson, W. B. (2003). Prevalence and nature of service academy mentoring: A study of Navy midshipman. Military Psychology, 15, 273– 283.

The Art and Science of Mentoring • 21 Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of selfreports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403. Campbell, W. K., & Campbell, S. M. (2012). Theoretical approaches to workplace relationships: Suggestions from research on interpersonal relationships. In L. T. Eby & T. D. Allen (Eds.), SIOP organizational frontiers series. Personal relationships: The effect on employee attitudes, behavior, and well-being (pp. 15–39). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Clutterbuck, D., Poulsen, K. M., & Kochan, F. (2012). Developing successful diversity mentoring programmes. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill. DuBois, D. L., Herrera, C., & Rivera, J. (2018). Investigation of long-term effects of the Big Brothers Big Sisters community-based mentoring program. Final technical report for OJJDP. Retrieved from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/251521. pdf Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. (2008). Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 254–267. Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Hoffman, B. J., Baranik, L. E., Sauer, J. B., Baldwin, S., Morrison, M. A., Kinkade, K. M., Maher, C. P., Curtis, S., & Evans, S. C. (2013). An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents’ correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 441–476. Eby, L. T., Rhodes, J. E., & Allen, T. D. (2008). Definition and evolution of mentoring. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of mentoring (pp. 7–20). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Evertson, C. M., & Smithey, M. W. (2000). Mentoring effects on protégés classroom practice: An experimental field study. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 294–304. Forehand, R. L. (2008). The art and science of mentoring in psychology: A necessary practice to ensure our future. American Psychologist, 63, 744–755. Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, T. D., Landis, R. S., Reynolds, D. H., Scott, J. C., Tonidandel, S., & Truxillo, D. M. (2018). A systems-based approach to fostering a robust and reliable science in industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11, 4–42. Hawkey, K. (1997). Roles, responsibilities, and relationships in mentoring: A literature review and agenda for research. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 325–335. Izmailova, E. S., Wagner, J. A., & Perakslis, E. D. (2018). Wearable devices in clinical trials: Hype and hypothesis. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 104, 42–52. Johnson, W. B., & Ridley, C. R. (2018). The elements of effective mentoring (3rd ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Johnson, W. B., Rose, G., & Schlosser, L. Z. (2007). Student-faculty mentoring: Theoretical and methodological issues. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of mentoring (pp. 49–69). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Kayhan, V. O., Chen, Z., French, K. A., Allen, T. D., Salomon, K., & Watkins, A. (2018). How honest are the signals? A protocol for validating wearable sensors. Behavioral Research Methods, 50, 57–83. Kraiger, K., Finkelstein, L. M., & Varghese, L. S. (2018). Enacting effective mentoring behaviors: Development and investigation of the cuboid of mentoring. Journal of

22  •  TAMMY D. ALLEN & LILLIAN T. EBY Business and Psychology. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-0189551-z Kupersmidt, J. B., Stetler, R. L., Garringer, M., & Bourgoin, J. (2018). STEM mentoring: Supplement to the elements of effective practice for mentoring. Boston, MA: MENTOR: National Mentoring Partnership. Kupersmidt, J. B., Stelter, R. L., & Garringer, M. (2019). Workplace mentoring: Supplement to the elements of effective practice for mentoring. Boston, MA: MENTOR: National Mentoring Partnership. Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J. A. (2018). Modeling temporal interaction dynamics in organizational settings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 325–344. Lunsford, L. G. (2016). A handbook for managing mentoring programs: Starting, supporting, and sustaining. New York, NY: Routledge. Maeda, J. (2013, July 11). Artists and scientists: More alike than different. Scientific American. Retrieved from: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/artists-andscientists-more-alike-than-different/ O’Neil J. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2001). The mentoring relationship in psychology training programs. In S. Walfish & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Succeeding in graduate school: The career guide to psychology students, (pp. 113–129). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbarum. Pfund, C. (2018, August 20). The science and art of mentoring. Bethesda, MD: The American Society for Cell Biology. Retrieved from: https://www.ascb.org/careers/scienceart-mentoring/ Pfund, C., Byars-Winston, A., Branchaw, J., Hurtado, S., & Eagan, K. (2016). Defining attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relationships. AIDS Behavior, 20, 238–248. Pomeroy (2012, August 22). From STEM to STEAM: Science and art go hand-in-hand. Scientific American. Retrieved from: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guestblog/from-stem-to-steam-science-and-the-arts-go-hand-in-hand/ Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. (2007). The handbook of mentoring at work: theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Thousand Oaks Press. Raposa, E. B., Rhodes, J., Stams, G. J. J. M., Card, N., Burton, S., Schwartz, S., Sykes, L. A., Kanchewa, S. Kupersmidt, J., & Hussain, S. (2019). The effects of youth mentoring programs: a meta-analysis of outcome studies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-00982-8 Sorkness, C. A., Pfund, C., Ofili, E., Okuyemi, K. S., & Vishwanatha, J. K. (2017). A new approach to mentoring for research careers: The National Research Mentoring Network. BMC Proceedings, 11(Suppl. 12):22, 171–182. DOI 10.1186/s12919-0170083-8 Straus, S. E., Johnson, M. O., Marquez, C., & Feldman, M. D. (2013). Characteristics of successful and failed mentoring relationships: A qualitative study across two academic health centers. Academic Medicine, 88, 82–89. Tennenbaum, H. R., Crosby, F. J., & Gliner, M. D. (2001). Mentoring relationships in graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 326–341.

CHAPTER 4

WAIT. WHAT? Looking Back/Moving Forward Lois Zachary

Through the use of powerful question stems from Dean James Ryan’s book Wait, What? And Life’s Other Essential Questions, Lois Zachary examines how to use a growth mindset perspective to apply the questions in Ryan’s book to the mentoring field. She does so through the lens of four core concepts: relationships, understanding, conversation, and curiosity.

Keywords: mentoring, mentor, mentee, protégé, questioning, powerful questions, leadership Over one year ago, I listened to Harvard’s School of Education commencement lecture by Dean James Ryan. I found myself so captivated by the questions he posed to the graduates that when he published his book, “Wait. What? And life’s other essential questions,” I grabbed it. Why? As educators, we are all in the business of asking questions—whether we are mentors, mentees, researchers, or practitioners. We are aware that we can’t be what we need to be without asking the right kinds of questions, and not any question will do. We need to focus on asking questions that generate conversation and create developmental relationships and networks. The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 23–28. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

23

24 • LOIS ZACHARY

Dean James Ryan posits five questions that we should always be asking and for which we should always be listening. They are, Ryan says, “everyday staples of simple and profound conversation” (2017, p. 19). These are the questions that mentors need to ask themselves and their mentees and that we should continually ask ourselves. Let me explain. Ryan identifies, “wait, what?” As his first question. It is easy to understand why. Asking “wait, what?” is an effective way of clarifying thinking. By asking it, we can help others do the same. “Wait, what?” reminds us to slow down and wait; to make sure we truly understand the what before we move to action” (Ryan, 2017, p. 36). According to Ryan, wait, what? is a clarifying question that is the root of all understanding. Ryan’s second question is “I wonder if” or “I wonder why.” Ryan claims that “this is the one question that lies at the heart of all curiosity” (2017, p. 61). An essential tool for all mentors is asking “I wonder if or I wonder why;” it invites engagement and deepens the conversation. It is also how we prompt ourselves and someone else to try something new. Ryan’s third question is “couldn’t we at least?” This question is powerful because it almost immediately triggers other questions and thus kickstarts conversation. It helps us get unstuck by creating common ground. Best of all, it keeps us in conversation by sparking the momentum that moves us moving forward. Ryan sees this question as “at the heart of all progress” (2017, p. 82. It is also the question, he says, that “recognizes that journeys are often long and uncertain, that problems will not be solved with one conversation and that even the best efforts will not always work” (p. 82). Ryan’s fourth question, ”how can I help?” is the foundation of all good relationships. Our work as mentors is all about developmental relationships. Ryan puts it this way, “how you help matters just as much as that you do help, which is why it is essential to begin by asking “how can I help?” If you start with this question, you are asking with humility for direction. You are recognizing that others are experts in their own lives, and you are affording them the opportunity to remain in charge, even if you are providing some help” (2017, p. 84). To sum it up, these four core concepts—relationship, conversation, curiosity, and understanding—are key to our work as mentors, so is asking good questions. As we look at the evolving mentoring landscape relative to these questions, I am going to use James Dean Ryan’s questions as a framework to both look back and move forward. PHASE 1: WAIT, WHAT? HAS TO DO WITH MENTORING PERSPECTIVES AND PROGRAMS Over 30 years ago, we heard a lot of “wait, what?” questions. Wait, what…mentoring? The word itself was a mystery. Wait, what is mentoring? There were (and still are) lots of assumptions about what the word mentoring meant, but people seemed to accept it at face value without really unpacking the definition of what

Wait. What? • 25

it was or what it could mean. We have found in our global work at the Center for Mentoring Excellence, especially in third world countries, that the crucial initial work still revolves around answering the question, “wait, what?” Our mentoring community emphasized and focused its energy on setting up mentoring programs, getting on the bandwagon of mentoring, and getting these programs started, up, and running. There was a buzz around the concept of mentoring, and many regarded the mentoring programs as a fad—the program du jour if you will. Even with all the talk and scuttlebutt, there wasn’t a clear understanding of mentoring. “It”—whatever “it” was—seemed like a good idea, so we felt we needed to heed Nike’s advice and “just do it.” The term “mentoring” was being used to describe a variety of relationships, and mentoring programs flew under this banner without regard to outcomes. Instead, it seemed many programs focused on generating participant numbers. Our focus turned to what do we need to do it? It seemed like mentoring programs were popping up everywhere rather suddenly. I remember the flurry of activity when Jack Welch of General Electric jumpstarted mentoring’s popularity within the corporate sector with his concept of reverse mentoring. Soon, we began to hear of group mentoring in the academy and peer mentoring in K–12 and higher education. The urgency to create mentoring programs was becoming palpable. As the popularity of mentoring grew, conversations shifted from creating mentoring programs to the improvement of mentoring practices. I tend to think of the practice era as the Mentoring Alphabet Soup Era with the proliferation of programs from Mentoring a la Carte to Micro-mentoring. As mentoring practitioners and researchers, we wondered how we might be able to improve outcomes, why more people weren’t taking advantage of mentoring, and if we could better engage people in mentoring throughout their careers. We wondered if we could create mentoring practices that would be more inclusive and why some mentoring programs succeeded while others failed. We found ourselves wondering how we could meet the needs of lifelong learners through mentoring and what might happen if we looked beyond role socialization and the establishment of professional identity. We acknowledge the need for mentoring during the mid-career stage. Midcareer mentoring took hold, and organizations began to fill the need for helping mentees forge career identities, achieve work/life balance, envision possible futures, and manage their career transitions. Mentees, especially millennials, began demanding non-traditional growth opportunities. All of these pursuits only led to more room to wonder. Advancements in technology and globalization have forced us to wander into the realm of distance mentoring. We began to wonder if we had developed the right communication tools and modalities for a truly global society. PHASE 2: MOVING ON TO, COULDN’T WE AT LEAST? Here we are in 2020. We are now engaged in conversation around the question, “couldn’t we at least…?” For example, couldn’t we at least find ways to extend

26 • LOIS ZACHARY

mentoring through the lifespan? More and more Baby Boomers are re-engaging in mentoring. By the time they reach their late 60s and 70s, most adults have had mentoring experiences, either as mentees early in their careers or as mentors later on. Many are eager to adopt new attitudes, ready to modify behavior, and primed to increase their knowledge. They are actively looking for mentors to contribute to their growth and development. They are also seeking opportunities to share their talents and knowledge in mentoring others outside of the workplace. They are looking to recharge emotionally as well as intellectually and physically. Mentoring provides that opportunity. Neuroscientists tell us that social connection is one of the best predictors of happiness and well-being. We are wired for connectivity, and as we age, the need for connection only increases. Being connected with other people makes us feel good. It motivates us and helps us learn. Our brains form new pathways as we make new connections. These new connections promote learning by assisting our brains in forming new pathways. As Boomers seek new ways to work, take on different responsibilities, and move to other roles, they turn to mentors to help them close their knowledge gaps. They look for mentors who have specific subject matter expertise and tend to prefer hands-on learning experiences. They value individual achievement, recognition, and feedback. Another question we find ourselves asking is, “couldn’t we at least identify alternative and multiple technologies to make sure we can connect virtually?” We assume others often prefer the technology with which we are most familiar. This bias becomes particularly important when mentoring takes place across cultures, around the globe, or among those in less privileged environments. This question leads to yet another question. “Couldn’t we at least develop systems better to maximize our institutional human and financial mentoring resources?” Multiple mentoring efforts are going on in organizations. Many of these programs are duplicating efforts by spending money and deploying people to create mentoring projects and programs that already exist in other environments. We need to create internal conversations that extend to maximize best practices externally. A multitude of “couldn’t we at least” questions followed. “Couldn’t we at least look at mentoring from multiple cultural perspectives?” “Couldn’t we at least approach the challenge of mentoring communication across differences?” “Couldn’t we at least encourage and cultivate more cultural competency and inclusion in an increasingly fragmented world?” We bring who we are to what we do. It should be no surprise that culture has an impact on our behavior. It is tempting to focus on what we have in common with someone else; people tend to connect based on commonalities while ignoring or judging differences. When we become too focused on commonalities, we create group think and conformity. As a result, differences are often masked. Understanding and learning from one another’s differences promotes more in-depth learning. Developing cultural competence is not

Wait. What? • 27

only one way to address differences but is also essential to the diversity and inclusion platform. We must invite differences, celebrate it, and learn from it. “Couldn’t we at least continue to explore more gender-sensitive approaches to mentoring?” Our colleague, Brad Johnson, has written extensively on this topic. In his work, Johnson explores how gender differences and emotionality can translate into misunderstanding, miscommunication, and failed relationships. The topic of gender differences has largely been a topic that has been swept under the table. Gender differences have been documented for a long time; it is time that we at least explore some strategies to address those issues. “Couldn’t we at least develop more systematic approaches for determining mentor/mentee learning fit?” Expedience and propinquity frequently take precedence over systematic mentoring matches. At the Center for Mentoring Excellence, we urge our clients to take time and develop systematic criteria for making mentoring matches and to broadcast that criterial. The ultimate criterion should focus on “learning fit.” PHASE 3: HOW CAN I HELP? This phase is all about possibility. Let’s look to the future because whether we like it or not, we are heading there. Going to the future requires a growth mindset. Addressing the question, “how can I help?” gets us there. In addition to being in the question and conversation business, we are—all of us—in the relationship business. We must extend a hand to each other and forge new relationships. I am convinced that the future of mentoring is going to be about the questions we ask ourselves, each other, and our mentoring partners. We are looking for direction. How do we get better? We need to reach out to our communities to extend our help to others and to ask for help when we need it. We need to be specific about asking for what we need and to framing our request by asking good questions. We must remember Ryan’s wise advice: “how you help matters just as much as that you do help” (p. 84). What help can you offer? What help do you need? What help does our mentoring community need? I believe context is critical. We must find ways to bring context directly into the conversation as we create effective mentoring programs. I believe that cultural competence matters; we must invite differences, celebrate them, and learn from them. I believe that we do not age out of mentoring. We all know that mentors need mentors. I believe we have much to learn from neuroscience that can enhance mentoring relationships. RYAN’S FIFTH QUESTION: AND DID YOU GET WHAT YOU WANTED OUT OF LIFE, EVEN SO? This fifth question is a question about what really matters. Ryan claims that this is the more important question you will ever face. “If you regularly ask: wait, what; I wonder, couldn’t we at least, how can I help, and what really matters, when it

28 • LOIS ZACHARY

comes time to ask yourself ‘and did you get what you wanted out of life, even so,’ your answer will be ‘I did’’ (Ryan, 2016). REFERENCES Ryan, J. E. (2016). Remarks at the 2016 HGSE Presentation of Diplomas and Certificates. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW0NguMGIbE Ryan, J. E. (2017). Wait, what?: And life’s other essential questions. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

CHAPTER 5

BEHIND THE QUESTIONS Bob Garvey

In this chapter, the author provides a thorough literature review of mentoring/coaching theory. Expressing the importance that there exists a good relationship between the mentor/mentee and that the mentor must be a good listener and ask good questions, the author provides a framework which suggests that the type of dialogue significantly affects the impact and depth of the questioning and provides an interesting tactic for problem-solving.

Keywords: Mentoring, mentor, coach, mentee, coachee This chapter is about the use of good questions in coaching and mentoring. Before starting on a discussion about ‘what is behind the questions,’ it is relevant to consider the concepts of coaching and mentoring. Across the globe, coaching and mentoring activities are widespread in all sectors and organisations—public, private, large, small, and not-for-profit. Despite this proliferation, there are many different versions of coaching and mentoring found in these diverse contexts. These could be examined in various ways by using frameworks found in the literature. For example, Krazmien and Berger (1997) comment that coaching may be shaped and contextualized with the following aspects: • Organizational change; The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 29–47. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

29

30 • BOB GARVEY

• The influence of sport; • The guidelines used to coach employees; and • The psychosocial. Krazmien and Berger (1997) suggest that the emphasis placed on these different elements within organizational contexts will shape the form that the coaching takes and, therefore, its meaning to the participants. There are other views. With executive coaching, for example, Orenstein (2002) offers four guiding premises: • • • •

The role of the unconscious in individual and group behaviour; The interaction between the individual and the organization; Multilevel organizational forces; and The consultant’s use of self as a tool.

Like Krazmien and Berger, Orenstein also suggests that the varying emphasis on these elements will shape the form of executive coaching undertaken. Anderson and Shannon (1988) offer a schematic in educational settings which serves to highlight the complex dynamic quality of mentoring. These elements include: • The mentor’s disposition, where the mentor may be in a leadership role or serving an ‘opening up’ function; • The mentoring relationship as either role-modelling, caregiver or nurturing; • The mentoring functions of teaching, sponsoring, encouraging, counselling and befriending; and • The mentoring activities of demonstrating, observing, giving feedback and support. In contrast, Garvey (1994) explains mentoring in terms of dimensions—points on a series of five continuums. For example: • An open/closed dimension which concerns the content of the discussion. • The public/private dimension which highlights the bounded nature of the relationship in terms of confidentiality and what others may know about the relationship. • The formal/informal dimension which relates to the administration and management of the relationship. • The active/passive dimension which is about activity within and outside of the relationship. • The stable/unstable dimension which is about creating and holding to mutually agreed-upon ground rules while being prepared to review them jointly. This description of mentoring relationships emphasizes the dynamics of specific and individual relationships within any setting.

Behind the Questions • 31

In a comprehensive study of the literature of both coaching and mentoring, D’Abate, Eddy, and Tannebaum (2003) discuss the various descriptions of developmental activity. They identify five main aspects of their taxonomy of developmental constructs in organizational settings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Participant demographics: The age, knowledge level or career experience of the participants. Interaction characteristics: The duration of interaction, regularity of interactions, and the medium used to facilitate interaction, or to span of relationship. Organizational distance/direction: The hierarchical direction, reporting relationship, or organizational location of participants. Purpose of interaction: The object of the development, the time frame for the development’s purpose, or the beneficiaries of the development. Degree of structure: The formality of the developmental interaction, including the presence of a development coordinator, the choice to participate, the participant matching process, provision of preparation and support, evaluation of interaction, or formality of interaction termination.

In her doctoral thesis, Salter (2013), like Garvey (1994) suggests the differentiations often made between coaching and mentoring are not helpful because both are based on developing good relationships and good listening and questioning. Instead, she offers a more descriptive framework and argues that both coaching and mentoring could be positioned as a series of dimensions that often coincide with each other depending on the context and purpose of the coaching or mentoring. However, her dimensions relate to the focus on attitudes, activities, and times within the relationships as follows: • Developmental vs. Deficit—does the coach or mentor work with developing the coachee/mentee’s knowledge from the assumption that he or she is experienced and knowledgeable or assume that he or she has no knowledge and, therefore, needs to be ‘taught’ to fill the deficit? • Directive vs. Non-directive—is the coach or mentor directive, telling the coachee/mentee what to do and giving advice, or does the coach enable him or her to think things through for themselves? • Future vs. Past—is the orientation of the discussions focused on the resolution of past issues or focused on the future? • Long-term vs. Short-term—is the relationship a long-term or short-term one? What is clear is that as socially constructed activities, practiced within particular and specific contexts, there can be no definitive definition of either coaching or mentoring.

32 • BOB GARVEY

What mentoring and coaching writers and practitioners agree is that questions and questioning form a vital part of the dyadic developmental process no matter how we choose to define or describe them. In both mentoring and coaching, ‘open’ questions are valued and achieve a status above other types of questioning. Open questions contribute to achieving the ‘holy grail’ of both mentoring and coaching—a non-directive and developmental orientation to the discussions as opposed to the directive and deficit orientations. These elements form the essence of what many writers consider both coaching and mentoring to be. The assumption made about non-directiveness is that the mentees or coachees best develop autonomy (the main aim) by working their issues out through discussion. The assumption made by coaching and mentoring writers is that ‘directiveness’ maintains control over the coachee/mentee and helps to create unhealthy dependency as outlined above. The ‘developmental’ orientation assumes that the coachees/ mentees are their experts in their life and work and the mentor/coach’s job is to facilitate and help organize this internal knowledge. On the other hand, a ‘directiveness’ orientation means that the coach or mentor assumes the coachees or mentees do not know, and therefore they require ‘teaching,’ ‘advice,’ or ‘training.’ However, Alred and Garvey (2019) suggest that closed questions also play an important role in mentoring activity because this helps to establish clarity and precision in the discussion. So, there is even debate about the use of questions and the underpinning intent behind the questions. Thus, this chapter examines questioning in coaching and mentoring and considers ‘what is behind the question’? INTENT IN MENTORING AND COACHING QUESTIONS One aspect of ‘what is behind the question?’ is the coach’s or the mentor’s intention in asking it. For example, Downey (2003), drawing on Gallwey’s (1997) concept of the ‘inner game,’ suggests that the role of the coach is to help the ‘player’ to overcome fear or negativity. Downey calls this ‘interference’ and suggests that coaching needs to focus on performance improvement rather than on the ‘interference.’ In essence, he suggests that performance improvement is about the removal of the interference. The desired emotional state of the coachee is characterized as being one of relaxed concentration, enjoyment, and trust. Downey argues that this “magic” approach “inhabits the non-directive end of the spectrum” (p. 24). As for the coach’s intent, Downey notes: In coaching (…), understanding one’s own intent at any moment is a key component in becoming more effective. When I ask novice coaches the intent of a question, I get many kinds of answers. Mostly, they point to the coach’s need to solve, to fix, to heal, to be right, or to be in control. (p. 57)

While arguing for a model of coaching that places the coachee at the heart of the agenda, Downey (2014) curiously, in both his early and much later books, emphasizes the skills of the coach rather than those of the coachee. In his 2014 text,

Behind the Questions • 33

he states: “A huge part of enabling genius is coaching, and the effective coaching model embraces many approaches, from following interest to teaching, that gives the skilled coach a lot to play with” (Downey, 2014, p. 218). Downey (2014) provides an example of part of a coaching conversation where the coach is talking to the player about the agenda for the coaching session: Player: I am really concerned about the new strategy Bob presented yesterday Coach: How concerned, on a scale of one to ten? Player: That’s a really good question—actually, only about three or four. Coach: So, do we need to discuss it now? Player: No, it’s more important that we talk through the conference next week. (p. 101) Downey offers this as evidence of the coach’s skilled questioning in helping the coachee to focus his attention. The scaling technique (asking how concerned, on a scale of 1 to 10?) referred to here is often used to help both the coach and the coachee get not only a sense of proportion about the issue under discussion but also provide some challenge to the coachee to go beyond the number he/she has proposed. However, in this example, the player is also displaying skill in the form of weighing up how best to use the coaching session and prioritizing. While it could be argued that the coach has enabled this—in providing the scaling question—it is the coachee who makes the skilled choice because he knows his situation. Similarly, the following excerpt is from a coaching session where the focus is on the coachee’s management of time: Coach: So, what is your longer-term goal for your time management? Player: If I could get to a position within the next month, where I am saving three hours a week, processing less paper, and getting the weekly reports out on time, that would be just great. (Downey, 2014, p. 185) Again, Downey focuses on the skills of the coach in helping to focus the player on the long-term goals. However, the coachee is also showing skill, perhaps in a more sophisticated way, by reflecting on her practice, deciding on the relevant and appropriate goals, and articulating them to the coach. This “discounting” of the coachee’s role in the process and privileging the coach’s skill is fairly common in coaching texts, for example, Whitmore (2009); Rogers (2012); Starr (2008); Hayes (2008); Berg and Szabó (2005) and KimseyHouse et al. (2011). While there appears to be evidence within the examples provided by these writers that the coachees find the interventions helpful, the overall picture presented by these writers is one of a typical coachee who is a confused, stuck individual who seems to lack confidence and insight. The coach, in con-

34 • BOB GARVEY

trast, is portrayed as resourceful, insightful, and is prepared to hold the coachee accountable in terms of focus and in facing what is “really” going on for the coachee. This characterization is very curious, given the emphasis on using the non-directive and developmental approaches in coaching that appear in the writing of the referenced authors. Hatch and Cunliffe (2013) argue that power “is exercised through practices that arise in discourse to regulate what will be perceived as normal” (p. 43). Therefore, a prevailing discourse refers to a way of thinking, writing, and acting concerning something that sets the boundaries of what is considered to be normal for that phenomenon, in a way that crowds out or dominates other possible ways of seeing it. This description could be said of the coaching literature in relation to the coachee. Habermans (1990) posits that a balanced and meaningful conversation is just not possible if there is “real or perceived” power difference between the mentoring/coaching partners. Habermas’s solution for diffusing the power differential in mentoring and coaching is to create the “ideal speech situation.” Habermas’s (1990) description of the “ideal speech situation” is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Each participant has the competence to speak and act and can take part in a discussion. Each participant is allowed to question any assertion whatever; Each participant is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the discussion. Each participant is allowed to express their attitudes, desires, and needs without any hesitation. No speaker may be prevented by internal or external coercion, from exercising his rights as laid down in 1, 2, 3, 4.

This description reads like a list of ground rules for a coaching or mentoring discussion! Garvey, Stokes, and Megginson (2018) suggest that the coachee is equally skilled, albeit differently, in being a coachee as the coach is at coaching. This under-acknowledged issue of a skilled coachee has implications for coach/ mentor trainers and academic researchers. I posit that we need to challenge the dominating discourse found in coaching and mentoring literature that is chiefly focused on the coach’s or mentor’s skills. If we recognized that the coachee/mentee is skilled at facilitating or even leading the learning conversation, then the emphasis in mentor/coach training would shift to finding ways for the mentor/ coach to build rapport and trust with the coachee/mentee. In modern mentoring texts, there is also a tendency to focus primarily on the mentor’s skills, but, in contrast to the majority of coaching texts, Megginson, Clutterbuck, Garvey, Stokes, and Garrett-Harris (2006) argue that the skills of the mentee are also important. They argue that skilled mentees are better able to draw what they want and need from mentors and are better equipped to cope with any weaknesses or deficiencies in their mentor’s skills. These mentee skills may include asking appropriate open questions, checking out assumptions, and active

Behind the Questions • 35

listening. These authors also point out that the mentees (or protégés’) should be in the driving seat, in so far as the conversation stays focused on the mentee, and that a skilled mentee will get what he/she wants and needs from the conversation. This focus gives more authority to the mentee. However, like coaching, there is an emphasis in mentoring texts on the non-directive and developmental intentions behind the conversation, and by implication, this acknowledges the mentee’s ability to shape the conversation. QUESTIONING AS A DYNAMIC IN COACHING AND MENTORING A Typography of Questions for Coaching and Mentoring Conversations Megginson and Clutterbuck (2005) provide a helpful typography for coaching and mentoring conversations, which refer to the “seven layers of dialogue.” They originally presented it as a progressive and hierarchical framework as follows: Social dialogue in Figure 5.1 is positioned as being about: • • • •

Giving friendship & support Showing interest and acceptance Understanding \ learning about the client Finding common areas of interest

Technical dialogue is about: • Learning about processes, policies, and systems • Sharing of knowledge • Giving advice on how & why

FIGURE 5.1.  The Seven Layers of Dialogue (Megginson & Clutterbuck, 2005, p. 32)

36 • BOB GARVEY

Tactical dialogue is about: • • • •

Dealing with the practical work or personal issues Bringing clarity to the situations Defining steps to take Defining possible outcomes

Strategic dialogue is about: • Looking at the broad perspective • Putting problems, opportunities, and ambitions into context • Conducting a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis Self-insight dialogue is about: • • • • • •

Key Drivers Ambitions Fears Thinking Patterns Challenges Discovery

Behavioral change dialogue is about: • Making a coherent plan for change melding self-insight, strategy, and tactics • Encouraging personal adaptation Integrative dialogue is about: • • • • • •

Gaining a clear understanding Acknowledging mentee’s contribution and how he/she fits in Examining Life Balance Resolving inner conflict Looking at different perspectives Taking a holistic approach

The general idea in this typography is that a conversation is progressive, but it starts with a question and progresses to become “integrative” ultimately. This idea suggests that some conversations are better than others and that a good mentoring conversation moves in more or less a straight line. However, if a conversation is conceived as a dynamic series of equal status elements in which all may play a part (see Figure 5.2), it offers a way of analyzing and understanding the intent behind a question. By editing out the “integrative” element (which few people understood in education programmes!) and presenting

Behind the Questions

•

37

FIGURE 5.2. Coaching and mentoring conversation typography (adapted from Megginson & Clutterbuck, 2005).

the concept as in Figure 5.2, it has proved very helpful in educational programmes about questions for coaches and mentors equally. With this typography, “social dialogue” is aimed at establishing a social connection in a friendly manner, a central feature of both mentoring and coaching. Social dialogue helps to develop mutual understanding, empathy, and trust. It is, therefore, an important element and not to be underestimated as a contributor in establishing a learning relationship. Social dialogue is a constant element of coaching and mentoring in that it needs to be present on most occasions, particularly at the start and the end of the conversation. A typical “social dialogue” starter might be—“How is your family?” “Technical dialogue” is another element of a coaching or mentoring conversation. Here the focus is on clarifying existing knowledge about workplace policies, procedures, and systems. It tends towards the short term. A typical “technical dialogue” starter might be—“So, how often does that occur?” “Tactical dialogue” is also short term where the conversation is aimed at discovering practical ways to deal with the issue in hand. A typical “tactical dialogue” starter might be—“So what do you see as your options here?” “Strategic dialogue” has the purpose to take a wider perspective and to put the immediate challenges into a broader context. This broader context is often a dis-

38 • BOB GARVEY

cussion about the long term and develops a sense of direction and scale. Strategic dialogue assists with decision making over time. A typical “strategic dialogue” starter might be—“So how does this fit with your longer-term plan….?” “Self-insight dialogue” is where the learner gains an awareness of his or her hopes, fears, thinking patterns, or emotions. This awareness may occur over time, or it may be a “eureka moment.” Self-insight is one of the core purposes of coaching and mentoring and, therefore, a key element in the coaching or mentoring conversation. A typical “self-insight dialogue” starter might be—“How does that make you feel?” “Behavioral dialogue” is often a product of self-insight dialogue. It is aimed at bringing together the understanding from the other layers to affect change. Like self-insight dialogue, behavioral change is also a core purpose of coaching and mentoring activity, and this, therefore, is also a key element. In relation to time, this can also be short, medium, and longer-term. A typical “behaviour dialogue” starter might be—“So how else could you have reacted to that?” Each conversation starts with a question, and a question needs to have an intent, i.e., “what kind of conversation are you hoping to have with your mentee or coachee?” Example of the Typography in a Mentoring Conversation The following is an edited and annotated transcript from a recorded mentoring conversation (based on Garvey et al., 2018). The mentee has recently been promoted within his organization. He talks about the nature of the new job, the changing relationship with his line manager, and an aspect of his personality. The conversationalists know each other well, and they have talked before. Their relationship and shared understanding enable the conversation to be respectful and purposeful. Knowledge is assumed and hence, to an observer may appear understated, but both parties recognize its significance as the conversation proceeds. They explore the themes of the conversation, getting closer to new learning, refining understanding and meaning, as they go. There are repetitions, restatements of themes and variations in pace, and the balance of support and challenge. The conversation has two distinct sections and hints at a third. The first is an exploration led by the mentor; the second is a refocusing based on a different understanding of the mentee’s situation, and the third is movement towards action (Alred & Garvey, 2019). At the outset, the mentor mentions that he has observed a slight change of behaviour in the mentee. Normally, the mentee is very open about all aspects of his life. In taking on this new role, it seems to the mentor that he has been uncharacteristically reticent. Mentor: Can I take you back to this week, and the start of your new job. Usually, I know what’s happening in your working life, and I usually know what’s happening in your personal life, because you’re

Behind the Questions • 39

very chatty—you share a lot. But this week, it’s a big new beginning, and you’ve said how you would have liked your boss to show some interest. I wonder if you could say a bit more about that. It seems like a quiet start … Mentee: Yes, a quiet start … um … previously, he’s been very supportive, but this week he’s been very busy with other things, with another colleague actually. He says you have to manage him (laughter). When I was in charge of the last area, he would leave me to get on with it, and I would feed him information from time to time. But this new job is different. The mentor intuitively senses that there is an issue to be explored. He leads gently. Mentor: It sounds like there is something you want from him? The mentee is challenged to move in this direction and brings the conversation onto a well-trodden issue. Mentee: Er … I think I would like more information … I think there’s this other issue which comes up … that he suffers from “last minuteism,” in time management, and you know what I’m like with time management. You know, if it’s not in the diary three months ahead, I find difficulty with it really. For example, there is a very important meeting today that I was just told about on Wednesday. Well, I’m sorry, there’s no way I can go to it … (laughter) … so there’s that issue. The mentor follows by opening up the issue. Mentor: That’s his style … Mentee: Yes, yes … worries me a touch … Mentor: Really? He is somebody you are having to work to … yes … and that’s a problem for you …? Mentee: Yes, generally, he’s very good, the “last minuteism,” it gets a bit close for comfort, and personally I find that very difficult. I like a more planned future. The mentor maintains momentum by offering a suggestion. Mentor: You’re usually very upfront with people. Have you thought about going to see him to discuss it? After some hesitation, the mentee stays in step.

40 • BOB GARVEY

Mentee: I think I should, although … I’ve not really thought about it … (pause) … I think … (pause) … yes, I do need to go and see him and say, “That meeting was important, and you knew it was coming up, would it have been possible to have let me know more in advance?” With a lot of things, the administrator has put in place some of these dates, and we now have them. And I think he needs to learn some of that … The mentor now moves the focus from the manager to the mentee/manager relationship. Mentor: This issue has come more to the fore this year with the shift to your new role as director. It’s something to do with the last job being less important than the new one, and here you are with a high profile. And it means you’ve got a different sort of relationship with him. Mentee: Well, it’s a bigger business, it’s worth a lot of money, in the picture of things, the last job is worth peanuts really, actually, in financial terms, whereas this one is worth a lot of money to the organization. Mentor: So, the stakes are higher? Mentee: Absolutely. The mentor holds the line. Mentor: This relationship with your boss is perhaps more important than it’s been before … is it? The mentee begins to look at things differently. Mentee: I think it is. (Pause) I just wonder, just sometimes, I wonder whether it’s me that’s got the problem with this time management business … um … Mentor: It’s bit of a running joke, isn’t it …? Mentee: It is really. (Laughter) The mentor stays with the theme, leading the conversation and challenging. Mentor: I have a simple man’s diary … (laughter) … you … have a different sort of diary … Mentee: Absolutely … absolutely, (laughter) … and you seem to survive all right (laughter) … um … Mentor: So, is that another issue …? The conversation takes a significant turn.

Behind the Questions • 41

Mentee: I don’t know … but I wonder if, personally, it’s a bit of an obsession. I think the busier you are, the more you need to be organized. My view of time is … (pause) Fundamentally, …. Well … it’s a negotiable thing and something around which you have choice … but I don’t think everyone sees it like that (laughter) … Mentor: Well …? Mentee: I don’t think he sees it like that. I think he feels he has a right to my time on request. The mentor seems to feel that this is a significant moment so, rather than probe further, he feels it is time for some consolidation through summary. Mentor: Interesting, I’m conscious that we’ve been talking for some time … I wonder if it would be useful for you to summarize … The mentee, to his surprise, is given responsibility to lead. Mentee: You want me to do that? Mentor: You start, and I’ll chip in … Mentee: All right … well, I suppose the first thing is the issue of the past, what went on then, but I don’t … that’s gone now, that was tense, but I got out of that responsibility … so in a sense that was quite satisfying. But it wasn’t like frying pan to fire, it’s a new thing opening up. What I have now in terms of budget well that’s a bit nerve-racking. And then there’s … (pause) … then there’s the time management issue … um … which is … I’m not sure whether it’s my problem or his. Either way, we’ve got to sort it out. And I think that’s probably the key issue. When people are busy you’ve got to sort out some sort of organization around that. The mentor takes back the lead, and the conversation becomes steps towards action. Mentor: So, when we take this further, we’ll pick up these issues. You’re in the early, very early stages, the first days of the new responsibility … Mentee: Yes. Mentor: And working on the relationship with your line manager is a priority … Mentee: Yes, I think it is, I think you’re right, and I think I shall tackle that … although I’ve always got on well with him … Mentor: Yes. Mentee: I don’t have a problem with that. Because the stakes are a bit higher, the relationship is likely to be a bit closer.

42 • BOB GARVEY

The mentor reflects back the mentee’s words. Mentor: On the other side, there’s what you’ve described as being obsessive about time management. Perhaps it will be helpful to explore that more so that you can get clearer about it, and that may help you with your manager. Mentee: Yes, because it does create tensions. Last-minute things create tensions for me, because my sense of responsibility says I should be doing that, and my sense of time management … which is “my time and we negotiate”—thinks—I’m not going to be there because I’ve already made previous arrangements. So that’s complicated. Feelings of guilt, I suppose (laughter) are around. The conversation is coming to an end. The mentor ensures they end as a pair, looking ahead to the next conversation. Mentor: So, we’ve explored what the new responsibility is like and two issues, one to do with your line manager and one more personal. I wonder if that is a suitable place to stop. Mentee: I think it is. I mean, what it’s done for me is draw out this time management issue which … (pause) … I think it does have the potential to be significant, and it does have to be resolved. Before we started this, I didn’t really know where we were going to go. There was a concern there, and I think I’ve clarified what that concern is. Mentor: Can we agree to pick that up next time? Mentee: Yes, that will be useful.” There are at least two stories inherent in this conversation. One story is the mentee’s story that planning and organization are important. There is also a fairly sophisticated story about autonomy and independence versus compliance and interdependence between the mentee’s manager and the mentee. Both these stories present potential problems for the mentee, the manager, and the organization, particularly because the financial stakes are quite high, and the mentor is working hard to achieve “self-insight” and “behavioral change” in the mentee. The conversation starts in a “social” way and moves through “tactical,” “technical,” and “strategic” quite quickly. Prompted by his new role, the mentee revisits issues he has addressed before. Time management is a perennial issue, and here the idea that it is an “obsession” is new, and this is conversation leading towards “self-insight.” He explicitly states that he did not know at the outset where the conversation would go, but it has been productive, leading to insight, clarification and a commitment to action. Following a linear model, the mentor could have proffered these outcomes himself by giving advice and thus holding the conversation in tactical or technical. However, with a complex subject like time management, advice would be inappropriate at this stage. The mentor could have moved

Behind the Questions • 43

the conversation into strategic, but instead, he initiated a more circular conversation. The mentee provided the content, and the mentor facilitated a process of crisscrossing the issues, looking at them from different angles, gently prompting the mentee to take risks, such as voicing criticism of his line manager and admitting to an “obsession.” In this way, self-insight develops. This conversation is also about the culture of the organization. The topic of time management is often influenced by the behaviour and values of those who lead. So, “last minuteism” is the way the manager behaves, and this is at odds with the mentee’s behaviour. The self-insight here presents the mentee with choices so that the next level of conversation at future meetings may be within “behavioral change,” but this may take some time to action and establish. When the mentor asks the mentee to summarize, it is a further challenge to the mentee to lead the process, as well as explore the content. The mentee is learning about specific issues and the non-linear conversation. He is learning to learn, and what he has learned is of considerable value both to himself in developing Vygotsky’s (1981) “higher mental functions” (p. 162) and to his organization in terms of collaborative working and adjustments in behaviour towards others. The conversation is also helping to maintain stable mental health by examining the meaning the mentee attributes to his behaviour and the behaviour of others. The mentee could quite easily become stressed if he fails to understand his manager’s behaviour and fails to consider adjustments in his own. There is also the potential for misunderstanding to develop between the mentee and the line manager leading to potential conflicts because they each have different constructions of the mean of time. Any one element of this conversational typography can be helpful and develop ways forward for the coachee or mentee. However, some coaches or mentors may have a “comfort zone” for conversation. In a business setting, for example, social, technical, tactical, and strategic conversations are more the norm. This is often despite the coach or mentor being aware that a “self-insight,” or “behavioral change” conversation may be what is needed. The nature of the conversation may also be controlled by the coachee or mentee as he or she attempts to stay in the comfort zones. In either case, much of this is influenced by the dominant discourse of the social context. For example, in a small business setting, it is not surprising that technical, tactical, or strategic conversations are the norm, and while this undoubtedly offers the potential for change and growth, they may not offer the depth or breadth of transformation that may be necessary in an individual case. A central issue here is to invite coaches and mentors to think about what they intend with their questions and to be aware that if they always ask the same type of question, they will inevitably have the same sorts of conversations with their mentees and coachees. If they want a different conversation or the mentee/coachee is seemingly going over the same territory again and again without finding a way forward, they need to ask a different type of question. So, the question becomes an

44 • BOB GARVEY

invitation to talk, and inevitably, the open and non-directive invitations to speak offer the best opportunity for the coachee or mentee to start anywhere on the circle. THE MIRACLE QUESTION Another specific technique, known as the “Miracle Question” is worth considering here, partly because it is not a question at all but rather, a process with clear intent, and partly because it is an interesting process that seems to offer much potential to develop new insights. The miracle question is part of a bigger process known as Brief Coaching (DeShazer et al., 1986). The process aimed to develop a new and revolutionary way of working with people to solve problems. In the therapy world, it was assumed that therapists needed to know all about a problem before they could help. This meant that much time was spent exploring the problem in therapy. DeShazer et al. (1986) believed that the therapist should focus on discovering how the client would know that the problem had been solved and what they were already doing about it. This idea migrated to the practice of coaching and, more recently, mentoring. The miracle question is as follows: Let me ask you a slightly strange question. Suppose our conversation finished—you do whatever you’ve planned this evening; then, you get tired and go to bed. In the middle of the night, when you’re fast asleep, a miracle happens. The miracle is that everything you brought to this session is solved, somehow. When you wake the next morning, you don’t know there’s been a miracle because you were fast asleep. What will be the first things you will notice that tell you a miracle had happened?

• How will you know that a transformation has occurred? • How will others know that something amazing has taken place? There are many intents behind this process and many assumptions made about its use. One intent is to enable clients to imagine and visualize a new future for themselves, unencumbered by the issues that have created their current situation. Another is to assist clients if they become “stuck” and unable to see a way forward from their situation, as the miracle question can develop that insight. The basic assumptions behind the “Brief” approach are: • • • • • • • •

That the conversation should be brief—no more than 30 minutes Solution building is the fast track to problem-solving Clients are experts in their own life and work When in doubt, trust the client Not knowing is useful (from the coach or mentor) Focus on capabilities not deficits What works? Not What’s missing? Develop ideas on the future not an analysis of the problem

Behind the Questions • 45

Furthermore, the key question facilitated by the miracle process is, “What does the world look like beyond the obstacles?” In some ways, this approach offers a problem-solving conversation and empowers the coachees or mentees to find the solution within themselves. Their answers to the “How will you know…?” question in the miracle process provide precursors for the solution as the client “imagines” a new future. The whole process of Brief Coaching is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Contract before you start Reach an agreement about the purpose of the conversation (what does the client expect) Discover a preferred future, normally through the use of the miracle question Find precursors of solutions from the miracle process Progress clues to create a way forward by identifying the first small step Session conclusion SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has covered the variations of descriptive definition found in both coaching and mentoring. These vary considerably, but what is common to all is that questions form an important part of both coaching and mentoring. The other issue is whose agenda is being played out in the conversations. Much of the writing on coaching positions the coach as being the skilled party, and while mentoring does the same, some (Megginson et al., 2006) suggest that a skilled mentee is best placed to gain the maximum from a mentoring conversation. The same could be said of a coachee. However, if a conversation is viewed as a dynamic in which the intent behind the question is clear and the nature of the conversation is clear, the power, potentially at least, shifts to one of equals where both hold skill in the dyadic discussion, reminiscent of Harbermas’ (1990) ideal speech situation. Overall, there are clear resonances between the different ways in which mentoring and coaching can be constructed in different social settings, as discussed at the start of the chapter and the processes and questions that inform the practice of both. The dominating discourse in the literature on both the non-directive and developmental conversation, which is often started with an “open” question, is common to mentoring and coaching. If a mentoring or coaching conversation is to be power free, it may help to view it as a dynamic which starts with a coach question and continues with questions that elicit responses that lead to insight, or discussions of behavioral change on the part of the coachee. The process is cyclical, not linear toward a pre-specified goal, and the questions are chosen carefully by a skilled coach, and they invite the coachee to evaluate and summarize in the process. The miracle question, as a process, may also assist in equalizing the power, real or perceived, between mentor/

46 • BOB GARVEY

coach and the mentee/coachee. Both these starting points provide an opportunity for a non-directive and mutually skillful conversation. REFERENCES Alred, G., & Garvey, B. (2019). The mentoring pocketbook (4th Ed.). Arlesford, Hants, UK: Management Pocket Book Series, Arlesford Press Ltd. Anderson, E. M., & Shannon, A. L. (1988). Towards a conceptualization of mentoring, Journal of Teacher Education, 39(38), 38–42. Berg, I. K., & Szabó, P. (2005). Brief coaching for lasting solutions. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. D’Abate, C. P., Eddy, E. R., & Tannebaum, S. I. (2003). What’s in a name? A literaturebased approach to understanding mentoring, coaching, and other constructs that describe development interactions. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 360–384. DeShazer, S., Berg, I. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnaly, E., Molnar, A., Gingerich, W., & WeinerDavis, M. (1986). Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process, 25(2), 207–221. Downey, M. (2003). Effective coaching: Lessons from the coach’s coach (2nd ed.) Mason, OH: Texere. Downey, M. (2014). Effective modern coaching: The principles and art of successful business coaching. London, UK: LID publishing Ltd. Gallwey, T. (1997). The inner game of tennis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Random House. Garvey, B. (1994). A dose of mentoring. Education and Training, 36(4), 18–26. Garvey, B., Stokes, P., & Megginson, D. (2018). Coaching and mentoring: Theory and practice (3rd ed.) London, UK: Sage. Habermas, J. (1990). Discourse ethics: Notes on a program of philosophical justification. In C. Lenhart & S. W. Nicholson (Eds.), Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. N. (2013). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hayes, P. (2008). NLP coaching. London, UK: Open University Press. Kimsey-House, H., Kimsey-House, K., Sandahl, P., & Whitworth, L. (2011). Coactive coaching: Changing business, transforming lives. London, UK: Nicholas Brealey. Krazmien, M., & Berger, F. (1997). “The coaching paradox.” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(1), 3–10. Megginson, D., & Clutterbuck, D. (2005). Techniques for coaching and mentoring. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Megginson, D., Clutterbuck, D., Garvey, B., Stokes, P., & Garrett-Harris, R. (2006). Mentoring in action (2nd ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page. Orenstein, R. L. (2002). Executive coaching: It’s not just about the executive. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38(3), 355–374. Rogers, J. (2012). Coaching skills: A handbook (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Salter, T. (2013). A comparison of mentor and coach approaches across disciplines. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.

Behind the Questions • 47 Starr, J. (2008). The coaching manual: The definitive guide to the process, principles, and skills of personal coaching. London, UK: Pearson. Vygotsky, V. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions, In J. Wertsch (Ed.) The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for performance: Growing human potential and purpose, (4th ed.), London, UK: Nicholas Brearley.

CHAPTER 6

BRINGING MENTORING ONSIDE Averting Judgementoring and Enhancing the Professional Learning, Development, and Well-Being of Teachers Andrew J. Hobson

The author of this chapter coined the term judgementoring (Hobson, 2016; Hobson & Malderez, 2013), which is a process in which a mentor has an evaluative role over the mentee and/or overly directive approach to mentoring that harms the mentor/ mentee relationship. In an effort to diminish unhealthy mentor/mentee relationships caused by judgementoring, the author devised the ONSIDE Mentoring framework, implemented it in schools, collected data, and analyzed the data, which demonstrated benefits for mentor, mentee, and students alike.

Keywords: Mentor, mentee, judgementoring, ONSIDE mentoring In this chapter, I outline and review the rationale for the development of the ONSIDE Mentoring framework (Hobson, 2016, 2017, 2020), which was conceived as a means of effectively supporting the professional learning, development, and The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 49–74. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

49

50  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON

well-being of early career teachers, before discussing the introduction of two sustainable ONSIDE Mentoring schemes in schools in central and southern England in 2018–2019. Before proceeding, it is important to define the key terms and concepts. I define mentoring in this context as a one-to-one relationship between a relatively inexperienced professional (the mentee) and a relatively experienced one (the mentor), which is designed primarily to support the mentee’s learning, development and well-being, and their negotiation of the cultures of both the organisation in which they are employed and the wider profession. Like most published literature on the subject, I focus on the practice of mentoring as a formal arrangement, in which individuals are specifically designated to undertake the mentoring role, often within the context of a wider scheme or programme. This is not to suggest that informal mentoring is not also a valuable means of supporting the learning, development, and well-being of teachers and other professionals—or other employees more widely (Tong & Kram, 2013; Tracey et al., 2008). ONSIDE Mentoring (Hobson, 2016, 2017) is: • Off-line (separated from line-management and supervision) and non-hierarchical. • Non-judgmental and non-evaluative. • Supportive of mentees’ psycho-social needs and well-being. • Individualized—tailored to the specific and changing needs (emotional and developmental) of the mentee. • Developmental and growth-oriented—seeking to promote mentees’ learnacy1 (Claxton, 2004) and provide them with appropriate degrees of challenge. • Empowering—progressively non-directive to support mentees to become more autonomous and agentic. And ONSIDE Mentors are “first and foremost on the side of—allies, champions, and advocates for—their mentees” (Hobson, 2016, p. 100). Why all of this is important should become clearer throughout the chapter. MENTORING EARLY CAREER TEACHERS: A HIT OR MISS AFFAIR The key drivers behind the introduction of the ONSIDE Mentoring framework were: firstly, and in general, the variable success with which mentoring had been deployed with early career teachers; and secondly and more specifically, the pathology of mentoring practice which Angi Malderez and I termed “judgementoring” (Hobson & Malderez, 2013). I briefly discuss each (related) driver, in turn. 1

Learnacy is the ability to manage our ongoing learning via critical reflection on our own and others’ experiences (e.g. of teaching).

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 51

Since the 1980s, many countries had witnessed significant growth in formal programmes of mentoring for early career teachers (ECTs), by which I mean those undertaking initial teacher preparation (ITP) programmes (variously termed initial teacher education (ITE), initial teacher training (ITT) and pre-service teacher training, amongst others) or in their first three years as members of the teaching profession, post-qualification. Research showed that such mentoring often brought about a range of positive outcomes, including helping ECTs improve their skills of classroom and behaviour management, self-reflection and problemsolving, increasing their confidence and self-esteem, and reducing feelings of isolation (Lindgren, 2005; McIntyre & Hagger, 1996). Not unrelated to this, ECTs who were mentored were found to be less likely to leave the profession than those who were not (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004). And while the primary intended beneficiaries of mentorship were ECTs, research showed that participation in mentoring also had various beneficial outcomes for mentors too, including enhanced communication skills, consolidation of their teacher identity, and an increased commitment to teaching or re-engagement with the profession (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009a). Researchers also showed, however, that the potential positive outcomes of mentoring listed above were not always realized and that, furthermore, some enactments of mentorship had detrimental effects on ECTs including stunting their professional learning and development (Feiman-Nemser, Parker, & Zeichner, 1993; Ling, 2009), bringing about anxiety and stress and contributing to their decisions to leave the profession (Beck & Kosnick, 2000; Maguire, 2001; Chambers, Hobson, & Tracey, 2010). Researchers have uncovered a range of factors which help to explain why mentorship has not always lived up to its potential, including insufficiently rigorous methods of mentor selection and mentor training (Abell, Dillon, Hopkins, McInerney, & O’Brien, 1995; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Sundli, 2007), and inadequate resource to provide mentors with the time needed to carry out the role effectively, amongst others (Hobson et al., 2009a). JUDGEMENTORING Informed by a re-analysis of data from two major mixed-method studies in England, Angi Malderez and I identified the enactment of mentoring that we termed “judgementoring” to be another major impediment to the consistently effective deployment of mentoring. We defined judgementoring as: a one-to-one relationship between a relatively inexperienced teacher (the mentee) and a relatively experienced one (the mentor) in which the latter, in revealing too readily or too often her/his own judgments on or evaluations of the mentee’s planning and teaching (e.g., through “comments,” “feedback,” advice, praise or criticism), compromises the mentoring relationship and its potential benefits. (Hobson & Malderez, 2013, p. 90)

52  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON

Judgementoring is an excessively directive, evaluative and judgmental form of mentoring, typified by a mentor’s (over-)reliance on a strategy of observing and “providing feedback” on mentees’ teaching and planning, with relatively little emphasis on developing mentees’ own critical analysis of their practice, and relatively little concern for their well-being. While its conception was informed by research in the English primary and secondary education sectors, subsequent evidence demonstrates that the practice of judgementoring is something of an international phenomenon (Hobson, 2017). One of the main contributory causes of judgementoring is assigning mentors the conflicting roles of undertaking summative assessment of as well as supporting the professional learning of mentees (Hobson, 2016; Hobson & Malderez, 2013). Another related contributory factor relates to the wider policy and cultural context within which mentoring in schools and colleges are situated. For example, with respect to the English Further Education (FE) sector,2 Duckworth and Maxwell (2015) conclude that: policy reforms […] have imposed a model of mentoring that emphasizes […] the assessment of teaching competence […] and has led to judgmental rather than developmental approaches to mentoring […] aligning with Hobson and Malderez’s (2013) conceptualization of “judgementoring” in the school’s sector. (p. 8)

Similarly, Lunsford (2016, personal communication) notes that “the pressures for testing in the US I feel have really made judgementoring part of the preservice teacher mentoring relationship.” One of the major consequences of judgementoring is that it inhibits the development of a safe, trusting relationship between mentee and mentor, which is crucial to the success of mentoring (Abell et al., 1995) and without which mentees are often reluctant to share and seek mentors’ support to tackle perceived limitations in their practice (Hobson, 2016; Hobson & McIntyre, 2013). Judgementoring also has a negative impact on the mentees’ well-being. In our original study, Malderez and I noted that some beginner teachers who encountered judgementors felt “disheartened,” “demoralized,” “isolated” or “lonely,” while in a similar vein, Lofthouse and Thomas (2014) refer to a student-teacher talking about “getting disheartened about things you’ve done” as a result of mentors “judging you” (p. 211). 2

The FE sector in England, also known as the Further Education and Skills, Post-Compulsory or Lifelong Learning sector, is large and diverse. It includes further education colleges, sixth form colleges, private and charitable training providers, adult and community learning providers, work-based learning providers, training departments of major employers, the armed services, the prison service, etc. (Lingfield, 2012).

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 53

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ONSIDE MENTORING FRAMEWORK Following my appointment to one of the four UK universities in which I have been employed to date, an ex-colleague kindly referred to “an excellent critique of mentoring in initial teacher training” that I had published (Hobson, 2002). Reflecting on this sometime later, and recognizing that I had produced a number of “critiques” of policy-makers’ and practitioners’ well-intentioned, respective efforts to introduce, support and enact mentoring schemes in schools and colleges, I decided that I did not wish to be one of those academics who merely critiqued others’ efforts. Instead, or in addition, I should take definitive action to seek to ensure that my research has a positive impact on policy and practice—specifically on the enactment of mentoring and, therefore, on teachers’ (and potentially others’) professional learning, development, and well-being. My efforts began in earnest through the development of a research-informed External Mentoring Pilot Project to support the professional learning of trainee and qualified teachers of secondary English in the north of England in 2012–13. My ambition that my research might be a catalyst for positive change was greatly enhanced through a conversation, a few years later, with Jenni French and Jenifer Burden of the UK’s Gatsby Charitable Foundation. Aware that much research had highlighted the mixed success with which teacher mentoring had been deployed, and that dissemination of such research didn’t appear to be making a great deal of difference (including to education policy-makers whose directives encouraged judgementoring), we decided to take a different tack. We thus conceived, and Gatsby funded a study which would seek to identify effective mentoring schemes in a range of different contexts, and the common ingredients of such schemes which seemed to contribute to their success, from which those responsible for teacher mentoring might learn. The outcome of the conversation was the Mentoring across Professions (MaP) project, a study of 10 exemplary mentoring schemes across a number of different employment sectors (including banking, business, human resources, the police service, and football refereeing, amongst others) across six countries (Hobson, Castanheira, Doyle, Csigas, & Clutterbuck, 2016). Once data generation for the MaP project was complete, I decided I would interrogate the data, alongside data on teacher mentoring from four other projects3, 3

The four projects were: 1) The Becoming a Teacher Project (2003–2009), which explored the nature and impact of teachers’ experiences of ITP, induction and early professional development in England (Hobson et al., 2009b); 2) The Modes of Mentoring and Coaching Project (2010–12), which investigated the nature and impact of “external” mentoring and coaching associated with three national support programmes for teachers of science in England (Hobson et al., 2012); 3) The Mentoring and Coaching for Teachers in the FE Sector in England (2014–15), which examined the nature and impact of institution-based mentoring and the potential for external mentoring (Hobson et al., 2015); and 4) The Evaluation of an External Mentoring Pilot Project to support the professional learning and development of trainee and qualified teachers of secondary English, developed and implemented at a university in the north of England, in partnership with local schools (2012–13, unpublished).

54  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON

to develop a mentoring framework that, if implemented, might reduce the occurrence and deleterious effects of judgementoring, and more consistently bring about positive impacts than mentoring schemes I had witnessed and critiqued to date. Further information about the original studies and datasets, and how the data were (re-)analyzed, can be found in Hobson (2016, 2017, 2020). ONSIDE MENTORING: KEY FEATURES AND RATIONALE The main outcome of the analyses referred to above was a new mentoring framework, which I termed ONSIDE to encapsulate key elements of mentoring schemes and mentoring relationships that were considered likely to avert judgementoring and optimize the professional learning, development, and well-being of mentees. In what follows, I provide a brief rationale for each of the key imperatives of ONSIDE.4 Mentoring Should Be Off-Line and Non-Hierarchical Evidence from Projects 1–4 shows that where teacher mentoring occurred within hierarchical and power relationships, it was often difficult for mentees and mentors to establish relational trust and problematic for mentees to openly share their perceived weaknesses or learning needs with mentors. In contrast, evidence from Projects 2 and 4 shows that off-line (and external) mentors tended to forge more productive and mutually beneficial relationships with mentees. Similarly, in the ten case studies of exemplary work-based mentoring schemes undertaken for the Mentoring across Professions research (Project 5), mentoring was exclusively off-line, with some mentors external to and others based in the same organisation and workplace as their mentees.5 Mentoring Should be Non-judgmental and Non-Evaluative Evidence from Projects 1–4 revealed that judgmental and evaluative mentoring impedes the development of safe and trusting relationships. Mentees who are aware that their “performance” is to be formally and summatively evaluated by mentors were less likely to seek the support of such mentors and more likely to conceal their perceived limitations and development needs. In contrast, where teachers experienced non-evaluative and non-judgmental mentoring, notably in the form of support from external (non-school-based) mentors (Projects 2 and 4), their professional learning, development, and well-being were enhanced through the creation of a safe or “third” space within which they were more able to openly 4 5

Again, fuller accounts can be found in Hobson (2016), Hobson (2017) and Hobson (2020). My analyses did not establish that external mentors were necessarily more effective than internal or institution-based mentors: there are relative pros and cons of each, and these will have greater or lesser prominence or significance in different contexts and at different times. The most important considerations are whether or not mentors are off-line and non-judgemental.

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 55

discuss their developmental needs (Hobson & McIntyre, 2013; McIntyre & Hobson, 2016). Again, in the ten exemplary work-based mentoring schemes showcased in Project 5, mentors had no involvement in the formal or summative assessment of their mentees’ performance. Mentoring Should Be Supportive Of Mentees’ Psycho-Social Needs and Well-Being Several studies (including Projects 1–4) show that when mentoring focuses predominantly on seeking to develop (and evaluate) mentees’ capability or “performance,” with relatively little consideration for their emotional or psychological needs or well-being, mentees can become isolated, disheartened or demoralized (Hobson & Malderez, 2013; Lofthouse & Thomas, 2014). On the other hand, data from Projects 2, 4 and 5 corroborate previous research findings that, when effectively enacted, with attention to “psycho-social” (Kram, 1985) as well as instruction-related support, mentoring has a positive impact on the well-being of mentees (Branand & Nakamura, 2016; Hascher, Cocard, & Moser, 2004; Rippon & Martin, 2006). Enhancing teachers’ occupational well-being is important because higher levels of well-being are associated with increased effectiveness (Day, 2008), teacher retention (Day & Kington, 2008), and the well-being of the students they teach (Kidger, Gunnell, Biddle, Campbell, & Donovan, 2009; McCallum & Price, 2010). Perhaps more importantly, occupational well-being is an important component of an individual’s overall well-being (Prilleltensky, 2013), which is surely a valuable objective in its own right (Diener, 2000). Mentoring Should Be Individualized—Tailored to Mentees’ Specific and Changing Needs Different mentees possess different learning styles, different mentoring mindsets (Searby, 2014), and some are more willing and able than others to experience different kinds of mentor challenges (Martin, 1996). For example, some ECTs value and are keen to take advantage of opportunities for their mentors to observe their lessons and engage in post-lesson discussions about the experience, while for others, the prospect of having mentors observe their lessons makes them very anxious. Given this, and that any given mentoring strategy will be more or less relevant to and produce different (positive or negative) responses in different mentees, mentoring must be individualized, personalized and adapted to the specific support needs and current stages of development individual mentees, as opposed to “one-size-fits-all” (Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992; Lindgren, 2005; Valencic Zuljan, & Vogrinc, 2007). Mentoring Should be Developmental and Growth-Oriented Data generated for Projects 1–4 suggests that the mentoring of teachers in schools and colleges in England frequently takes the form of a deficit model in

56  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON

which it is deployed as a remedial strategy to “correct” perceived deficiencies in professional practice. Deficit models of mentoring do not only encourage mentees to associate mentoring with evaluations of and judgments on their practice, but can also encourage the stigmatization of being mentored, and further discourage them from openly discussing their perceived learning and development needs with mentors. In contrast, where mentoring is focused instead on supporting mentees’ professional growth and development, as has been argued elsewhere (Boyatzis, Smith, & Beveridge, 2013), mentees tend to be more fully engaged in mentoring and open with their mentors. Mentoring Should be Empowering and Progressively Non-Directive Previous research has found that effective mentors provide mentees with an appropriate degree of autonomy and agency (Rajuan, Douwe, & Verloop, 2007; Valencic Zuljan, & Vogrinc, 2007), which have been found to enhance well-being (Cenkseven-Onder & Sari, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Consistent with this, where mentors are too directive and provide ready-made “solutions” rather than supporting mentees to find their own, this can encourage an overreliance or dependency on the mentor, and lead to a form of “learned helplessness” (Maier & Seligman, 1976), which impedes the development of the important skills of reflective practice (Schön, 1983) and learnacy (Claxton, 2004). Conversely, studies have found that some mentees (not least ECTs) find engaging in reflective practice challenging and prefer to be given direct advice and concrete strategies for developing their professional practice (Hobson, 2002; Tickle, 1993). Experience of non-directive forms of mentoring can thus be frustrating and potentially stressful for some mentees, perhaps especially those new to teaching or alternative careers. To simultaneously support mentees’ professional development and well-being, it can, therefore, be beneficial for mentors to adopt a relatively directive approach to mentoring some mentees initially. ONSIDE mentoring is thus progressively non-directive, progressively autonomy-promoting, and progressively challenging, seeking to promote individual mentees’ development and learnacy to the extent that this does not provoke anxiety and stress, which would be detrimental to the relationship and its potential for bringing about learning and development in the longer term. Mentors Must Be on Mentees’ Side It has been shown that, in recent times, teachers and other public sector employees have been subject to high levels of scrutiny and accountability, and that this “performativity” environment (Ball, 2003) has had a detrimental impact on workplace cultures, provoking anxiety, fear, mistrust and increased competition amongst and between colleagues at the expense of positive interpersonal relationships, trust and collegiality (Blackmore, 2004; Jeffrey, 2002; Keddie, Mills, & Pendergast, 2011; Lumby, 2009). In such a context, and for the sake of their well-

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 57

being, it is vitally important that someone takes the side of the teachers/employees and acts as their ally, advocate, and champion—someone in whom mentees can place their trust. This is especially the case for ECTs, who have reported feeling “voiceless,” “powerless” and “at the bottom of the pecking order” (Hobson, 2009, p. 312) in their schools and colleges, and are considered to be “vulnerable learners” (Shanks, 2014) with vulnerable identities (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002). THEORETICAL SUPPORT FOR ONSIDE MENTORING As elaborated elsewhere (Hobson, 2020), while primarily informed by the findings of my own and others’ empirical research, different elements of the ONSIDE Mentoring framework are consistent with a variety of other models of or approaches to mentoring, including developmental (Clutterbuck, 2004) and critical constructivist (Wang & Odell, 2007) approaches to mentoring, growth and compassion-based approaches to mentoring and coaching (Boyatzis et al., 2013; Jack, Boyatzis, Khawaja, Passarelli, & Leckie, 2013), and the Adaptive Mentorship© model in particular, as well as influential theories and models of well-being and professional learning, including self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and reflective practice (Schön, 1983). The ONSIDE Mentoring framework, and its notion of progressively non-directive mentoring in particular, is also consistent with and extends the concept of scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976), the sociocultural learning metaphor for the contingent (temporary and adjustable) support for an individual’s learning and development provided by someone more experienced or adept at what they are seeking to learn or develop. In ONSIDE Mentoring, the erection or temporary reinstatement of scaffolding relates not only to the mentees’ skill level and to task difficulty (Brown & Palincsar, 1986), but also their emotional and psychological preparedness for and response to specific experiences as teachers and as mentees. ARCHITECTURAL SUPPORT FOR ONSIDE MENTORING As with all mentoring programmes, the relative success with which an ONSIDE Mentoring scheme can be introduced will be influenced by the extent to which a supportive organisational framework or mentoring architecture (Cunningham, 2007; Hobson & Maxwell, 2020) is in place or can be established. Amongst other things, it will be vital for ONSIDE mentors to be appropriately trained for the role, which would necessarily include a focus on—and practice in—the enactment of non-judgmental and non-evaluative mentoring. That said, the extent to which a supportive architecture or sub- and superstructure can be established will vary from one context to another, relating to wider educational, social, economic, cultural, political and ideological considerations, just as specific elements of the ONSIDE Mentoring framework will need to be implemented in different ways in different contexts. It can be a particular (though not necessarily insurmountable) challenge, for example, to establish relatively

58  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON

democratic, participatory, and non-directive mentoring relationships in relatively hierarchical and authoritarian cultures (Stephens et al., 2017). It is important to note that ONSIDE mentors can be internal or external to the organisation in which the mentee is employed. The relative merits, as well as feasibility of institution-based versus external mentors, will again vary according to the culture of particular organisations and the wider contexts within which they are situated, and over time. For example, given the prevailing context of accountability and surveillance in England’s public sector at the current time, researchers suggest that external mentors are more able than institution-based mentors to provide a safe space within which early career and more experienced teachers can openly share their hopes, fears, and perceived limitations without fear of reprisal (Cameron & Grant, 2017; Daly & Milton, 2017; Hobson & McIntyre, 2013; McIntyre & Hobson, 2016). Nonetheless, if the imperatives of ONSIDE Mentoring are applied, and a supportive architecture for ONSIDE Mentoring can be established, mentees will be more able than they are at present to seek and take advantage of the support of institution-based mentors INTRODUCING SUSTAINABLE ONSIDE MENTORING SCHEMES IN AND ACROSS SCHOOLS Whilst the intention to develop a practically useful mentoring framework was initially motivated by a desire to curtail judgementoring and address the variable quality of mentoring for ECTs, the ONSIDE framework was informed by and is consistent with a broader body of research (including the Mentoring across Professions study) and theory. As such, it was considered to be potentially more widely applicable: that is, not restricted to ECTs or teachers in general. Indeed, at the time of writing in late 2019, the University of Brighton has introduced or supported other organisations to introduce six ONSIDE Mentoring schemes, and only one of these is restricted to ECTs, namely the “Further Forces Mentoring” scheme to support ex-armed services personnel who are training to become teachers in the FE sector in England. The others relate to teachers or school staff more generally, or headteachers in particular. For the remainder of this chapter, I focus on the research conducted on the implementation of two ONSIDE Mentoring schemes for which the initial (university-supported) phase is now complete, having taken place throughout the 2018–19 academic year. The research was conducted per the ethical guidelines of the British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2018) and the University of Brighton (from which ethics approval for the research was secured). This includes a commitment to: • Gaining the fully informed consent of participants to take part in the research. • The secure storage of data to comply with Data Protection legislation. • Respecting participants’ right to privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity.

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 59

I now provide a brief outline of the two schemes and the common “Research and Development” (R&D) implementation model employed for each of these, before discussing the research in more detail. In keeping with the ethical protocol sketched above, the given names of the organisations are pseudonyms. Mill Independent School Staff Mentoring Scheme This coeducational independent school for 13–19-year-olds, in the south of England, sought to introduce an excellent and sustainable staff mentoring scheme which would: help foster the development of a collaborative, collegial learning culture within the school; enhance participants’ professional learning and development, well-being, motivation, and retention; empower mentees to be more autonomous and to take appropriate risks in their teaching and other work, and enhance professional effectiveness and pupil learning. Twenty-six members of teaching staff (including early and mid-career teachers, middle and senior leaders) initially participated in the mentoring scheme, comprising: one who acted both as Mentoring Coordinator and mentor to two colleagues; one who participated as both a mentor and a mentee; 11 who participated as mentors only (each to one colleague/mentee); 13 who participated as mentees only. There were thus 14 mentoring relationships at the outset, though this was reduced to 13 after one participating mentee and one participating mentor left the school during the academic year, with the mentee whose mentor left the school being re-paired with the mentor whose mentee left the school. Rousseau Academy Federation Staff Mentoring Scheme This project involved the University of Brighton supporting the introduction of a sustainable ONSIDE Mentoring scheme for both teachers and support staff across a multi-academy trust (MAT) in central England. At the start of the programme, there were 24 participants, including the Mentoring Coordinator and 12 mentoring pairs comprising: one colleague who was both a mentor and mentee; 11 colleagues who were mentors only; 11 colleagues who were mentees only. Ten mentoring pairs completed the programme after one mentee left the school (and the MAT) mid-year, and another mentee left the programme due to the mentor leaving the school (and MAT) and a suitable alternative mentor not being available. Most mentees and mentors were based in (three different) primary schools/ academies, with a minority of participants from a single secondary school/academy. All mentoring pairs were cross-school within the MAT. Participants held a variety of different roles, including early-career teacher, mid-career teacher, middle leader, and teaching/learning support assistant.6 6

All mentees were members of teaching staff with the exception of two Teaching/Learning Support Assistants. All mentors were members of teaching staff.

60  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON

The Research and Development Implementation Model A similar R&D implementation model was employed in both (Mill and Rousseau) cases, in seeking to introduce sustainable, research-informed ONSIDE Mentoring schemes. The model involved: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Introducing a Mentoring Coordinator and an initial cohort of mentors to the ONSIDE Mentoring framework and its key features and potential benefits. Training the mentors in employing the principles and practices of ONSIDE Mentoring. Advising the Mentoring Coordinator on the establishment of mentoring pairs and a supportive mentoring architecture. Training the mentees to make the most of ONSIDE mentoring. Undertaking an interim review/formative evaluation of the introduction of the mentoring scheme to inform additional, mid-term development work with both mentors and mentees. Undertaking a summative evaluation to identify the impact of the scheme and inform the potential roll-out and further development of the scheme.

In relation to the third element above, it was recommended, for example: that all mentors and mentees should participate in the mentoring scheme voluntarily; that mentor-mentee pairing took into account mentees’ needs and mentors’ relevant knowledge and experience; and that the Mentoring Coordinator sought to establish that potential mentee-mentor pairs would be able to find time to meet regularly, ideally during the school day. A key feature of the model is that, following the introductory training and development session for mentors (2 above), mentors were subsequently paired (with other mentors) to practice their skills (the enactment of ONSIDE Mentoring), taking turns in the mentor and mentee roles. They then critically reflected on this experience and undertook further practice in a second training and development workshop, before being assigned to their new mentees to undertake ONSIDE Mentoring proper. The training and development sessions were provided by an experienced mentor and coach trainer and informed by the latest research on judgementoring, ONSIDE Mentoring, and mentoring more widely and by the interim evaluation of the ONSIDE Mentoring scheme in question, which was carried out and provided by the current author. The University of Brighton charged the organisations for staff time to support the introduction of the scheme during the first year, after which they were free to use training and development materials to support the continuation of the scheme without additional external support or cost. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS For the interim review or formative evaluation, each project involved:

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 61

• A mentee baseline survey, which explored mentees’ learning and development needs, prior experiences of mentoring and expectations of participating in the ONSIDE Mentoring scheme—completed by 14 mentees in the Mill scheme, and nine mentees in the Rousseau scheme. • An informal, part-structured (Hobson & Townsend, 2010) one-to-one interview with each Mentoring Coordinator; and • Focus groups with both mentees (5 Mill scheme, 4 Rousseau) and mentors (5 Mill, 5 Rousseau). The interviews and focus groups were recorded, subsequently transcribed and analyzed to inform both the formative and summative evaluations. To supplement the above data for the summative evaluation, additional data were generated via: • Direct observation of mentoring meetings held by one or more mentoring pairs—three for the Mill scheme, one for the Rousseau scheme7; • An end of project survey, which explored participants’ experiences of ONSIDE Mentoring and perceptions of its impact and potential further development—completed by 24 Mill participants (1 mentor/mentee, 12 other mentees, 11 other mentors), and 13 Rousseau participants (1 mentor/mentee, seven other mentees, five other mentors).8 While the interim research findings were designed to inform the subsequent training and development workshops, in the interests of methodological rigor the “research” component of the R&D projects was carried out by different personnel than for the “development” component, so the mentor trainer was not involved in data generation and analysis, and vice versa. I now present the main findings of a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) relating to the impact of the introduction of the two ONSIDE Mentoring schemes in their first year, and the factors facilitating positive impact. RESEARCH FINDINGS The introduction of teacher/staff ONSIDE Mentoring schemes at Mill Independent School and Rousseau Academy Federation was found to have several positive impacts on both mentees and mentors, with associated benefits for their schools. Impacts of Participation on Mentees Consistent with the “Individualized” imperative of the ONSIDE Mentoring framework, mentees across the two schemes sought support for a diverse range of issues relating to their specific learning and development needs. These included: In three of the four cases, the meeting was video-recorded with participants’ consent; in the fourth case the current author undertook field notes as a non-participant observer. 8 Across the two projects, approximately two-thirds of research participants were female, reflecting participation in the programmes (as mentees and mentors) more widely. 7

62  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON

socialization and induction into the school; general pedagogical support (e.g., help with lesson planning); subject pedagogy and content knowledge; support with pastoral issues; student behaviour management; working with students from disadvantaged backgrounds; dealing with difficult relationships with colleagues; departmental management; developing leadership skills; time and workload management; and career advancement and progression. Evidence suggests that most, if not all, mentees enhanced their professional learning or perceived effectiveness in several ways, relating to their identified learning and development needs. The following excerpts provide some evidence of positive impacts on mentees’ teaching or leadership skills: I feel it has been overall a very good experience. There are definitely things that I feel have improved in my teaching abilities. I have been able to ask questions to my mentor that otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to ask, as sometimes as a department we are very busy. I have been offered guidance on how to approach a subject that I might have struggled to deal with on my own. (Mill Mentee, End of project survey) [The mentoring] is making me a lot more proactive and trying to work school-wide rather than just within my own department… So, it’s really been quite an eye-opener and allowed me, like my scope and my vision, to think more specifically, but at the same time like school-wide rather than me in the school. So yeah, I’ve really benefitted from it… (Rousseau Mentee, Focus Group) If staff weren’t handing paperwork in to start with [mentee] was letting it go because [s/he] didn’t feel in a position to sort of chase that paperwork, whereas now [s/he]’s come up with ways that [s/he] can ensure that paperwork’s back in and [s/he] has chased it now… So [mentee] is taking much more of a leadership role… Now [s/ he]’s doing stuff and then [s/he]’s going straight to the head of department and saying “Can I discuss this at the meeting?” and then [s/he]’s leading it in the meetings for all of the department, whereas [s/he] wasn’t doing that at the start. (Rousseau Mentor, Focus Group)

My analyses indicate that mentees’ well-being was also enhanced in many ways, sometimes related to increased confidence and perceptions of increased competence (self-efficacy): [I]t’s been nice to have that support and … just from a staff well-being point of view I think it’s kind of good to have someone there that you can just kind of vent to for a little bit and, you know, I think that’s been quite helpful for me personally. (Mill Mentee, Focus group) [The mentoring] has allowed me to understand my new working environment a lot quicker. It has also made me feel valued, cared for, and safe. (Mill Mentee, End of project survey)

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 63 I think sometimes it’s just having that person with experience [saying] “I actually agree on your view or your opinion.” It is quite reassuring that … actually, what you feel is reasonable, you know… It’s quite encouraging, yeah. (Mill Mentee, Focus group) That’s why I wanted to do this to develop my confidence. So, it’s already increased because I’ve come up with some ideas and done the tasks, observed some teaching, gained confidence that way, [and] tried new things, [and] gained confidence that way…. (Rousseau Mentee, Focus Group)

Impacts of Participation on Mentors The analyses reveal that participation in the Mill and Rousseau ONSIDE Mentoring schemes enhanced the professional learning, development, and well-being not only of mentees but also of mentors. Perceived benefits for mentors’ professional learning included enhanced critical reflection on their own practice, enhanced listening skills, improved knowledge and understanding of their organisations, and increased confidence in their mentoring or leadership skills: The time spent mentoring has enabled me to have an hour a week with my mentees for quiet reflection and discussion that allowed for any problems concerning the mentee to be discussed and solutions found. I have always looked forward to these meetings as it has enabled me to reflect upon my own practices and improve my listening skills. (Mill Mentoring Coordinator and Mentor, End of project survey) It has taught me to be an active listener and reflect more on what people have said. (Rousseau Mentor, End of Project Survey) It [the experience of ONSIDE Mentoring] has made me more patient, circumspect, and trusting. (Mill Mentor, End of project survey) I have, through the programme, developed a number of skills that I know will make me a better mentor/support to others in the future. It has also helped me to gain perspective on a number of issues in the workplace because I have looked at them through someone else’s eyes. (Mill Mentor, End of project survey)

Several mentors from both the Mill and Rousseau schemes also noted ways in which their participation had enhanced their well-being: Teaching can be quite an isolated profession, can’t it because you can spend five hours in a classroom, and actually, if you added up the amount of minutes that you had with adult conversation throughout a day, it might not amount to very much. So, the opportunity to share with a fellow colleague professional is, of course, really beneficial… And then when [Mentee] comes back and says “Well, I tried that and that worked really, really well,” then that’s made me a little bit more valued as a professional that I don’t necessarily get on a day to day, weekly, monthly, yearly basis. (Rousseau Mentor, Focus Group)

64  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON As a mentor, as well, to actually get emails back from my mentee or in the meetings [for mentee] to say, “Yeah, I’ve tried that, and that’s working well”… for me, it boosts my confidence. (Rousseau Mentor, Focus Group) It has helped me to understand better the challenges faced by colleagues and be mindful of these challenges when working collaboratively within my team. I have also felt appreciated by my mentee, and this has given me further job satisfaction. (Rousseau Mentor, End of Project Survey) Being able to mentor a colleague and see [her/him] grow in her/his ability to manage has been a very fulfilling role and has added to my sense of purpose in my role. (Mill Mentor, End of project survey)

Wider Impacts on Schools The evidence suggests too that both the Mill and Rousseau ONSIDE Mentoring schemes were having or likely to have a wider impact beyond the participants in the programme, in some cases as a result of participants deploying ONSIDE principles in the classroom: I have also applied some of the ONSIDE Mentoring techniques in my teaching… when developing higher-level thinking with more able students, getting them to think about the solution rather than just giving it to them. (Rousseau Mentor, End of Project Survey) I think I’ve applied [ONSIDE Mentoring principles] in the classroom as well for my examination group… Although you try not to, I think in the past I’ve just like given them the answer, whereas now I try and think back to this and think “Oh, hang on a minute, I’m just dictating it. I need to get them to think about it… They found it quite difficult to start with like, I think, the mentees did, but… I structured it a little bit more, and now they’ve got used to it, and they’re not automatically running for me—“…I’m stuck!” They’re actually sort of talking about it and trying to work it out in different ways and their thinking’s much … deeper than what it was. It’s not that superficial thinking… So, it has worked well with them, especially the more able students… (Rousseau Mentor, Focus Group)

There is also evidence of some participants profitably extending ONSIDE strategies to other mentoring relationships and departmental leadership and management: I’m mentoring a PE trainee from [University] at the minute, and my approach with [her/him] has been completely different to how I’ve been with mentees in the past. So, the initial reflections at the end of lessons, when I’ve observed [her/him], in mentor meetings, the dialogue has been completely different as it would have been in the past. And [s/he]’s taken a lot more responsibility for [her/his] target setting, [her/his] foci for future development… That relationship’s working really well and actually we get on really well as a result of it. I feel that in the past, we’ve been,

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 65 “Right, I want you to work on that because that’s not very strong at the minute.” I felt that that’s had a bit of a strain on the relationship because they’ve thought, “Oh, they’re just judging me all the time.” (Rousseau Mentor, Focus Group) I think for me [being an ONSIDE Mentor] has helped me to hold back, so having to make me think I’ve got to find a different way to get them to the answer rather than me just giving them the answer… So obviously as a head of department I’m also in charge of other people, and I’m trying to guide them now to the right way of doing things… rather than just going, “Oi, do it!” So, it’s kind of a bit more subtle. I think it’s allowed me to be [a bit more subtle]. (Rousseau Mentor, Focus Group)

It was noted earlier that part of the rationale for introducing the Mill ONSIDE Mentoring scheme was to help foster the development of a more collaborative, collegial learning culture within the school, and both mentors and mentees felt that the scheme had a positive impact in this regard: …the process of sharing builds a sense of belonging for a new staff member and strengthens a sense of the collegiate community for longer standing colleague relationships. (Mill Mentor, End of project survey) I really like the idea that we are building a trusting and more open culture in the school through this ONSIDE mentoring programme. (Mill Mentor, End of project survey)

Factors Facilitating Positive Impacts of ONSIDE Mentoring Mentees, mentors, and Mentoring Coordinators were also asked what factors they felt had contributed to any positive impacts the ONSIDE Mentoring scheme had and what might have prevented it from having a greater impact. Several of the factors identified were not specific to ONSIDE Mentoring and corroborated earlier research findings relating to common ingredients of effective mentoring programmes in general. These included: • Establishing a good mentor-mentee match (Kutsyuruba, 2012; Lejonberg, Elstad, & Christophersen, 2015; Wang, 2001). • Mentees and mentors participating on a voluntary basis (Hobson et al., 2016). • Effective mentor training and development (Bullough, 2005; Crasborn, Hennisson, Brouwer, Korthagen, & Bergen, 2008; Lejonberg et al., 2015). • Providing dedicated meeting time and space free of distractions and potential disturbances (Bullough, 2005; Harrison, Dymoke, & Pell, 2006; Hobson, Maxwell, Stevens, Doyle, & Malderez, 2015; Lee & Feng, 2007). • Effective coordination of the scheme by an organisational mentoring lead (Malderez & Bodoczky, 1999; Kochan, Searby, George, & Edge, 2015); and

66  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON

• Effective support for and resourcing of the mentoring scheme by the organization’s leadership team (Cunningham, 2007). Mentoring relationships were also found to be more effective where mentees agreed with mentors the planned foci in advance of the meetings, and where mentees (or mentors) subsequently summarized and shared the agreed outcomes to inform subsequent meetings. Consistent with the above findings, two factors identified as impediments to the positive impact of a small number of ONSIDE mentoring relationships were difficulties finding sufficient time to meet and the suggestion that one or more mentees had not chosen to participate on an entirely voluntary basis: The person I was paired with, they really struggled to find any time. Because of all the different roles they have in the school, they struggled to find any time, and I’m emailing them going, “Come on, we need to meet…” and I’m not getting much back because they were so busy… I mean, we ended up meeting like half seven before school because it was the only time that we had… (Rousseau Mentor, Focus Group) My mentee was chosen for the project; she did not decide herself; therefore, she didn’t want to engage. (Rousseau Mentor, End of Project Survey)

Other factors that were identified as facilitating positive impacts of the ONSIDE Mentoring schemes were more specific to the ONSIDE Framework, notably its off-line, non-judgmental, and relatively non-directive nature, and its concern for the mentee’s well-being. Together with the importance of confidentiality in the mentoring relationship, to which mentees and mentors committed in a mentoring agreement, these considerations contributed to the establishment of relational trust, which has been found to be pivotal to the success of mentoring relationships (D’Souza, 2014; Ng, 2012), and thus facilitated a “safe space” within which mentees could openly share insecurities, concerns, and their perceived learning and development needs: It is absolutely about well-being, and it’s about people having the safe space psychologically and emotionally to say what they think, and they know they’re not going to be judged for it. (Mill Mentor, Focus group) Knowing I can speak to that member of staff in confidentiality with no judgment as to what I say or do [is key]. (Rousseau Mentee, End of Project Survey) I feel like I can say anything to [mentor]. I could, and I know that [s/he] wouldn’t ever say anything to any other member of staff about it. (Rousseau Mentee, Focus Group) There are topics that I felt I would never raise with the department or line manager or senior management, but actually, that [ONSIDE Mentoring meeting] was just a perfect venue because it’s confidential… (Mill Mentee, Focus group)

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 67 Again, it comes back to trust and feeling you [as a mentee] could say “I’m not coping” or “I’m struggling.” (Mill Mentor) Yeah, how else could you do that? Where else could you say that? (Mill Mentor, Focus Group)

The conclusion reached by the focus group participants in response to the question posed in the excerpt above was that there must be many staff in schools who need help with various issues but who, in the absence of an ONSIDE or alternative non-judgmental mentor, do not feel able to share this with anyone and are thus carrying the burden alone. Some participants contrasted their experiences of ONSIDE Mentoring with those of previous mentoring schemes they had been involved in, particularly mentoring on initial teacher education and training programmes. They indicated that their experience of ONSIDE Mentoring was more positive, empowering and motivating than other kinds of mentoring relationship experienced and that the relatively collaborative and non-directive nature of ONSIDE Mentoring, in particular, encouraged greater ownership of actions and commitment to achieving them: When I trained to be a … teacher, my particular mentor, was very rigid, and any ideas that I had outside the classroom were shut down. I had to teach [her/his] way… But … this mentoring programme is like a partnership. I put my name forward for this mentoring programme with a focus of what I wanted to do and [Mentoring Coordinator] then went and found somebody that was in my field where I wanted to go, and I think that’s why it works well because this is the direction in which I want to take my professional development and I can then take some advice from [mentor], I can take some advice for myself actually and sort of keep my ideas focused. (Rousseau Mentee, Focus Group) So when I trained [to be a teacher] I had four different mentors through four different placements, and some were really effective relationships, others I’d come away from meetings or lesson observations with “Right, you’ve got that, that, that to work on for that lesson next week and you’ve got that…” and it was just a minefield of loads of targets … So, I was less maybe motivated to prioritize other targets maybe. Whereas coming out of these ONSIDE meetings with [Mentor] I’ve felt that I’ve gone away and I’ve thought about it and I’ve got a plan of action and I’m happy in myself in delivering what I want to do and going and achieving those objectives, coming out of those meetings because I’ve decided them through the discussion… and it’s that commitment to doing what you’ve spoken about [in the mentoring meeting], whereas in the past it’s been less so. (Rousseau Mentee, Focus Group)

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has provided an overview of the nature, development, and rationale for the ONSIDE Mentoring Framework (Hobson, 2016), and of a Research and Development model for introducing sustainable ONSIDE Mentoring programmes in schools and other organisations. It has also provided an original account of the introduction of ONSIDE Mentoring schemes in two different contexts, and

68  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON

research findings relating to these schemes. The main conclusions of this work are that, while originally developed to counter the rise of “judgementoring” in relation to early career teachers, the ONSIDE Mentoring Framework has been empirically found to have wider applicability. At a minimum, its effective implementation can benefit the professional learning, development, and well-being of more experienced teachers and middle leaders, as well as ECTs, in both primary and secondary (K–12) schools/academies, and of both mentees and mentors. (Ongoing research is exploring the impact of two ONSIDE Mentoring schemes for headteachers/principals, employing the same R&D implementation model.) My analyses suggest that, in contrast with what might be termed “offside” mentoring schemes (those based on deficit models of mentoring which incorporate remedial mentoring and encourage judgementoring), no disadvantages of engaging in ONSIDE Mentoring were reported or apparent, and participants were more commonly able to establish trusting relationships in which they were not concerned about potential repercussions of acknowledging that they needed help or would benefit from support. The data show that such effective ONSIDE Mentoring relationships can be established both within a single school and across schools. Some Rousseau participants indicated that one of the reasons they felt able to share confidences with their mentors was because those mentors were outside of their immediate work environment and social network in a different school. On the other hand, some Rousseau participants felt that the cross-school nature of the relationships made it harder to find time to meet, and most Mill participants indicated that having committed to signing up to and being trained in enacting and making the most of ONSIDE Mentoring, they also felt able to engage in confidential, open, trusting mentoring relationships. My analyses also suggest that the specific R&D implementation model adopted, and outlined earlier in the chapter, is effective in introducing sustainable ONSIDE Mentoring schemes. Following the first year in which they commissioned the University of Brighton team to support the introduction of the scheme, both Mill Independent School and Rousseau Academy Federation have rolled out the scheme to the second cohort of participants, with the mentoring coordinator or first-year mentors providing training and development for new mentors and mentees. It would be interesting to explore the ongoing nature and impact of the two schemes, and whether any additional external support is required or considered beneficial at any stage. Finally, I acknowledge that, despite the separation of the “R” and “D” aspects of the projects discussed in this chapter, as the founder of the ONSIDE Mentoring scheme, I may have—or may be seen to have—a vested interest in demonstrating its successful deployment. While I have attempted to remain dispassionate throughout and to seek out potential drawbacks and impediments so that the mentoring framework or implementation model might be improved to maximize impact, I would nonetheless very much welcome independent research into the deployment of ONSIDE Mentoring.

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 69

Personal Note in Honor of Dr. Fran Kochan As a mentor to many, Dr. Fran Kochan has practiced the art of mentoring and modeled that art in all her associations with others. That is certainly my experience of working with Fran. I first got to know her when I took over the Editorship of the International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in 2011. Fran was a member of the Editorial Advisory Board, and I witnessed first-hand her kind support and generosity. Since that time, she has not only supported the development of the journal and other scholars through the submission of her own and co-authored work; she has also provided detailed and highly supportive and developmental reviews of a large number of manuscripts submitted for possible publication in the journal, for which she was recognized with the Emerald Literati Outstanding Reviewer Award in 2016. Through such endeavors, Fran enhanced the quality of my own and many authors’ work, together with our professional learning and development, considerations which, alongside employee retention, receive most attention concerning the aims and positive impacts of mentoring and mentoring programmes. Perhaps equally importantly, Fran’s endeavors and generous support also enhanced our well-being, a potential benefit of mentoring which until recently has received relatively little attention (Kutsyuruba & Godden, 2019), and which was a particular focus of this chapter. It is my hope that all participants in mentoring relationships would have as positive an experience as those who have been mentored by Fran. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to Kathy Clements, Kinga Káplár-Kodácsy and Joanna Havers for the part they played in the two ONSIDE Mentoring schemes featured in this chapter; all participants who gave up valuable time to participate in the research informing the chapter; Linda Searby for her invaluable comments on my initial draft chapter; and Fran Kochan for her kindness and inadvertent modeling of informal ONSIDE Mentoring. REFERENCES Abell, S. K., Dillon, D. R., Hopkins, C. J., McInerney, W. D., & O’Brien, D. G. (1995). “Somebody to count on”: Mentor/intern relationships in a beginning teacher internship program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(2), 173–188. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. Beck, C., & Kosnick, C. (2000). Associate teachers in pre-service education: Clarifying and enhancing their role. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(3), 207–224. Blackmore, J. (2004). Leading as emotional management work in high-risk times: The counterintuitive impulses of performativity and passion. School Leadership & Management, I, 439–459.

70  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Beveridge, A. J. (2013). Coaching with compassion: Inspiring health, well-being, and development in organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(2), 153–178. Branand, B., & Nakamura, J. (2016). The well-being of teachers and professors. In L. G. Oades, M. F. Steger, A. Delle Fave, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of positivity and strengths-based approaches at work (pp. 466–490). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. British Educational Research Association [BERA]. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research (4th ed.).London, UK: Retrieved from: https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018 Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1986). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. Technical Report No. 372. Retrieved from: http://eric. ed.gov/PDFS/ED270738.pdf (accessed 19 December 2019). Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2005). Being and becoming a mentor: School-based teacher educators and teacher educator identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 143–155. Cameron, D., & Grant, A. (2017). The role of mentoring in early-career physics teachers’ professional identity construction. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(2), 128–142. Cenkseven-Onder, F., & Sari, M. (2009). The quality of school life and burnout as predictors of subjective well-being among teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 9(3), 1223–1235. Chambers, G. N., Hobson, A. J., & Tracey, L. (2010). Teaching could be a fantastic job, but… Three stories of student-teacher withdrawal from initial teacher preparation programmes in England. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 111– 129. Claxton, G. (2004). Learning is learnable (and we ought to teach it). In J. Cassell (Ed.), Ten years on (pp. 237–250). Bristol, UK: The National Commission for Education Report. Clutterbuck, D. C. (2004). Everyone needs a mentor: Fostering talent in your organisation. London, UK: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Crasborn, F., Hennisson, P., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Promoting versatility in mentor teachers’ use of supervisory skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 499–514. Cunningham, B. (2007). All the right features: Towards an “architecture” for mentoring trainee teachers in UK further education colleges. Journal of Education for Teaching, 33(1), 83–97. Daly, C., & Milton, E. (2017). External mentoring for new teachers: mentor learning for a change agenda. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(3), 178–195. Day, C. (2008). Committed for life? Variations in teachers’ work, lives, and effectiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 9(3), 243–260. Day, C., & Kington, A. (2008). Identity, well-being, and effectiveness: The emotional contexts of teaching. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 16(1), 7–23. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 71 D’Souza, L. A. (2014). Bridging the gap for beginning teachers: Researcher as mentor. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 3(2), 171–187. Duckworth, V., & Maxwell, B. (2015). Extending the mentor role in initial teacher education: embracing social justice. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 4(1), 4–20. Feiman-Nemser, S., Parker, M. B., & Zeichner, K. (1993). Are mentor teachers teacher educators? In D. McIntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentoring: Perspectives on school-based teacher education (pp. 147–165). Abingdon, Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer. Harrison, J., Dymoke, S., & Pell, T. (2006). Mentoring beginning teachers in secondary schools: An analysis of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1055–1067. Hascher, T., Cocard, Y., & Moser, P. (2004). Forget about theory—Practice is all? Student teachers’ learning in practicum. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(6), 623–637. Hobson, A. J. (2002). Student teachers’ perceptions of school-based mentoring in initial teacher training (ITT). Mentoring and Tutoring, 10(1), 5–20. Hobson, A. J. (2009). On being bottom of the pecking order: Beginner teachers’ perceptions and experiences of support. Teacher Development, 13(4), 299–320. Hobson, A. J. (2016). Judgementoring and how to avert it: Introducing ONSIDE Mentoring for beginning teachers. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 5(2), 87–110. Hobson, A. J. (2017). The terrors of judgementoring and the case for ONSIDE Mentoring for early career teachers. In D. A. Clutterbuck, F. K. Kochan, L. Lunsford, N. Dominguez, & J. Haddock-Millar (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring (pp. 335–357). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. Hobson, A. J. (2020). ONSIDE Mentoring: A framework for supporting professional learning, development, and well-being. In B. J. Irby, J. N. Boswell, L. J. Searby, F. Kochan, R. Garza, & N. Abdelrahman (Eds.), The Wiley International handbook of mentoring: Paradigms, practices, programs, and possibilities. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009a). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 207–216. Hobson, A. J., Castanheira, P., Doyle, K., Csigás, Z., & Clutterbuck, D. (2016). The mentoring across professions (MaP) project: What can teacher mentoring learn from international good practice in employee mentoring and coaching? London, UK: Gatsby Charitable Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.gatsby.org.uk/uploads/ education/reports/pdf/mentoring-across-the-professions-final300816.pdf (accessed 19 December 2019) Hobson, A. J., & Malderez, A. (2013). Judgementoring and other threats to realizing the potential of school-based mentoring in teacher education. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(2), 89–108. Hobson, A. J., Malderez, A., Tracey, L., Homer, M. S., Ashby, P., Mitchell, N., McIntyre, J., Cooper, D., Roper, T., Chambers, G. N., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009b). Becoming a teacher: Teachers’ experiences of initial teacher training, induction, and early professional development. London, UK: Department for Children, Schools, and Families.

72  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON Hobson, A. J., & Maxwell, B. (2020). Mentoring substructures and superstructures: An extension and reconceptualization of the architecture for teacher mentoring. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 46(2), 184–206. Hobson, A. J., Maxwell, B., Stevens, A., Doyle, K., & Malderez, A. (2015). Mentoring and coaching for teachers in the further education and skills sector in England: Full report. London, UK: Gatsby Charitable Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www. gatsby.org.uk/uploads/education/reports/pdf/mentoring-full-report.pdf (accessed 19 December 2019) Hobson, A. J., & McIntyre, J. (2013). Teacher fabrication as an impediment to professional learning and development: The external mentor antidote. Oxford Review of Education, 39(3), 345–365. Hobson, A. J., & Townsend, A. J. (2010). Interviewing as educational research method(s). In D. Hartas (Ed.), Educational research and inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 223–238). London, UK: Continuum. Ingersoll, R., & Kralik, J. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the research says. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Jack, A. I., Boyatzis, R. E., Khawaja, M. S., Passarelli, A. M., & Leckie, R. L. (2013). Visioning in the brain: An fMRI study of inspirational coaching and mentoring. Social Neuroscience, 8(4), 369–384. Jeffrey, B. (2002). Performativity and primary teacher relations. Journal of Education Policy, 17, 531–546. Keddie, A., Mills, M., & Pendergast, D. (2011). Fabricating an identity in neo-liberal times: Performing schooling as “number one.” Oxford Review of Education, 37, 75–92. Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrativebiographical study on teacher socialization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 105–120. Kidger, J., Gunnell, D., Biddle, L., Campbell, R., & Donovan, J. (2009). Part and parcel of teaching? Secondary school staff’s views on supporting student emotional health and well‐being. British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 919–935. Kochan, F., Searby, L., George, M. P., & Edge, J. M. (2015). Cultural influences in mentoring endeavors: Applying the cultural framework analysis process. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 4(2), 86–106. Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Kutsyuruba, B. (2012). Teacher induction and mentorship policies: The pan-Canadian overview, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 1(3), 235–256. Kutsyuruba, B., & Godden, L. (2019). The role of mentoring and coaching as a means of supporting the well-being of educators and students, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 8(4), 229–234. Lee, J. C., & Feng S. (2007). Mentoring support and the professional development of beginning teachers: a Chinese perspective. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15(3), 243–263. Lejonberg, E., Elstad, E., & Christophersen, K. A. (2015). Mentor education: Challenging mentors’ beliefs about mentoring, International Journal of Mentoring, and Coaching in Education, 4(2), 42–158.

Bringing Mentoring ONSIDE  • 73 Lindgren, U. (2005). Experiences of beginning teachers in a school-based mentoring programme Sweden. Educational Studies, 31(3), 251–263. Ling, L. (2009). Induction: Making the leap. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(1), 87–95. Lingfield, R. (2012). Professionalism in further education: Final report of the Independent Review Panel. London, UK: Department for Business, Innovations, and Skills. Retrieved from: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/34641/12-1198-professionalism-in-further-education-final.pdf (accessed 19 December 2019) Lofthouse, R., & Thomas, U. (2014). Mentoring student teachers: A vulnerable workplace learning practice. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 3(3), 201–218. Lumby, J. (2009). Performativity and identity: Mechanisms of exclusion. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 353–369. Maguire, M. (2001). Bullying and the post-graduate secondary school trainee: An English case study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(1), 95–109. Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105(1), 3–46. Malderez, A., & Bodoczky, C. (1999). Mentor courses: A resource book for trainer-trainers. Cambridge, UK: CUP. Martin, S. (1996). Support and challenge: Conflicting or complementary aspects of mentoring novice teachers? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 41–56. McCallum, F., & Price, D. (2010). Well teachers, well students. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 4, 19–34. McIntyre, D., & Hagger, H. (1996). Mentors in schools: Developing the profession of teaching. London, UK: David Fulton. McIntyre, J., & Hobson, A. J. (2016). Supporting beginner teacher identity development: External mentors and the third space. Research Papers in Education, 31(2), 133– 158. Ng, P. T. (2012). Mentoring and coaching educators in the Singapore education system. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 1(1), 24–35. Prilleltensky, I. (2013, January 16–18). Education as transformation: Why, what, and how. Presentation at the Sheffield, North of England Education Conference. Rajuan, M., Douwe, B., & Verloop, N. (2007). The role of the cooperating teacher: Bridging the gap between the expectations of cooperating teachers and student teachers. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15(3), 223–242. Rippon, J. H., & Martin, M. (2006). What makes a good induction supporter? Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 84–99. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London, UK: Temple Smith. Searby, L. (2014). The protégé mentoring mindset: A framework for consideration. ​International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 3(3), 255–276. Shanks, R. (2014). A study of learners’ situational vulnerability: New teachers in Scotland. Education in the North, 21(Special Issue), 2–20.

74  •  ANDREW J. HOBSON Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714. Stephens, D., Castanheira, P., Hobson, A. J., Ayot, H., Ondigi, S., Ong’ondo, C., & Jowi, J. (2017). Strengthening education systems in East Africa: Mentoring for teacher development in Kenyan primary schools. Brighton, UK: University of Brighton. Sundli, L. (2007). Mentoring—A new mantra for education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 201–214. Tickle, L. (1993). Capital T teaching. In J. Elliott (Ed.), Reconstructing teacher education (pp. 110–124). London, UK: The Falmer Press. Tong, C., & Kram, K. E. (2013). The efficacy of mentoring: The benefits for mentees, mentors, and organizations. In J. Passmore, D. B. Peterson, & T. Freire (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring (pp. 217– 242). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Tracey, L., Homer, M., Mitchell, N., Malderez, A., Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., & Pell, G. (2008). Teachers’ experiences of their second year in post: Findings from Phase IV of the becoming a teacher project. Nottingham: Department for Children, Schools, and Families (DCSF). Valencic Zuljan, M., & Vogrinc, J. (2007). A mentor’s aid in developing the competencies of teacher trainees. Educational Studies, 33(4), 373–384. Wang, J. (2001). Contexts of mentoring and opportunities for learning to teach: A comparative study of mentoring practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 51–73. Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2007). An alternative conception of mentor-novice relationships: Learning to teach in reform-minded ways as a context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(3), 473–489. Wildman, T., Magliaro, S., Niles, R., & Niles, J. (1992). Teacher mentoring: An analysis of roles, activities, and conditions. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 205–213. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17(2), 89−100.

CHAPTER 7

A WORK OF A.R.T. Advocacy, Responsiveness, and Transformation Angel Miles Nash and Michelle D. Young

The authors of this chapter recount UCEA’s push to increase diversity in its member institutions by adding a criterion for membership that addressed diversity. The organizational leaders did not believe that would adequately address the issue, so UCEA Past President Dr. Fran Kochan (an expert in mentoring and equity) developed a research-based, responsive mentoring program for doctoral students of color. This was the genesis of the Jackson Scholars Network.

Keywords: Mentor, mentee, diversity, professoriate pipeline According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2004), by 2050, the non-Hispanic, White population of the United States is likely to increase by 7%. This slight increase contrasts starkly to projected increases in the growth of people of Hispanic origin (projected to increase by 188%), the Asian population (projected to increase by 213%), and the Black population (projected to increase by 71%). However, as the majority of our nation’s population grows increasingly diverse, educational professionals remain predominantly White. Not only has the number of teachers and leaders of color not kept pace with the changing student population, but in the 2015–16 academic year, the principal workforce was predominantly White (77.8%), and only 10.6% of U.S. principals were Black, 8.2% were Hispanic, and 3.4% were classified as being The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 75–86. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

75

76  •  ANGEL MILES NASH & MICHELLE D. YOUNG from another race or ethnicity (Fuller, Perrone, Sanzo, & Young, 2018; Hill, Ottem, DeRoche, & Owens, 2016; Young & Brooks, 2008).

This racial disparity is not a new challenge; rather, it is one that scholars and organizations like the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) have been grappling with for some time. In 2000, when UCEA hired a new Executive Director, Michelle Young, this challenge was a key organization concern. In addition to its interest in diversifying the pipeline of educational leaders, UCEA was particularly interested in fostering more diversity within the educational leadership professoriate. UCEA leaders understood that the preparation offered by universities, the scholarship published in research journals, and the leadership provided by UCEA governing boards was lacking a critical resource: diversity. In addressing this concern, many ideas were put on the table, discussed, developed, vetted, revised, and voted on, as UCEA’s leaders worked to find ways to make diversity a significant element of UCEA’s values and work. Policies were revised, convention themes were enhanced to reflect diversity, equity, and social justice, and UCEA established the Jackson Scholars Network in honor of Dr. Barbara Loomis Jackson (Young, 2019). In this chapter, we tell the story of the Jackson Scholars Network and the role that UCEA Past President Fran Kochan, a champion of mentoring and equity, played in making it happen. A genuine commitment to mentor(ing) necessitates leadership that rests/resides in one’s heart, hand, and head. Francis Kochan exemplified her belief in all three as she and her colleagues on the UCEA Executive Committee advocated for the establishment of the UCEA Jackson Scholars’ Network. As the President of UCEA, Dr. Kochan demonstrated her dedication to changing the hegemonic nature of the education leadership professoriate by advocating for the development of a researchbased, responsive mentoring program for doctoral students of color. Her work had a transformational impact not only on graduate students of educational leadership programs across the nation but also on those they would go on to teach and lead. She helped transform the profession in meaningfully tangible ways. LITERATURE REVIEW The need for mentoring in higher education contexts has been documented across [K–12] disciplines including teacher education (Cockrell, Mitchell, Middleton, & Campbell, 1999; Lamb, 1999) educational leadership preparation (Mansfield, Welton, Lee, & Young, 2010; Welton, Mansfield, & Lee, 2014; Young & Brooks, 2008) and counseling training (Boswell, Wilson, Stark, & Onwuegbuzie, 2015; Casto, Caldwell, & Salazar, 2005) in compelling ways. However, as Altbach and Lomotey (1991) argued, the question of “What constitutes effective support for graduate students of color?” is complex and difficult to answer. As researchers explain, effective support includes an interrelated set of complex factors, including:

A Work of A.R.T. • 77 (a) the diversity and alignment of curricular offerings, (b) recruitment and retention of faculty of color, (c) procurement and availability of financial assistance, (d) effective mentoring, provision of networking opportunities, and (e) assistance interpreting the hidden curriculum of educational institutions and graduate programs that can reproduce and perpetuate inequality. (Young & Brooks, 2008, p. 396)

The formal mentoring of graduate students to enter the professoriate has been explored throughout higher/professional/graduate education literature (Reddick & Young, 2012). Specifically, in leadership education, researchers’ constellated opinions suggest that the traditionally homogeneous nature of the field’s university faculty limits the perspectives and practices that are taught in school leadership and administration coursework. The challenges identified throughout prior examinations of higher education mentoring practices offer valuable insight into mentoring’s place in the educational leadership field, as well as the need for the practice writ large (Reddick & Young, 2012). The professional path to the professoriate, the pipeline, suffers from a range of issues including (a) the underrepresentation of faculty of color; (b) the prevalent taxing nature of the career for current faculty members who have disproportionate amounts of responsibilities; and (c) the lack of diversity in the doctoral student population. Understanding each of these issues provides a foundational understanding of the work that is necessary to transform the landscape of academia for the better. Faculty Demographics Traditionally, the milieu of the academic professoriate has been White and male (Reddick & Young, 2012; Young & Brooks, 2008). A brief historicization of this reality reveals the development and perpetuation of a profession that has socially excluded/marginalized scholars from different/diverse backgrounds over time. Recently published data unearths the disproportionality of the field, while continued research on its causes and effects reveals the roots of the imbalance. In degree-granting postsecondary institutions, approximately 76% of full-time faculty identify as White, 10% identify as Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% identify as Black, and 5% identify as Hispanic (United States Department of Education, 2018). Scholars identifying as American Indian/Alaska Native as well as scholars identifying as two or more races are each 1% or less of the full-time faculty population (United States Department of Education, 2018). While institutional efforts to recruit and retain faculty from a diverse array of racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds exist, scholars of color are continuously underrepresented. These statistics reify the perpetuation of a professional culture that can be an exclusionary space for some. Educational Contexts In education fields, higher education faculty of color, as well as women, are/ remain correspondingly underrepresented. Many see the comparatively low per-

78  •  ANGEL MILES NASH & MICHELLE D. YOUNG

centage of K–12 educators, educational leaders and faculty of color as a pipeline issue: “Compared to their White counterparts, smaller percentages of students of color attend four-year colleges, and this is also the case for college graduates of color whose doctorate is sought later on” (Reddick & Young, 2012, p. 413). Among teacher education faculty, the majority of professors are White (Ducharme & Ducharme, 1996). The academicians preparing aspiring teachers and leaders to work in schools that serve an increasingly racially, ethnically, socio-economically, and culturally diverse K–12 student population are called to respond in their pedagogical practices accordingly (Gay, 2010). According to the U. S. Department of Education’s Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 82% of public-school teachers identified as White; 30 years ago, that category/distribution was 87% (U. S. Department of Education, 2016). Neither the homogeneity of the education workforce that the academy prepares nor those who occupy the academic ranks as their instructors have changed much over years. In educational leadership, parallel statistics exist. For instance, 17% and 10% of principals identified as Black and Hispanic, respectively (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2014). As school leaders are tasked with serving a K–12 student population that is expected to be 56% of color in the next 6 years (U. S. Department of Education, 2016), it is essential that the training that they receive include knowledge and skills centered on the cultural, linguistic, and class-based needs of the communities in which they work (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2009). Developing the capacity to positively and effectively nurture K–12 students entails learning from faculty who have a diversity of perspectives and experiences. In order for aspiring academics to acquire these positions, they need guidance. This reality underscores the critical need for support from those who have successfully navigated the doctoral experience—that is, faculty working in the field of education. Sharing the Responsibility of Mentoring The undertaking of mentoring requires focused attention, intentional support, and critically nurtured risk-taking that motivates mentees who may be less experienced in a field. Mentoring demands time and energy that extends beyond the professional responsibilities of those who choose to support historically marginalized students. Furthermore, as it relates to faculty of color, there are greater assumed obligations to mentor and perform service resulting from the expectations that they will help all students of color who need their support. The effect of these higher expectations on faculty of color is well-documented. The research focused on climate and retention in colleges and universities (Jayakumar, Howard, Allen, & Han, 2009), and recruitment and development (Stanley, 2006) illuminate the issues that faculty of color face. In 20 years, 1988 to 2008, over 300 authors explored the causes and institutional effects of the underrepresentation of scholars of color in university faculties. While scholars have also

A Work of A.R.T. • 79

highlighted the benefits of mentoring on faculty members’ productivity (Griffin, 2012), the most frequently presented reality is that faculty of color are often stretched thinner than their White colleagues. Faculty of color juggle the overwhelming number of professional priorities they have to: (a) conduct research and produce scholarship on critical and often devalued agendas (Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002); (b) mentor students and junior faculty (Tillman, 2001); (c) serve on hiring and departmental committees (Smith, Turner, Osei-Kofi, & Richards, 2004); (d) fulfill administrative roles to ensure representation in decision making that promotes institutional diversification commitments (Baez, 2000); and (e) traverse marginalized roads towards tenure and promotion (Croom & Patton, 2011). The change needed to address this challenging facet of higher education requires a systemic approach to modification. In the case of the educational leadership professoriate, shifting this dynamic necessitates a transformation of the field. Supporting Students and Faculty of Color through Responsive Mentoring Through their analyses of 58 underrepresented minority faculty across 22 higher education institutions, Zambrana et al. (2015) determined that mentoring relationships can support the retention and professional success of faculty of color (African American/Black, Latinx, and Indigenous Americans). However, the literature also demonstrates when it comes to mentoring, one size does not fit all (Alexander-Snow & Johnson, 1999). Rather, mentoring matters for underrepresented minority groups when it is specifically designed to be responsive to the particular challenges these students and faculty face and when it is provided by an empathetic mentor (Young & Brooks, 2008; Zambrana et al., 2015). According to Zambrana and colleagues (2015), underrepresented minority faculty who were empathetically mentored by colleagues who could understand the challenges they faced were more resilient and able to navigate the challenges within the higher education context. Given the small numbers of faculty of color in higher education, students and junior faculty of color are less likely to be mentored by colleagues with whom they identify based on race or ethnicity; however, AlexanderSnow and Johnson (1999) found that other commonalities, such as alignment with similar research interests, can help facilitate meaningful mentorships. The unique professional position that students and faculty of color often find themselves, often being the only scholar of color, corroborates the need to develop intentionally responsive mentoring relationships for scholars of color based. TRANSFORMING THE PROFESSION By 2003, UCEA’s leadership had concluded that in order for UCEA to become a more diverse organization, its member institutions needed to become more diverse. McCarthy and Hackmann’s (2011) review of the professoriate confirmed the belief that the educational leadership professoriate was not diverse, UCEA

80  •  ANGEL MILES NASH & MICHELLE D. YOUNG

institutions included. Transforming the make-up of UCEA institutions, however, was not a simple undertaking. The UCEA Executive Committee and Plenum began by changing UCEA’s membership criteria to support this goal. Specifically, a criterion was added that focused on building a diverse faculty and student body; however, it was understood that this was a necessary but not sufficient step. UCEA needed a more comprehensive plan if it was going to change the profession (Young, 2019). Young and Brooks (2008) examined UCEA programs and practices, talked with students, alums and faculty, explored mentoring programs, and examined what other professions were doing. They learned that a large portion of doctoral students of color went back to practice after graduation and argued that UCEA institutions needed to find ways to make the professoriate a more compelling and realistic opportunity for educators of color. Soon after that, Fran Kochan suggested that UCEA consider developing a mentoring program for doctoral students of color. It was the perfect suggestion, arriving at the perfect time (Young, 2019). UCEA’s executive committee recognized the potential and possibility in the idea; others chimed in to offer their ideas, their support, and their time to make this idea a reality through the Barbara L. Jackson Scholars Network. This required focus, tenacity, and advocacy. Since its establishment, this program has continued to grow and evolve as UCEA Associate Directors Linda Tillman, Cristobal Rodriguez, Gerardo Lopez, Lisa Bass, and Hollie Mackey have brought their ideas and commitments, as UCEA’s pool of mentors have grown and evolved, and as UCEA learned more about the needs and wishes of graduate students of color. Development of Jackson Scholars Network The Jackson Scholars Network was named in honor of Dr. Barbara Loomis Jackson. Dr. Jackson scaffolded the path to excellence for scholars of color in her roles as a professor, dean, and scholar of educational leadership. She taught and led at Atlanta University, Morgan State University, and Fordham University. Dr. Jackson earned her bachelor’s degree from Wellesley College in 1950, her Master’s degree from Columbia University Teachers College in 1967, and her Doctorate of Education from Harvard University in 1970. As many of the faculty members in the group who advanced the establishment of the network had been personally mentored by Dr. Jackson, they sought to celebrate and express their respect for her commitment to the field of educational leadership by naming this signature program after her. This distinction signified their belief in the network and all who participated in it, to successfully transform the field of education in the same ways Dr. Jackson modeled. Garnering the support of additional professors who were willing to serve as mentors, the committed originators of the network completed the necessary steps to recruit, review, and accept the inaugural cohort of scholars before the start of the 2003-04 academic year. The program consisted of a two-year commitment

A Work of A.R.T. • 81

to each cohort of students who were accepted as Jackson Scholars. The doctoral students of color were paired with educational leadership professors with similar research interests who offered guidance, feedback, and nurtured socialization to the norms of the field. At the time of the establishment of the Jackson Scholars Network, the number of institutions awarding doctorate degrees was at an all-time high in the United States (National Opinion Research Center [NORC], 2003). Among the 40,710 doctoral degrees awarded at 423 universities, 21% were conferred by colleges and schools of education, and 12% of the degrees were awarded to graduate students of color (NORC, 2003). Results from the NORC (2003) survey demonstrated that Black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian students received the most degrees in education, with 24% of doctorates being earned in disciplines across the field. Although there is no available data that specifically details statistics regarding earned doctorates in educational leadership, historical research in the field indicates that in the early 2000s approximately 15.5% of education faculty were scholars of color (McCarthy & Hackmann, 2011). Taken together, these statistics made a compelling case for the development of a responsive mentoring program for graduate students of color. Goals of the Jackson Scholars Network Considering the educational needs of the time, both in the professoriate pipeline and K–12 schools, UCEA developed the Jackson Scholars Network as a formal mentoring program to purposely support students’ professional development, growth, and career success. Since its beginning, the network experience has offered two years of ongoing mentoring from faculty who volunteer to personally correspond with doctoral students and meet with them in person at two annual conferences each of the two years. The intention of the Jackson Scholars Network was and continues to be providing guidance and support to aspiring academicians as they navigate their doctoral programs. Equally, the network aims to offer professional development for graduate students that directs them in their quest to become educational leadership faculty members. Governance of the Jackson Scholars Network The Jackson Scholars Network leadership currently consists of two Co-Directors, an Advisory Board, and a Graduate Research Assistant. This leadership structure undergirds the network’s well-rounded approach to respond to and supporting the mentoring needs of Jackson Scholars and faculty mentors, while simultaneously establishing and accomplishing long-term goals. The leadership facilitates the nomination and selection process of Scholars and faculty mentors. While students are required to be nominated by the UCEA member Plenum Session Representatives, Chair, or Dean of their institution, faculty mentors can nominate themselves for consideration after they have completed their mid-tenure

82  •  ANGEL MILES NASH & MICHELLE D. YOUNG

review at their institution. Although junior faculty, particularly program alumni, are often eager to serve as mentors, UCEA leadership wanted to ensure that junior faculty were not over-tapped for service obligations and that Jackson Scholars were provided with experienced and well-connected mentors. Sustainable Nurturing in the Professoriate Pipeline Mentoring through the Jackson Scholars Network is designed to provide ongoing mentoring across the two years of their program, including engaging in conversations about the students’ progress and providing feedback on their research, and the opportunity to meet four times face-to-face at professional conferences. Scholars spend valuable time with their mentors at both UCEA’s Annual Convention and the American Educational Research Association’s (AERA) Annual Meeting, attending both structured mentoring events as well as interacting less formally over a meal or at social events. At UCEA, the Jackson Scholars Network hosts an orientation session, the Julie Laible Memorial Orientation Session, for first-year Scholars, and a research symposium and coordinated feedback sessions for second-year scholars during which they have the opportunity to present on their dissertation research. There is also a recognition ceremony in which all Scholars are recognized and celebrated for their participation in the Jackson Scholars Network. All Scholars likewise attend a special convocation during which senior and junior faculty members share their experiences regarding establishing and pursuing research agendas, learning the rules and mores of the academy, and giving back to those who walk similar paths after them. The programming that the Jackson Scholars Network sponsors at each AERA Annual Meeting consists of writing workshops focused on job application materials and research agendas, an alumni panel, and time earmarked for rotating roundtable discussions about essential topics such as navigating conferences and efficiently engaging in professional networking. Faculty attend the events to offer Scholars their feedback and facilitate discussions. The coalesced resources that mentors provide the doctoral students offer insight into what they will need to be successful as they enter and grow in the academy. This type of socialization is a key component of graduate school completion and early career success. Building a Professional Community The Jackson Scholars Network builds a robust professional community for doctoral students that is paramount to their development in graduate school. By creating a safe space in which Scholars can connect, they can share their experiences, challenges, and successes in ways that build their resilience and fortitude. Although students and mentors are paired based on identified research interests and expertise, Scholars also organically discover commonalities across which

A Work of A.R.T. • 83

they connect. Rooted in these serendipitous associations, meaningful friendships burgeon and lead to scholarly productivity. Reflection on the Jackson Scholar Experience The Jackson Scholars Network creates collegial comradery and responsive mentorship that last far beyond the designated two-year commitment. For doctoral students, the lasting impressions of faculty members’ willingness to sponsor their entrée into the academy, and their success upon entering the professoriate leave long-lasting impressions. When asked what the Jackson Scholars Network meant to them, alumni reflected on the momentous effects the experiences have had on their lives and careers. Alumni explained: [The Jackson Scholars Network] gave me the chance to connect with a mentor who understood what I was going through as a faculty of color, and who also had some connections and advice. It also allowed me to get to know other emerging scholars and junior faculty of color who had similar program experiences in their Ph.D. process. Having that network of other mentees and mentor relations across the field helped me as I was getting into my career as a Scholar. The JSN has provided me the opportunity to connect with scholars underrepresented in our field, which has had two large impacts in my career: (1) it gave me the community of like-minded scholars, who (2) support my work, which is non-traditional yet necessary to advance our field in leadership. My mentor and I check in periodically and during UCEA. He’s pushed me to think of myself as a scholar and provided guidance around the politics of academia. The Jackson Scholar Network was one of the highlights of my years as a graduate student—not only because it afforded me the opportunity to travel to different cities and conferences, but because of the contacts and connections that it afforded me. The rigors of Ph.D. student life were guaranteed to be broken up at least twice per year—in the fall for UCEA and in the spring for AERA—where the network afforded me the chance to meet various Black and Brown Ph.D. students from across the country to exchange experiences. Also, the many prolific Black and Brown scholars and mentors provided by the network allowed each of us as graduate students to see ourselves as professors in the future. For those of us aspiring for the academy, this connection and engagement was a very inspiring and encouraging reminder of possibilities. The Jackson Scholar Network is a community committed to supporting students of color and providing a productive space for students to develop as researchers, academicians, and leaders. Through this network I have had the opportunity to build relationships with scholars from diverse backgrounds with shared interests and perspectives. Recently, a few of us collaborated on a proposal for UCEA, which happened only as a result of being on a panel of JSN alumni at AERA. The JSN continues to be system of supports as I navigate the intricacies of academia as an assistant professor.

84  •  ANGEL MILES NASH & MICHELLE D. YOUNG

Continuous Development of the Jackson Scholars Network Since its establishment, the Jackson Scholars Network has served over 400 doctoral students of color. The program has grown in size, with its largest annual cohort acceptance reaching 53 Scholars in the 2017–19 cohort. Building on the legacy left by UCEA Past President Fran Kochan, UCEA Executive Director Emeritus Michelle Young, the UCEA Executive Committee, the Jackson Scholars first Associate Director, Linda Tillman, and the late Barabara L. Jackson, the Barbara Jackson Network’s leadership continues to advocate for a robust pipeline of scholars of color through offering and supporting responsive mentoring for doctoral students of color. Recent program innovations include the coordination of annual community-building events that concurrently serve as fundraising events for the network and the development and hosting of webinars throughout the year that offer ongoing support related to dissertation research, scholarship productivity, and job-search advice. LEADING THE TRANSFORMATION OF A PROFESSION As implied by the title of this chapter, the development of the UCEA Jackson Scholars Network was and continues to be made possible through the advocacy of UCEA leadership and stakeholders, the effectiveness of the UCEA Jackson Scholars is made possible through its dedication to being a responsive mentoring program, and the impact of the program has been nothing short of transformation. Faculty who have attended UCEA conferences for fifteen years or more often reflect on how much more diverse the organization is today than even a decade ago. The Barbara Jackson Scholars Network played an important role in that transformation. It is a work of A.R.T. Those who established and developed the Jackson Scholars Network with the inspiration and support of Dr. Kochan endeavored to encourage doctoral students of color throughout their graduate school experiences, and in turn, secure access to careers in the field. As a developed and sustaining UCEA initiative that has supported and, in many ways, emboldened students from historically underserved backgrounds, the specialized mentoring not only models leadership that affects the hearts, hands, and heads of educational leadership professors and aspirants, but it transforms those facets of the field as well. By embracing the responsibility to foster mentoring, the UCEA Jackson Scholars Network ensures that its members are supported in their endeavors to finish strong and finish together. Mentoring offers essential opportunities for professional socialization and insight. Grounded in a responsibility to offer each, the UCEA Jackson Scholars Network established a formal supportive web that has continued to provide equitable access to guidance from faculty members. By supporting doctoral students from historically underserved populations, mentors in the Jackson Scholars Network have collectively worked to strengthen the educational leadership profession. This fortification is not only manifested through increased diversity of the people

A Work of A.R.T. • 85

who enter the field, but also via the heterogeneity of thought and research priorities. Both vital causes have resulted in mentoring efforts aimed at transforming the professoriate. REFERENCES Alexander-Snow, M., & Johnson, B. (1999). Perspectives from faculty of color. In R. J. Menges (Ed.), Faculty in new jobs: A guide to settling in, becoming established, and building institutional support (pp. 88–117). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Altbach, P., & Lomotey, K. (1991). The racial crisis in higher education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Baez, B. (2000). Race-related service and faculty of color: Conceptualizing critical agency in academe. Higher Education, 39(3), 363–391. Boswell, J. N., Wilson, A. D., Stark, M. D., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2015). The role of mentoring relationships in counseling programs. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 4(3), 168–183. Casto, C., Caldwell, C., & Salazar, C. F. (2005). Creating mentoring relationships between female faculty and students in counselor education: Guidelines for potential mentees and mentors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83(3), 331–336. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2009). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. New York, NY: Routledge. Cockrell, K. S., Mitchell, R. D., Middleton, J. N., & Campbell, N. J. (1999). The Holmes Scholars Network: A study of the Holmes Group Initiative for recruitment and retention of minority faculty. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(2), 85–93. Croom, N., & Patton, L. (2011). The miner’s canary: A critical race perspective on the representation of Black women full professors. Negro Educational Review, , 62(1), 13–39. Delgado Bernal, D., & Villalpando, O. (2002). An apartheid of knowledge in academia: The struggle over the” legitimate” knowledge of faculty of color. Equity &Excellence in Education, 35(2), 169–180. Ducharme, M., & Ducharme, E. (1996). A study of teacher educators: Research from the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching, 22(1), 57–70. Fuller, E., Perrone, F., Sanzo, K., & Young, M. D. (2018). Developing a diverse pipeline of education leaders: An examination of university practices. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Griffin, K. A. (2012). Black professors managing mentorship: Implications of applying social exchange frameworks to our understanding of the influence of student interaction on scholarly productivity. Teachers College Record, 114(5), 1–37. Hill, J., Ottem, R., DeRoche, J., & Owens, C. (2016). Trends in public and private school principal demographics and qualifications: 1987–88 to 2011–12. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

86  •  ANGEL MILES NASH & MICHELLE D. YOUNG Jayakumar, U. M., Howard, T. C., Allen, W. R., & Han, J. C. (2009). Racial privilege in the professoriate: An exploration of campus climate, retention, and satisfaction. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(5), 538–563. Lamb, S. (1999). The Holmes Scholars Network: A networking mentoring program of the Holmes partnership. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 150–162. National Opinion Research Center. (2003). Survey of earned doctorates. Retrieved from: https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150627194754/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ doctorates/pdf/sed2003.pdf McCarthy, M., & Hackmann, D. (2011). The educational leadership professoriate. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Mansfield, K. C., Welton, A., Lee, P., & Young, M. D. (2010). The lived experience of female educational leadership doctoral students. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(6), 727–740. Reddick, R., & Young, M. D. (2012). Mentoring graduate students from underrepresented groups. In C. Mullen (Ed.), SAGE handbook on Mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Smith, D. G., Turner, C. S., Osei-Kofi, N., & Richards, S. (2004). Interrupting the usual: Successful strategies for hiring diverse faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(2), 133–160. Stanley, C. A. (2006). Coloring the academic landscape: Faculty of color breaking the silence in predominantly White colleges and universities. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 701–736. Tillman, L. C. (2001). Mentoring African American faculty in predominantly white institutions. Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 295–325. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004–2005. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2004/compendia/ statab/124ed.html U. S. Department of Education (2016). The state of racial diversity in the educator workforce. Retrieved from: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/ state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf. U.S. Department of Education. (2018). The condition of education 2018 (NCES 2018– 144): Characteristics of postsecondary faculty. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2014). 2014 Equal employment opportunity-5 survey. Washington, DC. Welton, A. D., Mansfield, K. C., & Lee, P. L. (2014). Mentoring matters: An exploratory survey of educational leadership doctoral students’ perspectives. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(5), 481–509. Young, M. D. (2019). We are UCEA. The UCEA review. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA. Young, M. D., & Brooks, J. (2008). Supporting graduate students of color. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 391–423. Zambrana, R. E., Ray, R., Espino, M. M., Castro, C., Douthirt Cohen, B., & Eliason, J. (2015). “Don’t leave us behind” The importance of mentoring for underrepresented minority faculty. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 40–72.

CHAPTER 8

CREATING AND FACILITATING CO-MENTORING CIRCLES A Guide Kathleen M. Cowin

The author of this chapter presents a research-based model for co-mentoring in groups called co-mentoring circles. It includes specific strategies for making mindful agreements, building trusting relationships, establishing confidentiality, defining expectations, and learning how to reflect and communicate meaningful feedback.

Keywords: Mentor, mentee, co-mentoring Currently, I work with aspiring K–12 school leaders, who are serving as teachers, instructional coaches, deans of students, or district-based leaders such as directors of curriculum and instruction. Often these aspiring school leaders have many years of teaching experience in their respective school districts, but in seeking a new position as a K–12 principal, they find themselves becoming a beginner again. Helping these aspiring school leaders work through this tension of feeling secure in their current roles and the uncertainty they experience in their new roles as principal interns was the impetus for my exploration of mentoring research. To help my students work through these feelings and experiences of becoming a The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 87–100. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

87

88  •  KATHLEEN M. COWIN

beginner again, I designed a process to create a community among the principal interns, which I call a co-mentoring circle. Foundational mentoring research underscores the significance of the developmental aspects of the relationship between protégés and mentors (Allen & Eby, 2010; Kochan & Pascarelli, 2003; Kram, 1985; Mullen, 2005; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Ragins & Kram, 2007) as does research describing the developmental stages beginners go through in formation (Celikten, 2001; Chikkatur, 2012; O’Mahoney, 2003; Searby, 2010). Fletcher and Ragins (2007) explored how relational mentoring can go beyond the traditional perspective of a one-directional, hierarchical view of mentoring. Fletcher and Ragins (2007), citing work by Ragins and Verbos (2007) state, “relational mentoring represents the relationship state of high-quality mentoring” in which there is “an interdependent and generative developmental relationship that promotes mutual growth, learning and development within the career context” (p. 374). Relational mentoring addresses limitations of traditional mentoring perspectives by exploring functions and outcomes the protégé might provide for the mentor, focusing particularly on traditional views defining career success as autonomy, independence, and differentiation, as well as how power affects the mentoring interactions. Many of the experiences principal interns described fall within the three tenets of relational mentoring coined by Fletcher and Ragins (2007). Tenet one, “interdependent self-in-relation,” challenges traditional Western views of human development as a process of “separating and individualizing oneself from others in an implicit move from dependence to independence” (p. 378), especially as the interns move from their former familiar roles to the principal intern role. This tenet recognizes that all we do is always in relation to others. The second tenet, “growth-fostering interactions,” (p. 381) examines whether a mentoring interaction, such as a conversation, results in growth and learning for either protégé or the mentor through listening to and talking with, one another. The two-directional flow of mutual influence between protégé and mentor is central in a growth-fostering interaction and is a component of “high-quality mentoring” (p. 380). An example of a growth-fostering interaction that has been expressed by many interns is being able to express how they feel without having to hide aspects of their story for fear of judgment by the listener. Having someone listen deeply and reflect your comments so you can hear what you are saying lets one expel some of the pent-up emotions of an experience. Also, in hearing the comments from the listener, and taking time to reflect on these comments, the one speaking may develop a new perspective on the experience. The third tenet, “systemic power,” is a recurring theme in discussions with interns about their daily experiences. Power dynamics are ever-present in all they do and add to the tension interns describe in their experiences of becoming a beginner again. I combined the three tenets of relational mentoring (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007) with work on co-mentoring by Kochan and Trimble (2000) and Mullen (2005). Kochan and Trimble (2000) describe how over time, their relationship became a

Creating and Facilitating Co-Mentoring Circles • 89

“communal one” (p. 21) and as their mentoring relationship developed, it had elements of “collaboration, shared decision making, and systems thinking” (p. 20). Mullen (2005) defines the term “co-mentorship” as when “individuals or groups proactively engage in reciprocal teaching and learning and transform power structures to honor egalitarianism” (p. 25). These definitions prompted me to examine how power dynamics might affect collaboration in the developing principal intern mentoring circles. In the past five years, over 50 principal interns have participated in co-mentoring circles I have facilitated. During this time, I have continued to add and modify the sequence of components of the co-mentoring circle model. What will be described next is the most current refinement of the model. A MODEL OF THE CO-MENTORING CIRCLE There are six main components of the co-mentoring circle (see Figure 1): first: group norms called group agreements are discussed; second: reflection and feedback processes are taught and used each time the circle meets; third: an activity called “hopes and concerns” is conducted; fourth: circle members complete a self-assessment about communication and behavioral styles, discuss those communication and behavioral styles, assure confidentiality will be kept about what is discussed in the circle, and discuss trust; fifth: participants do an activity called

FIGURE 8.1.  The six components utilized in creating and facilitating a co-mentoring circle.

90  •  KATHLEEN M. COWIN

the “professional timeline;” and sixth: they construct a “self-portrait.” These six components are introduced and completed over multiple sessions, each session lasting about three hours. Each co-mentoring circle can develop at a different rate depending on attendance and the participation levels of the circle members. Usually, there are no more than 12 members in the co-mentoring circle. The components of the model will be described in detail in the following section. First: Creating Our Group Agreements In the first session, group agreements are developed through direct instruction, partners, small, and whole-group discussions, and then performance style activities such as role-playing, participation in skits, or creating a rap, song, or acrostic. The focus is on getting to know each other better, having fun, and enjoying each other’s company. The group agreements are founded on the work of Gibbs (2006) and Palmer (2011) and focus on respect, appreciation, valuing diversity, communication, and creating community. The concept of combining these frameworks comes from my work with K–12 students as a teacher and principal, and with adults as a school leader. Our group agreements are developed from a combination of Gibbs’ (2006) group agreements and Palmer’s (2011) “five habits of the heart.” Gibbs’ (2006) group agreements are attentive listening, appreciation (no putdowns), right to pass and to participate, and mutual respect (p. 68). Palmer’s (2011) “five habits of the heart” are an understanding we are all in this together; an appreciation of the value of “otherness;” an ability to hold tension in life-giving ways; a sense of personal voice and agency; and a capacity to create a community (pp. 44–45). Additional work at this first session focuses on learning each other’s names through participation in active icebreakers. After learning each other’s names, we seek to learn more about each other through discussions of the group agreements. Each circle member selects a particular group agreement, reads information on its meaning, and then finds another circle member who has selected this same group agreement. These partners discuss their shared understanding of the meaning and then find another pair who have also selected this same group agreement and continue the discussion as a group of four. Then each group of four circle members teaches the rest of the group what they believe the group agreement means, using a performance. The same process is used to explore the five habits of the heart. Then a whole group discussion is held on how the group agreements might be integrated into our work as a co-mentoring circle. Second: Learning about Reflection and Giving and Receiving Feedback Next, a process for written reflection is taught, and then precious circle time is given for written reflection on this first session. Homework on reflection is assigned, with circle members reading work by Arredondo-Rucinski (2005), Dewey

Creating and Facilitating Co-Mentoring Circles • 91

(1938), Osterman and Kottkamp (1993), and Rodgers (2002). After the group agreements are established, we participate in an activity to explore our hopes and concerns about the internship, and our future work together in the internship, and the co-mentoring circle. We also discuss how we might incorporate a “critical friends” (Costa & Kallick, 1993; Sullivan & Glanz, 2013) approach to giving and receiving feedback on the work we do individually and within the circle. As trust continues to be established, we seek to use a critical friend process to give feedback that is “more than cursory praise,” and that seeks to “elevate the work” (Costa & Kallick, 1993). As a circle, we also reflect verbally and in writing on the processes our circle uses. As the facilitator, I take this feedback very seriously as I prepare for our next circle. I revisit any processes that were concerning. There have only been a few concerns over the years, and these were successfully addressed through continued discussion. The concerns focused on communication skills such as assuring that discussion time was shared equally by all who wished to speak and not using schoolhouse jargon. For example, instead of referring to students as “ELLs,” referring to them as students whose first language is not English, or instead of referring to students as “SPED students” or “SPEDs,” referring to these students as students who use special education services. Respect is a group agreement norm, and some circle members, and I were concerned by the way jargon terms can dehumanize students. Third: Hopes and Concerns Activity An activity that helps deepen our co-mentoring circle uses sticky notes, on which circle members write down hopes and concerns they have as they begin their internship. The directions include writing one item per sticky note and then placing the sticky notes up on the whiteboard under either the “Hopes” header or “Concerns” header. After the note writing concludes, the circle members and I take a gallery style walk examining the notes. Then the circle members form a small group around the board with notes focusing on hopes. A volunteer examines all the notes to see if they can find any two notes that are similar in description. This volunteer then moves any two similar notes together on the board. I ask for another volunteer to move any other similar notes together. The process continues, and soon the hopes of all the circle members are grouped into categories, often with very few outliers. Some examples of the themes of the “Hopes” note groupings are: “I hope I get along with my mentor,” or “I hope I can do this!” or “I hope I can manage my classroom plus all my new responsibilities.” Then the “Concerns” set of sticky notes are moved and grouped in the same manner. What has been eye-opening about this activity is that each time circle members complete it, there are always similar notes. Even though the circle members are not required to reveal their names on the notes, they often self-identify which note they wrote, and they can immediately see connections among their hopes and concerns with other circle members. After completing this activity, circle members report

92  •  KATHLEEN M. COWIN

they feel closer to each other in knowing they have so much in common. One circle member summed this up by saying, “My first thought was, “I’m not alone.” It feels so good to know that you are not alone and that others are feeling the same thing as you are” (Unnamed participant, personal communication, 2018). After learning more about each other through the establishment of our group agreements and icebreakers, I give my “opening day talk,” sharing my core values, educational philosophy and leadership definition, and explore my expectations and boundaries for our time working and learning together. I seek to create an atmosphere of transparency that I hope will develop into trust. I offer an invitation to join in this work together, but I know and respect that circle members choose their own level of participation based on our group agreement about the right to pass and to participate. The first session ends with homework on reflective practice and completing a communication self-assessment based on the work of Alessandra and O’Connor (2011, 2013). Circle members complete the selfassessment and bring it to the next session prepared to discuss their results with other circle members. Fourth: Exploring Communication Styles, Budding Trust, and Assuring Confidentiality The next session begins with check-in on our group agreements and an icebreaker to review circle members’ names. After a review of the group agreements norms, circle members are asked to commit in writing to upholding the group agreements by signing a poster that is used at each circle as we begin by affirming our group agreements. Through these activities, a climate of relationship building and trust begins to be established. Then circle members are instructed for the next hour of small group work, which focuses on their results from the communication/behavioral self-assessment. Circle members meet in groups based on their main communication/behavioral style typology. As circle members discuss their results, they focus on a result that seems very natural to them, and on a result which they consider problematic or wish was not among their self-assessment results. Following the small group activity, a whole group share-out is held with recognition of the many types of preferred communication/behavioral approaches among the circle members. We chart our preferred typologies on a poster that is displayed when we meet. The chart helps remind us of our similarities and differences in communication/behavioral styles and is the foundation of The Platinum Rule: Treat others the way they want to be treated (Alessandra & O’Connor, 2013). Then using the communication/behavioral self-assessment results as the basis of group assignment, circle members work through a problem of practice in small groups, first with a group made up of only like typologies and then in a second group with each group member representing a different self-identified preferred communication/behavioral approach. These discussions have been robust and offer circle members an opportunity to experience The Platinum Rule approach to

Creating and Facilitating Co-Mentoring Circles • 93

learning how others may approach communication or problem solving, particularly those with a typology different from their own. We end this part of the session with another reflection. Circle members reflect on their strengths and areas for growth as leaders. We then discuss the importance of confidentiality among our circle members and agree to abide by a code of confidentiality. This code draws upon the work of Palmer (1998), which is used in The Courage to Lead© (2017) retreats and is called “double-confidentiality.” In double confidentiality, not only is what is talked about within the circle never repeated, circle members are not to ask another circle member about a previous topic. The only person who can bring up the topic again is the original speaker. For example, I would not say to another circle member, “Hey, how’d that problem with your counselor turn out?” Fifth: Professional Timeline Activity Next, circle participants participate in an activity called the “Professional Timeline.” In this activity, circle members create a paper timeline sharing what they choose about their professional history and experience. How many times have you gone to a meeting in which the facilitator asks each person to stand and give their name, school, school district, and, if a teacher, to state their grade level or content area? The timeline activity goes beyond the “name, rank, and serial number” approach and gives time for participants to share with other circle members what they want from their professional history and experience. For example, circle members sometimes start with their K–12 education, sharing stories about why they decided to become an educator, while other circle members start with college or university experiences, or their first student teaching experiences. How circle members approach the timeline they choose to share is unique. One member even started with a potential future goal and worked back to her current position and how that led her to want to pursue certification as a principal. In the sharing of the timelines with each other, we can find common themes, areas of expertise to draw upon in our co-mentoring, and a basis to develop mutual respect. Homework is assigned about trust, including work by Tschannen-Moran (2007, 2014), Combs, Harris, and Edmonson (2015), as well as Zachary and Fischler’s (2014) “The Five Levels of Conversation Model.” Then direct instruction and homework are given about the last component of the co-mentoring circle formation, the self-portrait activity. The self-portrait draws from an event from the circle member’s own K–12 school experience, exploring the interconnectedness of home, school, and community. Circle members also read from LawrenceLightfoot’s (2003) auto-ethnographic essay about an intersection of home and her early grade school experience. The qualitative methodology of portraiture (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997), upon which the self-portrait process I have developed is based, is explained. The self-portrait is a form of auto-ethnography. I read aloud my self-portrait as an example and provide written examples previ-

94  •  KATHLEEN M. COWIN

ous circle members have allowed me to share. Circle members know they will come to our next session with a draft of their self-portrait to discuss with other circle members. The self-portrait assignment has several parts: first writing the self-portrait, then presenting the self-portrait to other circle members, and third reflecting on writing and presenting the self-portrait as well as the experience of hearing other circle members’ self-portrait presentations. After self-portrait presentations, circle members write a reflection about their writing process and the presentation process. Sixth: The Self-Portrait Activity Before our next session, copies of the example self-portraits are available for review by circle members through an electronic platform. Circle members can also post their self-portraits so that I can provide written feedback before the session. We begin the next session, as we always do when the circle meets, revisiting our group agreements and confidentiality code. A group discussion is conducted based on articles by Tschannen-Moran (2007) and Combs et al. (2015) on developing trust and the relationship between trust and confidentiality. Trusting confidentially will be maintained; the circle members meet in small groups to discuss their self-portrait drafts. The Five Levels of Communication Model (Zachary & Fischler, 2014) is reviewed before the whole group discussion of the self-portraits begins. We strive to use the fourth level of Zachary and Fischler’s (2014) model called “collaborative engagement.” In collaborative engagement, trust has been developed, and both mentor and protégé are “willing to be vulnerable with each other” (p. 168). The conversation feeling tone is one of transparency and openness, in which each participant is learning from and with the other. While the fifth level of conversation called “dialogue” in Zachary and Fischler’s (2014) model does not happen each time the circle meets, it has occurred in many circles. “Dialogue” occurs when there is a deeply shared understanding between the participants. Learning between the participants is a central component of Zachary and Fischler’s (2014) model, and there is “no debate, no attempt to convince or change the other person’s mind” (p. 168). The goal Zachary and Fischler set is to have a conversation that leads to a partnership of “transformational thinking” among both mentor and protégé (2014, p. 168). Then circle members are invited to share as a whole group any portion of their self-portrait and to ask for feedback from their fellow circle members. Using our studies of Zachary and Fischler’s (2014) model, we set a goal of using a “collaborative engagement,” level in our conversations while keeping an eye on the ultimate goal of moving our conversation to true “dialogue” (pp. 168–169). With these important concepts of trust, confidentiality, and “levels of conversation” in mind, circle members are invited to share any portion of their self-portrait or reflection on their self-portrait within the circle. Adhering to our group agreement of right to pass, sharing from one’s selfportrait is by invitation and not a requirement. Each time I have led this activity,

Creating and Facilitating Co-Mentoring Circles • 95

some circle members have expressed anxiety as we begin, but as the conversations continue, they go deep quickly, and the discussions are often self-revealing and insightful. There has not been a time in the past five years of circles that a circle member has chosen not to participate at some level. Often circle members report that they would have liked to share, reflect, and write more about their selfportrait topic. At the end of the presentations, there is an enthusiastic conversation as circle members report what they have learned about themselves through the process of writing and reflecting on the self-portrait and by presenting and listening to others’ presentations. They express they feel more deeply connected to their fellow circle members and me. SELF-PORTRAITS AND REFLECTION EXAMPLES In this section, brief excerpts of several self-portraits will be presented to provide a feeling for the depth of the self-work which circle members do in writing, reflecting upon, and in presenting their self-portrait. The self-portrait delves deeper into the stories of where our professional lives as educators and our personal lives intersect. This circle member, Nick (a pseudonym), comes from an educator family in which his father was a teacher for many years and then the principal of the high school where he attended. Nick’s self-portrait is the story of when he saw his father reveal his leadership stance as the principal of the high school and within the community at large. The Sunday following the tragic event of the horrific mass shooting at Columbine High School, Nick’s family was at church. As the service concluded, Nick remembers the moment like this: I remember my Dad standing up and walking to the front of the congregation. I remember being extremely puzzled. He had not been asked to approach the front of the church, and people did not seem to expect his presence. I don’t ever recall him speaking to a church congregation. I remember him whispering something to the pastor, and then him taking the microphone behind the podium. He stood for a moment to gain his thoughts and then quietly began to speak. I don’t recall the words he used, but he conveyed a message about his role as a principal and the love he has for his students and staff. He expressed that the safety of every person in the building was his main priority and that the Columbine tragedy had greatly affected him. I remember tears streaming down his face as he opened his heart to the congregation. This moment had a profound impact on me. I realized how much my Dad loved his school and community. I realized how important of a job being a principal was and how much of a presence a principal has on an entire community. As I move forward with my career in education, I see a lot of similarities between myself and my Dad. Like him, I do not always easily share my feelings. I am not always easy to read. I find myself often wondering, “What would Dad do?” as I reflect on my administrative work. What I want to make sure I do is give as much joy and love to the people I impact each day as they give to me. (“Nick,” personal communication, 2019)

96  •  KATHLEEN M. COWIN

Nick’s reflections on writing the self-portrait were what he called his three takeaways: “1) build a relationship with every student and staff member in the school, 2) be present in the community, and 3) make decisions on core beliefs and stick with them” (“Nick,” personal communication, 2019). Another self-portrait excerpt, from Gloria (a pseudonym), starts like this: My recollection of early community, school, and family partnerships are a little foggy... My early experiences in this country, beginning at age four, are fragmented and not narrative in form. I remember that “cow” was the first word I learned in English as a first-grader… I remember sharing this accomplishment with my Grandma, who lived in Mexico. I probably didn’t understand much of what any staff member said to me in English. I had only just arrived in the United States…One memory is locked into my being like a photograph of me looking out the car window toward a white duplex. I quickly slid into the back seat along with my two brothers and my sister. My uncle and my Mom also got in the car in a frenzied state…My sevenyear-old self could tell something was wrong as I glanced back at our duplex while we turned on to the main road. As I watched my Mom look at the rearview mirror, I didn’t know that I would never again step foot into that white duplex on the hill. I would never see my friends, toys, clothes, coloring books, or anything that was not already on our person or in the car. My Mom explained, “llegó la migra a la planta” as we drove off, which means that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (I.N.S.) had raided the potato factory where she worked, and we had to flee… It was not the first time that I experienced having to leave everything behind, but it felt different than last time. (“Gloria,” personal communication, 2019)

Gloria’s reflection on her self-portrait looks deeply into what she experienced as a child and integrates this experience with her work now as a teacher and principal intern. She explains that as educators, we do not know what is happening in the personal lives of our students, but we may “expect students to know how to advocate for themselves” (“Gloria,” personal communication, 2019). Gloria continues, “We must remember that families who struggle with insurmountable obstacles and stresses may end up placing unreasonable demands on children. Would you recognize students in your classroom or school living in difficult situations?” (“Gloria,” personal communication, 2019). Gloria’s reflection, from the perspective of her leadership role in a dual-language school, continues: As an educator, I can empathize with students and families who are experiencing difficult circumstances or are learning English and attempt to support them as best I can. In a formal role as a school leader, I can ensure that programs are in place to help English language learners and families with resources. I can offer professional development to staff regarding how to effectively teach and build community with students experiencing homelessness or poverty. Participating in ATP [Action Teams for Partnerships] committees and events is another way that I can help reach families, offer resources, and most importantly, help clarify education systems to help students break cycles of poverty. . . . Children are watching, listening, and are cognizant of more than we realize. Sometimes they take the first wave of judgment

Creating and Facilitating Co-Mentoring Circles • 97 or indifference from others who don’t understand their parents’ plight. (“Gloria,” personal communication, 2019)

Sofie’s (a pseudonym) self-portrait starts dramatically: I was staring into the barrel of a gun with a red laser beam pointed at my forehead. All I heard was Sam (a pseudonym) saying, “How does this make you feel?” How does this make me feel? How does this make me feel??!! Really??!! You are my husband, and you are pointing a gun at my head! And... you are asking, how does this make me feel!?! (“Sofie,” personal communication, 2019)

Sofie’s story of the life-threating abuse she suffered was ended when she could not contain her emotions at school and reached out to her parents and her fellow grade-level team of teachers. Her parents urged her to come home. Her grade level team of teachers supported her in taking a leave of absence. Sofie explains it like this, “My second-grade team and I worked so closely together that we knew what we were teaching and how to help each other. When I was in my crisis, they didn’t even pause. They flew into action” (“Sofie,” personal communication, 2019). Reflecting on her self-portrait, Sofie notes, “Communication is key as a leader and as a staff. I want my team of teachers to have a bond with each other” (“Sofie,” personal communication, 2019). Sofie’s team continued to help her as her marriage ended, and as she returned to school to teach and finish out the school year. She lived in a teacher-team member’s basement and became like another member of her teacher-team member’s family. For Sofie, this experience drives her desire to establish open and transparent communication among all members of her school community. She also has identified her special interest in Professional Learning Community work because of her personal experiences outlined in her self-portrait. (“Sofie,” personal communication, 2019). Each time circle participants have shared parts of their self-portraits, the relationships and trust grow deeper. We can have conversations that align with the “collaborative engagement” or even “dialogue” level in Zachary and Fischler’s (2014) model. We can be vulnerable and trust each other with deeply personal information. Our thinking evolves when we learn new things about each other, and we know we all experienced hardships on our journeys. This deepened shared understanding about the difficulties each of us has faced helps each of us know that we have all “struggled in creating our career path” and that gives us confidence in the co-mentoring we can provide for each other to move forward in our careers (Zachary & Fischler, 2014, p. 168). AFTER THE CIRCLE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED After these six components have been used to establish the circle, then the work of the co-mentoring circle comes from what the circle members want to talk about. The topics are as varied as the members’ experiences and daily work. We begin each circle revisiting our group agreements and affirming that we will continue

98  •  KATHLEEN M. COWIN

to hold to our code of “double confidentiality.” We also reserve circle time for written and oral reflection, and I also ask for written and verbal feedback on the circle’s process each time we meet. If there were to be concerns about our group agreements, confidentiality, or about the process, I would provide the leadership to address these topics with the circle participants right away. Circle members unanimously have told me they value our circle time. They especially value having a safe space to be with like-minded educators and to listen and speak together about the hard work educators do each day. This circle member’s comments echo many others: After you have shared a really personal part of who you are, and what it meant to you, you feel like you have a bond within our circle. That you have others who “get” you, and you can share other problems without worrying about what they might think of you. (Unnamed participant, personal communication, 2018).

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS I seek to model a leadership style within our circle that welcomes feedback, so I continue to refine the educative and activity portions that comprise the process for creating the co-mentoring circle. I have continued to add educative readings about topics such as trust, reflective practice, the critical friends process, communication, co-mentoring, and confidentiality. I also continue to make changes to the activities used to establish the group agreements, the activities called hopes and concerns, professional timeline, and the self-portrait assignment. There is overwhelming support for the work done in the co-mentoring circle, and so this feedback sustains my continued work in developing co-mentoring circles so aspiring leaders can have a safe place to reflect on their work, expel emotion, hear about resources and possible solutions to problems, and have a hopeful place to recharge regularly for the important work they do in leading our schools in our communities. I welcome your feedback on my co-mentoring circle work. PERSONAL NOTE AND TRIBUTE TO DR. FRANCES K. KOCHAN Frances K. Kochan came into my life at the perfect time. It was Linda J. Searby who introduced us. At my first meeting with Fran, what I remember vividly was how she listened to my story. Even though I had just met her and was humbled to be in her presence knowing her standing in the scholarly mentoring community, I felt I could tell her my whole story without having to hide any parts. She listened with an intensity I will never forget. The time flew as I talked, and she listened, and as my tears came in the telling of my story, she leaned in and reassured me that my tears were not a sign of a failing. When I ended my story, she began asking questions, deep, thoughtful questions that went to the heart of my story. I began to take notes, and those thoughtful and deeply meaningful questions Fran asked me that day are still questions I return to in my ongoing reflection on my work and my own mentoring and co-mentoring. I left that first meeting with

Creating and Facilitating Co-Mentoring Circles • 99

so much to think about that I spent the rest of the day thinking, reflecting, and journaling. The next morning Fran gave me a surprise quick phone call that was so deeply affirming it is a source of comfort these many years later. Fran has supported my work by attending presentations, meeting with me, taking my phone calls, and urging me to write about my experiences. Fran encouraged me to focus on my co-mentoring circle process, which is the foundation for this book chapter. Fran continues to hold a very special place in my heart, and for her exquisite mentoring, I am forever grateful. REFERENCES Alessandra, T., & O’Connor, M. J. (2011). The platinum rule: Behavioral profiles: Selfassessment. Carlsbad, CA: Alessandra and Associates. Alessandra, T., & O’Connor, M. J. (2013). The platinum rule: Behavioral profiles scoring booklet. Carlsbad, CA: Alessandra and Associates. Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (Eds.). (2010). The Blackwell handbook on mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley and Sons. Arredondo-Rucinski, D. E. (2005). Standards for reflective practice. In S. Gordon (Ed.), Standards for instructional supervision: Enhancing, teaching, and learning. (pp. 77–90). West Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Celikten, M. (2001). The instructional leadership tasks of high school assistant principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(1), 67–76. Chikkatur, A. (2012). Difference matters: Embodiment of and discourse on difference at an urban public high school. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 43(1), 82–100. Combs, J., Harris, S., & Edmonson, S. (2015). Four essential practices for building trust. Educational Leadership, 72(7), 18–22. Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/oct93/vol51/num02/Through-the-Lens-of-a-Critical-Friend.aspx Courage to Lead©. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.couragerenewal.org/courage-tolead/ Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Fletcher, J. K., & Ragins, B. R. (2007). Stone Center relational cultural theory: A window on relational mentoring. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory research and practice (pp. 373–399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gibbs, J. (2006). Reaching all by creating tribes learning communities (30th-anniversary ed.). Windsor, CA: CenterSource Systems. Kochan, F. K., & Pascarelli, J. T. (Eds.). (2003). Global perspectives on mentoring: Transforming contexts, communities, and cultures. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Kochan, F. K., & Trimble, S. B. (2000). From mentoring to co-mentoring: Establishing collaborative relationships. Theory Into Practice, 39(1), 20–28. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The essential conversation: What parents and teachers can learn from each other. New York, NY: Random House.

100  •  KATHLEEN M. COWIN Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mullen, C. A. (2005). The mentoring primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang. O’Mahoney, G. (2003). Through their eyes: The changing role of the principal mentor, as seen by beginning principals. Management Education, 17(4), 15–18. Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators: Improving schooling through professional development. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Palmer, P. J. (2011). Healing the heart of democracy: The courage to create a politics worthy of the human spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ragins, B. E., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 529–550. Ragins, B. E., & Kram, K. E. (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of mentoring: Theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ragins, B. R., & Verbos, A. K. (2007). Positive relationships in action: Relational mentoring and mentoring schemas in the workplace. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104, 842–866. Searby, L. J. (2010). Preparing future principals: Facilitating the development of a mentoring mindset through graduate work. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(1), 5–22. Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2013). Supervision that improves teaching and learning (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). Becoming a trustworthy leader. In 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. 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.

CHAPTER 9

THE FUTURE OF MENTORING David Clutterbuck

Our concepts of mentoring have evolved substantially over the past 40 years. We now see it as much more varied, more widely applicable and more blurred at the edges. In this chapter, I look at major current trends and at emerging trends, which may have a radical impact on mentoring over the next decade.

Keywords: mentor, mentee, coaching Although we owe the word “Mentor” to Homer’s classic Greek myth, the Odyssey, nearly 3,000 years ago, the roots of modern mentoring lie in the essays of the unfortunate French cleric, Fenelon, whose dialogues between Athena, the goddess of wisdom and Odysseus’ son Telemachus established the concept of reflexive conversations that help a person to mature in their thinking and sense of self (1699). These dialogues fit well with the stage models of child and adult development from the 20th century by Kegan (1982), Torbert (1991), and others. The conflation of mentoring and sponsorship, which characterizes much US writing on mentoring, is a much more recent phenomenon—and one not without problems, as we shall explore later in this chapter. To make matters more complex, the concept of mentoring is not only different in European and US contexts; other cultures around the world also have long traditions relating to the development of wisdom in a younger person by an older person from a prior generation. The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 101–109. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

101

102 • DAVID CLUTTERBUCK

We can define mentoring in multiple ways. Mindful of its classical roots, my preferred definition is “Using one’s wisdom to help another person develop wisdom of their own.” The definition of developmental mentoring emerging from my original studies and experiments in the 1980s (Clutterbuck, 1985) is “Mentoring is a helping relationship based on an exchange of knowledge, experience, and goodwill. Mentors help someone less experienced gain confidence, clearer purpose, insight, and wisdom. In developmental mentoring, the mentor, too, is changed by the relationship.” This definition encompasses concepts such as reverse mentoring, where the power dimension emphasised in much US literature is very different. What we call sponsorship mentoring—although referred to simply as mentoring at the time—was a US-specific cultural phenomenon first defined by Levinson (1978) as a hierarchical relationship in which a senior professional “oversees the career of a young man.” Mentoring can also be differentiated from the much younger concept of coaching, which started as a joke relating to tutoring idle, rich students (Thackeray, 1851). Initially a directive form of learning support, coaching quickly spread to the world of sport. More than 100 years later, tennis coach Tim Gallwey (Gallwey, 1976) instigated a form of coaching that encouraged the learner to do the thinking. The rise of professional associations in coaching has gradually shifted the emphasis from directive to non-directive learning, supported by competencies and standards. The formalization of mentoring as a planned or structured activity, aimed at achieving benefits beyond those from an individual recipient, originates in the United States. Yet the early literature (e.g., Kram, 1980; Levinson, 1978) is based entirely on informal mentoring relationships. When structured mentoring programmes appeared in the early 1980s, they aimed to recreate the conditions of the best informal relationships. In the 1990s, as more academic research began to appear, a sharp division appeared between US and European data. In particular, US studies tended to show that informal mentoring was more powerful and effective than formal; and multiple European case studies showed the opposite. The explanation for this divergence lies, at least in part, in the conceptual models used. If the desired outcome of mentoring is career advancement resulting from the exercise of the mentor’s power and influence (i.e., instrumental support), then it is not surprising that many relationships should fail to deliver. It is difficult to be truly open in a relationship that depends on one party having a favorable impression of the other! If the desired outcome is greater wisdom and self-efficacy, then this is a much more realistic expectation. Much of the US-originated research was also invalidated by researchers’ failing to distinguish between relationships within and outside of the direct reporting line. The distinction between “sponsorship mentoring” as described in Kram’s original study and the longer-established European model of “developmental mentoring” was validated in a longitudinal study of mentoring pairs (Clutterbuck, 2007).

The Future of Mentoring • 103

Globally, the impetus in mentoring is increasingly towards separating mentoring and sponsorship as separate roles, mutually compatible, but not in the same person or the same relationship (although one may evolve into the other). Some organizations, such as Rank in the UK, now offer gender-based sponsorship programmes as a separate resource for talent development. In most cases, the people receiving sponsorship already have mentors, and the relationships are kept very separate. This evolution in our understanding of what mentoring is and how it works, driven in large part by valuing alternative cultural traditions, is likely to continue. That, in turn, will influence the rapid growth of new and innovative applications of mentoring. It is notable, however, that most of the innovation in mentoring is now coming in the context of developmental mentoring—returning to the roots of mentoring. Among these trends are: MATERNITY MENTORING Maternity mentoring (Seignot & Clutterbuck, 2017) is aimed at supporting new mothers on their return to the workplace. While legislation in the USA provides only three months’ maternity leave and only applies to women who fulfill minimum time with an employer, other OECD countries and even some developing economies are much more generous with granting maternity leave (as much as two years in some cases). Legislated paternity leave is also increasingly commonplace. After having taken months away for childbirth, the transition back into the workplace can be difficult and sometimes traumatic, for several reasons, including the emotional effect of separating from the child, and the fact that the organization has moved on, so the returner has to re-establish her value and contribution. Maternity mentoring programmes link the returner with another Mum, who has been through and learned from a similar transition—and who has been trained in the practical skills of mentoring. The pair connect before the mentee goes on maternity leave and maintain contact informally until the mentee returns, at which point the mentor provides practical help in helping the mentee plan for re-entry and cope with the many challenges of fitting back in and getting back up to speed. Maternity mentoring is highly cost-effective. It has a significant effect on the numbers of women who return to the same employment, helps them regain or exceed previous levels of productivity more quickly, and contributes to the organization’s reputation as a gender-friendly place to work. The same approach can also be used with other groups of returners, such as carers (people who have taken time out to care for relatives), secondees (people seconded to other organizations for a period), and people returning from overseas assignments. Maternity mentoring compares favorably with externally resourced maternity coaching, which is generally expensive and does not bring with it an understanding of the organization’s culture. A typical programme consists of a period of planning and consultation with female staff and with managers in general, promotion of the programme to develop

104 • DAVID CLUTTERBUCK

a pool of mentors, training for mentors, assignment to mothers before they take maternity leave, ongoing support for mentoring pairs, and evaluation. ETHICAL MENTORING The concept comes from a recognition that unethical and illegal behaviour in organizations rarely happens because an individual or group of people set out to do wrong. Rather, it starts with small breaches and gradually grows in scope and scale. Factors that make unethical or illegal behaviour more likely include: • Group loyalty—for example, when health professionals cover up the failings of a colleague, whose incompetence is killing patients. Especially when services are under pressure, group solidarity tends to take precedence over patient care. • Self-delusion. Most people think they are above averagely ethically. They also think they are above average as a driver. Our need to think well of ourselves leads us to rationalize away behaviors that dent our positive selfimage. Recent research indicates, for example, that creative people are more likely to self-delude because they are better at making up narratives to explain away behaviour that does not fit with their espoused values. Ethical mentors focus on helping people think through situations, where they have recognized the potential for conflict of values, or ethical lapses. They also help people develop their ethical awareness so that they are better able to foresee and avoid ethical dilemmas and provide a resource through which business leaders, who are concerned about ethicality, can shape more ethically aware cultures in their organizations. Ethical mentors also help potential whistle-blowers to consider their actions and the potential consequences. Whistle-blowing processes in large organizations suffer from both reluctance of some people to use them, for fear that matters will escalate out of their control; and conversely from malicious usage, for example by staff who have been justifiably fired, or precipitate use, where the whistleblower’s actions undermine due procedure with regard to an issue already being investigated. The ethical mentor helps people think through when and how to ensure that their concerns are being addressed openly and appropriately, and how to mitigate any negative personal consequences. Ethical mentors need to have a deep insight into their own thinking processes, in relation to their behaviour and their decision-making. They need strong skills in questioning and challenging—both of themselves and others. They need to be able to help other people step back and critique their values, judgments, and actions—yet the mentors cannot be judgmental themselves. So, the outcome of the mentoring conversation is a solution or approach that fits the considered values of the mentee, not those of the mentor.

The Future of Mentoring • 105

Ethical mentors need skills in disentangling intent and impact; in extracting appropriate lessons from complex and often highly emotion-soaked situations; and in helping people rediscover their belief in their own potential both to be ethical and to influence their environment (their colleagues, their organization and society) for good. SUPERVISION FOR MENTORS Mentors need to have formative conversations about their aspirations and values, their strengths and weaknesses, and their evolving sense of identity, to help them develop greater self-belief and clarity of personal purpose. In a sponsorship-style arrangement, these explorations can remain at a fairly shallow level. In a developmental context, they may go much deeper, raising a range of issues relating to boundaries with other disciplines, such as coaching and therapy. Mentoring programmes in Europe increasingly offer supervision to their mentors, and the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) expects all professional mentors to have regular supervision—for both their own sake and that of their mentees. PROFESSIONAL MENTORS Both the EMCC and the International Mentoring Association have developed competency standards for mentors. A professional qualification has recently been launched by the Association of Business Mentors, in partnership with Henley Business School. Several countries in Europe now have Mentoring Academies, targeted at business leaders who wish to use their experience in retirement in a non-directive way. They tend to see both coaching and consulting as too “down market.” Some companies, such as glassmakers St. Goblin, run internal mentoring academies. We now see, in addition, formal accreditation programmes for mentoring programme managers. MENTORING AS THE TROJAN HORSE FOR A COACHING CULTURE The fashion for creating coaching cultures waxes and wanes, but the ambition to have line managers behave in more of a coaching style remains. The main barrier is the very large shift in mindset and confidence to coach amongst line managers. Training them to mentor someone outside their line responsibilities provides a safe learning space, where they can become comfortable with a developmental style of conversation, which they can subsequently transplant into conversations with their direct reports. MENTORING AND AI Artificial intelligence AI is bad news for many basic level coaches whose practice is based on following simplistic formulae. Algorithms can already do most of

106 • DAVID CLUTTERBUCK

what these coaches do, even better—and they are improving all the time. So basic level coaches are susceptible firstly to being replaced by coachdogs (algorithms that cannot learn), then by AI (which can learn and improve with experience). To thrive in the new environment, coaches and mentors will need to be sufficiently competent and flexible to form partnerships with their AI, with the AI providing data and suggestions and the coach drawing on their own experience and judgment. One of the widely accepted short definitions of mentoring is “coaching plus”— a mentor requires all the skills of a coach, plus experience and the wisdom to use it sparingly to help someone else think through difficult choices or draw insightful conclusions from their own experiences. When coaches at the highest level of maturity and capability describe what they do, it always involves accessing more of themselves than would be the case for lesser coaches. It sounds a lot like mentoring, and indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate out the two disciplines at higher levels of practice and competence. What coaches at this high level of maturity are doing is operating at a level of wisdom beyond less capable colleagues and far beyond the capacity of an AI. We can describe three kinds of wisdom: • Lean wisdom—context (task) specific; • Broad wisdom—reflection on life experience (personal and vicarious); and • Meta-wisdom—brings together multiple, shifting perspectives AI and basic level coaches can provide lean wisdom, with the latter able to draw to some extent on broad wisdom. Great mentors operate at all three levels. INDIGENIZATION Largely depicted as inventions of the US and Europe, coaching and mentoring— under different names and with different emphases—are also traditions within most cultures. There is an increasing pressure to reorient mentoring to align with local cultural tradition, for example, within Islamic tradition in Turkey, where local mentors and coaches have begun to “reclaim” the heritage. A form of reverse mentoring (where the mentor is at a lower level in the organizational hierarchy) is being used within New Zealand Rugby to change the leadership culture of the sport to one that is more representative of the cultural norms of the Maori and Pacific Islanders, who make up most of the professional players but only a tiny percentage of the governance structure. NEW SOCIAL DIMENSIONS Small scale, unpublished experiments in New York State and elsewhere have demonstrated the potential for integrating multiple mentoring programmes to

The Future of Mentoring • 107

change communities. Using a school district as a hub, for example, can give rise to programmes for staff, pupils, between university students and pupils, and to help parents support their children better at school. Public sector organizations in the UK (police, medicine, emergency services, schools, etc.) have created mentor pools, available across these organisations. One of the claimed benefits is that a mentor from outside the organisation but working in a public sector context can provide a balanced perspective. THE THREAT OF FKT The word mentoring is increasingly being misused to describe programmes that put people together for fast knowledge transfer (FKT). We can define two main types of FKT. One relates to information—“What I need to know.” The second relates to situations—“What do I do when…?” The conversations in both cases are transactional and directive because there is insufficient time for the mentor to apply a mentoring or coaching style. Additionally, the “mentor” in this transaction may not have the skill of using his or her knowledge to formulate powerful questions, rather than give advice; and the “mentee” may not have the skills to present his or her issue in a way that elicits a learning conversation. The only difference between FKT and going to, for example, a lawyer or other professional expert, is that FKT tends to be free. The advantages of FKT include: • Speed of response—having multiple points of expertise to call upon reduces the time between identifying a problem and finding an answer. • Subject expertise is all that matters—you do not have to have the skills of teaching to pass on some information. • A “one-night-stand” requires no more support than reasonably efficient dating software. FKT is basically just information exchange. Avoiding the Commoditization Trap FKT’s abuse of mentoring’s good name (if we describe it thus) is just the latest in a long history of organisations looking for simplistic, on-the-cheap solutions and putting a more prestigious label on them. The reality is that, while mentoring is relatively inexpensive in monetary terms—at least in comparison with more formal methods of talent development or training—it is comparatively expensive in the quantity and quality of intellect, commitment, and energy it requires. And these are resources, which are in even shorter supply! Mentoring in Contrast to FKT By contrast, mentoring is not a transaction, but a relationship that differs from FKT in multiple ways:

108 • DAVID CLUTTERBUCK

• It typically results in a two-way learning. • It focuses not just on the problem but on the learning the mentee can take from it and apply in other circumstances (It is the classic difference between giving a man a fish and teaching him how to fish). • In addition to technical knowledge, it offers self-knowledge. • It often provides the mentee with a role model. • It leads to much deeper levels of change in ways of thinking, behaviour, and, in many cases, personal transformation. • The mentor accompanies the mentee through the process of important transitions in life, work, or career (FKT just intervenes at a few key points). It is one thing to take on board what you should do to address an issue, quite another to follow through to achieving change). • It creates a high level of honesty (both self-honesty and towards each other) as a result of the trust that builds between mentor and mentee over time. • It gets behind the presented issue. By helping the mentee understand his or her internal context (values, aspirations, strengths, weaknesses, and so on) and linking these to a deeper understanding of one’s external context (what is going on around them), mentoring almost always results in a redefinition of goals. • It addresses issues (business or personal) from a longer-term, strategic perspective, as well as a short-term, tactical perspective. • It builds the habit of reflection on experience—something in serious decline in working environments that emphasize doing more rather than thinking more. • It can form a key part of a corporate strategy for achieving objectives such as increased diversity in management, making significant culture shifts, or for improving employee engagement. Moreover, the impact of mentoring on the business is relatively easy to measure. • Over time, it helps the mentee build a support network of additional relationships of trust, through introductions from the mentor. If mentoring is to increase its impact on organizations and society, then it has to be a skill readily available to as many people as possible. That is why colleagues and I around the world are experimenting with tools to equip young people still at school with the skills to coach and mentor and to make effective use of coaches and mentors before they enter higher education and the world of work. Our goal is to launch a Foundation that will create five million school-age mentors globally over five years. Teachers and community leaders will engage with the project by training and supporting the young mentors and mentees. It’s still only a start, but 40 years after the first flush of formal mentoring programmes, it is a pointer for where mentoring needs to go next, to change our world for the better.

The Future of Mentoring • 109

REFERENCES Clutterbuck, D. (1985). Everyone needs a mentor (1st ed.). Wimbledon, UK: CIPD. Clutterbuck, D. (2007). A longitudinal study of the effectiveness of developmental mentoring. Ph.D. thesis. King’s College, University of London. Fenelon, F. de. (1699). Telemachus, son of Ulysses. Cambridge, UK: Republished Cambridge University Press, 1994. Gallwey, W. T. (1976). Inner tennis: Playing the game. New York, NY: Random House Incorporated. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kram, K. (1980). Mentoring processes at work: Developmental relationships in managerial careers. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University. Levinson, D. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf. Seignot, N., & Clutterbuck, D. (2017). Mentoring new parents at work. London, UK: Routledge. Thackeray, W. (1851). Pendennis. London, UK: Smith, Elder, 1898. Torbert, W. R. (1991). The power of balance: Transforming self, society, and scientific inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

PART III THE ART OF MENTORING: THEORY TO PRACTICE

CHAPTER 10

PROLOGUE A Tribute to Dr. Kochan, the Model Mentor Sydney Freeman, Jr.

I am humbled and honored to have been asked by Linda Searby and Ellen H. Reames to represent the many people that have been mentored by Fran Kochan. Her influence over the years has led to many successful and prominent educators and administrators in higher education, K–12, and industry. I am grateful to share my personal experiences with this giant of a scholar and administrator. I will focus my commentary on the years as a graduate student and an emerging higher education scholar and professor. Dr. Kochan embodies and models the greatest characteristics associated with being a mentor, coach, and sponsor to her students and colleagues. One of the amazing things about Dr. Kochan is that she is not just your mentor during your matriculation as one of her advisees and mentees. She invests her time, advice, and counsel after graduation and throughout your career in your chosen occupation. Although I completed my doctoral program in 2011, she still mentors me. After I gained tenure, I asked her to provide coaching on the next phase of my career in preparation for promotion to full professor. She graciously spent four days working on my post-tenure research agenda, and she co-authored several research projects with me. The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 113–116. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

113

114 • SYDNEY FREEMAN, Jr.

I first met Dr. Kochan in the summer of 2007. I had just completed my undergraduate degree at Oakwood College in Huntsville, AL, a small, Historically Black College and University (HBCU) liberal arts institution. I was nervous about transitioning to Auburn University as it was fifteen times the size of my undergraduate institution, and it was a Predominantly White Institution (PWI). After being introduced to several faculty members in my graduate program, I was advised to set up a meeting with Dr. Kochan. At that time, she was serving as the Dean of the College of Education, the first woman to serve in that role. I followed the advice and arranged a meeting with Dr. Kochan. I arrived at her door, and this petite, yet stately woman smiled and extended her hand to me. She asked me about my background, future professional goals, and my source of funding for graduate school. At the time, I didn’t know what a graduate assistantship was. I was paying out of pocket and accumulating student loans. By the end of the summer, I had a full-time assistantship that lasted throughout my graduate school experience until I completed my Ph.D. I am forever indebted to her for not only advocating for me but also using her position of influence and power to ensure that I received the financial support I needed to matriculate through my master’s and doctoral programs. She was more than a mentor; she was a sponsor. In many cases, sponsorship comes in the form of a leader helping a person obtain highly visible assignments, promotions, or jobs. She went beyond that and used her position to create opportunities that would prepare me for future professional success. Throughout that time, she facilitated opportunities for me to serve in a variety of roles and settings, such as in the offices of assessment and evaluation, research, and innovation. These opportunities were eye-opening and critical to my identity and development as a higher education professional. One of the strategies that made her a wonderful advisor (and that I have incorporated in my career) is one-on-one mentoring. After stepping down as dean to serve in the role of distinguished professor, she agreed to serve as my dissertation chair. I will never forget how nervous was after the completion of the collection of data from interviews for my dissertation. I was ashamed that I had not learned how to code data in the two qualitative courses that I had taken during my doctoral studies. She contacted me as I had been avoiding her for several weeks. Once we met, she sat beside me, working through the cognitive process of looking at the transcriptions to identify themes and codes. Her patience with me was incredible as often other faculty would explain something once and move on, but she sat with me as long as it took to ensure that I was able to think like a qualitative researcher. She taught me through modeling how to mentor students who may have gaps in their academic development. She allows me to make mistakes and learn on my own. She provides the perfect balance of support with just enough opportunity for her mentees to learn on their own. This support was particularly important as I learned how to navigate my professional experiences with faculty, staff, and students throughout my graduate

Prologue • 115

school experience. She kept an eye on my development and facilitated opportunities for growth without interfering with the natural progress of these relationships and experiences. Dr. Kochan has taught me that there will be times that the mentee and the mentor may disagree about the mentee’s decision regarding a professional choice, but that does not have to affect their relationship negatively. She is a mentor that has allowed me to take risks that have allowed us to learn together. For instance, when completing my dissertation, I utilized a newly developed research methodological approach called multi-grounded theory. Most dissertation chairs with whom I have interacted would not allow their students to engage in a non-traditional methodological approach during their dissertation, but she allowed me to learn by doing. She also demonstrated that even though she was a distinguished professor and well-versed in qualitative research, she was willing to learn and support my development in the process. Another strategy I learned from Dr. Kochan was how to write prolifically. She was one of the first people to believe in my writing ability. She taught me how to collect deep, rich qualitative interview data and to organize it in such a way that I could develop various manuscripts from the same study. With her coaching, there are years when I have published more than ten manuscripts. This accomplishment is because she took the time to coach me and give me feedback on my work. Her transparency and honesty regarding ways in which I could improve my scholarship have proven most valuable and have been contributing factors in any professional successes I have had as a researcher. Dr. Kochan continues to create opportunities for us to collaborate professionally through academic presentations, book chapters, and peer-reviewed articles. She is committed to investing time in developing the next generation of academicians through mentorship. This commitment is a rarity in this day and age. Many senior scholars try to hold on to the top leadership and academic positions in the academy while not providing the next generation of scholars the opportunities or wisdom to follow in their footsteps. I have learned so much from Dr. Kochan about balance. She taught me that I could be a serious and respected academic and still enjoy life with family and have fun. She showed me how to think about complex ideas and new ways to demonstrate rigor in my academic writing and analysis. Although she does not often discuss it, Dr. Kochan is a trailblazing leader. Her commitment to the support of faculty and students of color during her time of service as Auburn University’s Dean of the College of Education was extremely important. She modeled grace, poise, and strength as a Dean and as a faculty member. Her humility and work ethic are characteristics that I aspire to in my career. It is important to note that in the time I have known her, I have never heard of any scandal or untoward situation that she has caused. She has been a model of ethical leadership in a time where many leaders have not lived up to those high ideals. Dr. Kochan, on behalf of the many students for which you have been a mentor, coach, sponsor, and advocate, I thank you. I know that as a leader and faculty

116 • SYDNEY FREEMAN, Jr.

member, you had to advocate and intervene on behalf of students and colleagues even when they were unappreciative or did not know that you were doing so. You are a consummate mentor, and I pray God’s richest blessings as you continue to impact the lives of those in the field of education.

CHAPTER 11

MENTORED IN AUTHORSHIP Mary Barbara Trube

Mentored in Authorship presents various influences Dr. Frances Kochan had on the author as she developed writing-for-publication skills from her time as junior faculty to full professor. The chapter begins with Dr. Kochan’s influence based on interactions with print and ends with her current influences as the series editor for a co-edited and co-authored book on mentoring. Examples are provided.

Keywords: mentor, collaborative mentoring, networks It is an honor and privilege to be a small part of the Festschrift honoring and recognizing Dr. Frances Kochan’s many contributions over a lifetime of mentoring, coaching, and leadership in higher education, as well as her contributions to the fields of mentoring and coaching. The focus topic of this chapter is Mentored in Authorship; however, I will also add, as appropriate, “mentored in editorship.” The intention is to present the mentoring relationship I had with Dr. Kochan that resulted in my career as a writer and editor. Laurinavicius (2016) and Zimmerman (2017) suggested that mentoring relationships include one’s interactions with print; therefore, Dr. Kochan became my mentor in 2002 as I read The Organizational and Human Dimensions of Successful Mentoring Programs and Relationships to prepare for a regional presentation about mentoring for the Head Start community in south-central Ohio. This volume took a humanistic approach to organizational mentoring, informing providers of professional development about organizational mentoring that fostered proThe Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 117–122. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

117

118 • MARY BARBARA TRUBE

fessional and personal successes of personnel. The Head Start Association needed this professional development to attain its ambitious goals of developing and supporting individuals at every performance level and recognized the importance of mentoring and coaching to achieve its goals. Having had positive experiences from reading Dr. Kochan’s work and presenting her findings via PowerPoint to a receptive group of Head Start and other educators, I rarely missed her sessions at the University of New Mexico’s (UNM) Mentoring Institute or the International Mentoring Association (IMA). Our first in-person encounter was not until 2012 when she agreed, as series editor, to include Dr. Aimee Howlee’s and my edited volume Mentoring in the Professions: Orienting Toward the Future in the Perspectives on Mentoring Series with Information Age Publishing (IAP). To give a glimpse into how Dr. Kochan has mentored me, I need to begin by briefly introducing myself. After that, I’ll describe the roles Dr. Kochan played in mentoring me in authorship and editorship, as well as the benefits and outcomes of her mentorship. Brief vignettes will be included within the sections to illustrate how her mentoring led to my achieving a measure of success in authorship and editorship. INTRODUCTION OF SELF When asked to describe myself as an educator, I mention that I am an engaged scholar, life-long learner, and mentor. That remains my description currently as Professor of Education Emerita at Ohio University, Chillicothe Campus; Dissertation Mentor and Contributing Faculty at Walden University; and Adjunct Faculty at Florida Southwestern State College. Although I am retired from Ohio University, I continue to be highly engaged in the profession and have received encouragement about this aspect of my life’s work from Dr. Kochan. Indeed, she has never said, “You’re retired! Isn’t it time to stop and enjoy life?” as others have. In a tongue-in-cheek manner, I ask, “I wonder why?” I recognized early on in my professional careers as an early childhood artseducation consultant and as a public and private P–6 teacher and administrator that my forte was in mentoring others. My terminal degree from the Educational Leadership Program in the College of Education at The University of Texas at Austin prepared me for mentoring formally and informally at all levels of education. Indeed, my dissertation included a finding that supported the importance of principals’ mentorship for alternatively certified teachers’ development. Today, I mentor others, conduct research on mentoring, include mentoring practices in courses I teach, formally mentor doctoral candidates, and present and publish on mentoring topics. Had it not been for Dr. Kochan’s mentoring in authorship, my own identity as an author would not have been fully realized. ROLES DR. KOCHAN PLAYED The roles Dr. Kochan played in mentoring me in authorship are presented in this section. As noted in the literature by Clutterbuck (2012), Ragins and Kram (2007), and others, three roles or functions that are performed by mentors to support men-

Mentored in Authorship • 119

tees include refining career skills, furthering psychosocial skills, and modeling desirable behaviors. These will be loosely aligned with Dr. Kathy Kram’s (1985) phases of mentoring (initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition) from her seminal work Mentoring at Work, and Dr. Lois Zachary’s (2000) stages along the continuum of preparing, negotiating, enabling, and ending. Refining Career Skills Our first person-to-person encounter in 2012 brought several surprises. At the urging of publisher George Johnson at Information Age Publishing (IAP), I called Dr. Kochan to ask if she would consider including a colleague’s and my co-edited volume as part of her series with IAP. At that time, I did not realize that one could directly contact and speak with a publisher or a series editor. As a writing and editing late bloomer, I was in awe and intimidated by the thought of one-on-one contact. Dr. Kochan was the role-model for the engaged scholar I aspired to be, which made me feel self-conscious about taking such a bold action of calling and directly speaking with her. On that first encounter, I found Dr. Kochan approachable, encouraging, yet noncommittal when she said, “Send me your prospectus and sample chapters— well, send whatever you have. Give me some time to review it and talk with George.” Reflecting on Dr. Kochan’s acceptance of our project into her series, I now realize that preparation for mentoring had already begun to take place (Zachary, 2000), and the initiation phase of our authentic mentoring relationship had begun. When I accepted responsibility for the various tasks involved in the author-editor process, we agreed on expectations that brought our work to fruition (Kram, 1985). Dr. Kochan’s encouragement suggested her trust in my abilities to contribute as an author and resolve dilemmas found in the work of an editor. Furthering Psychosocial Skills Dr. Kochan presented herself as a mentor willing to support a novice authoreditor, enabling her to refine career skills and advance in her academic career (Stone, 2004), create professional networks, and develop confidence, self-efficacy, and professional identity (Zey, 1988) as an author-editor. According to Turban and Lee (2007), career mentoring and psychosocial support occur during Zachary’s (2000) cultivation phase of a mentoring relationship. The following is an example of expanding networks, which I partially attribute to Dr. Kochan who enabled or encouraged network-building when I was writing for publication. Below, I include a section that makes a slight distinction between networks and networking. The following is an example of an outcome from building a network by attending mentoring conferences. Network-Building In 2013, Dr. Beverly Irby gave a presentation on “Developmental Relationships: A Critique of Two Decades of Published Research from the Mentoring and

120 • MARY BARBARA TRUBE

Tutoring Journal” at the UNM Mentoring Institute. Dr. Beth VanDerveer and I had given a presentation based on our research about mentoring engaged scholars that I was interested in publishing. With strengthened confidence, a sense of selfefficacy, and identity as an author, I sought Dr. Irby out following the session and briefly asked if the topic would be of interest to readers of Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning. A few months later, we submitted to the journal. Our manuscript was returned for extensive revisions, we resubmitted, but only to be rejected by reviewers who also said it was an interesting topic. I contacted Dr. Irby directly, and she encouraged us to reopen our study. After revising our IRB, we expanded our study to invite additional faculty who had joined the university, all of whom were international faculty. I once again received book-mentoring from the Clutterbuck, Poulsen, and Kochan (2012) edited volume Developing Successful Diversity Mentoring Programs while preparing to mentor diverse faculty. This volume provided insights and promoted my reflection on the mentoring of diverse, engaged scholars over the previous ten years. In 2015, we successfully submitted an updated manuscript, which was honored in 2016 as the journal’s 2015 Article of the Year. Dr. Kochan and I stayed in contact following the publishing of the Howley and Trube (2015) edited volume at mentoring institutes and conferences, the work which had been accomplished in 2014. Through Dr. Kochan’s initiatives, IAP included our work with series volumes in fliers and table displays at conferences. Dr. Kochan influenced a book review of this work. At the same time, Dr. Kochan expanded my networks by introducing me to her colleagues and other authors in the series and introduced me when I attended her conference sessions. Likewise, I introduced her to my colleagues. Networking At the 2015 UNM Mentoring Institute, Dr. Kochan agreed to have lunch with my university colleagues and me to talk about sessions we presented and future ideas for publishing. I vividly recall Beth’s and my meeting with Dr. Kochan to talk about her session “Mentoring across Cultural Differences: Delving into What Works,” and our work on mentoring international faculty. When Drs. Pam Beam and Dianne Gut joined the table, we shared perceptions of our sessions. Beth VanDerveer and I shared mentoring in educational diplomacy, which included such aspects as appreciative inquiry, conflict resolution, cultural competence, and emotional intelligence. For the session, we prepared a toolkit that included print resources that professional developers or mentors could use during sessions. After receiving a copy of the toolkit, Dr. Kochan asked, “Are these what you handed out? Is this your own work?” To which we answered, “Yes.” She next asked, “Where are your names on these tools?” Dr. VanDerveer and I just looked at each other and then her in silence. Dr. Kochan advised, “You may want to rethink distributing intellectual property without adding your names. These could be used in a handbook about your work.” Dr. Kochan displayed warmth and interest in our work and then changed the focus of our discussion. It was understood that collaborative forms of mentoring

Mentored in Authorship • 121

were of interest to her, especially for experienced professionals (Kochan & Trimbel, 2000). She asked in-depth questions about the collaborative mentoring relationship we formed and called Design Team VII—when it began, the purposes, the outcomes, and how we sustain it. It was at this time that Dr. Kochan said, “If you want to write a book, others would be interested in your mentoring collaborative.” At what appeared to be the negotiation stage, we clarified goals and expectations and set benchmarks for attaining goals from the mentorship (Zachary, 2000). Design Team VII members felt we had received our charge and decided to focus on developing a model of collaborative mentorship, which we committed to present to Dr. Kochan when we attended the IMA conference hosted at Auburn University during March of 2016. After working for five months, Design Team VII members sent a summary via e-mail for Dr. Kochan’s review before the IMA conference. At the conference, Beth attended Dr. Kochan’s pre-conference workshop and arranged a meeting time between Dr. Kochan and Design Team VII members. Her response to our work was affirmative and promotional. She suggested, “This model would be an interesting framework for presentations, a book and if you’re interested, a handbook with workshops.” In the fall of 2016, Dianne, Pam, and I presented “Design Team VII: A Model of Collaborative Mentorship” at the UNM Mentoring Institute. Shortly after that, Dr. Kochan invited us to submit a chapter about our model for review of its suitability for the 2019 Wiley-Blackwell International Handbook of Mentoring: Paradigms, Practices, Programs, and Possibilities, a volume co-edited by Drs. Beverly J. Irby, Fran Kochan, Linda Searby, Jennifer Boswell, and Ruben Garza, and assisted by Dr. Nahed Abdelrahman. The Design Team VII chapter was accepted and is currently in press. In addition, Dr. Kochan agreed that Design Team VII members’ book/handbook should be published through IAP and included in her series. MODELING DESIRABLE BEHAVIORS Dr. Kochan is a giant in the mentoring and coaching field as is evidenced by her wide range of publications. Publications, workshops, and presentations demonstrate her extensive expertise and illustrate how she mentors others to promote multi-sector mentor programs, leadership initiatives in mentoring and coaching, and cross-cultural and international mentoring and coaching endeavors. As Kram (S1985) suggested, mentees may strive to adopt the mentor’s values, attitudes and behaviors. As our previous mentoring relationship ended (Zachary, 2000) and was transformed and redefined (Kram, 1985), as we both entered our respective emerita statuses, Dr. Kochan’s stature as a mentor and coach remains an aspirational model to emulate. CONCLUSION The successful outcomes are numerous, as I benefitted from Dr. Kochan’s mentoring for authorship for more than a decade and a half. Granted, our mentoring relationship is now more collaborative than dependent. I am still able to contact Dr.

122 • MARY BARBARA TRUBE

Kochan when there is a need for answers to questions, advice, a sounding board, or just to say, “Hello, Fran. How is living in sunny Florida?” Today, I consider her a mentor and dear friend who continues to mentor me in authorship. REFERENCES Clutterbuck, D. (2012). Everyone needs a mentor (5th ed.). London, UK: The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Gut, D., Beam, P., & Trube, M. B. (2016). Design Team VII: A model of collaborative mentorship. The Chronicle of Mentoring & Coaching, 1(7), 557–559. Howley, A., & Trube, M. B. (Eds.). (2015). Mentoring for the professions: Orienting toward the future. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Irby, B. (2013, October 28–30). Developmental relationships: A critique of two decades of published research from the Mentoring & Tutoring Journal [Keynote presentation]. University of New Mexico Mentoring Conference, Albuquerque, NM. Irby, B., Boswell, J., Searby, L., Kochan, F., Garza, B., & Abdelrahman, N. (Eds.). (2020). The Wiley international handbook of mentoring: Paradigms, practices, programs, and possibilities. Wiley. Kochan, F. K., & Trimbel, S. (2000). From mentoring to co-mentoring: Establishing collaborative relationships. Theory into Practice, 39, 20–28. Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Laurinavicius, T. (August 19, 2016). Why books are the ultimate mentors in life. Observer. Retrieved from: https://observer.com/2016/08/why-books-are-the-ultimate-mentors-in-life/ Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (2007). The roots and meaning of mentoring. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3–15). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Stone, F. M. (2004). The mentoring advantage: Creating the next generation of leaders. Chicago, IL: Dearborn Trade Publishers. Trube, M. B., Gut, D., Beam, P., & VanDeveer, B. (2020). A model of collaborative mentorship. In B. Irby, J. Boswell, L. Searby, F. Kochan, R. Garza, & N. Abdelrahman (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of mentoring: Paradigms, practices, programs, and possibilities (pp. 567–582). Wiley. Trube, M. B., & VanDerveer, B. (2015). Support for engaged scholars: The role of mentoring networks with diverse faculty. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning. DOI: 10.1080/13611267.2015.1099869. Turban, D. B., & Lee, F. K. (2007). The role of personality in mentoring relationships. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Dram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 21–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zachary, L. (2000). The mentoring guide: Facilitating effective learning relationships. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Zey, M. G. (1988). A mentor for all reasons. Personnel Journal, 67, 46–51. Zimmerman, K. (July 29, 2017). Mentees and mentors must-read book lists. Edge for Scholars. Retrieved from: https://edgeforscholars.org/mentees-and-mentors-mustread-book-lists/

CHAPTER 12

MENTORED IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT Sheila Moore

Be a good professor, protect your students, and live a good life. —Frances Kochan The words of advice referenced above were spoken by Fran as I prepared for my first academic appointment. We were having lunch, and she was giving me higher education teaching nuggets and displaying “proud mama” moments as she shared in my excitement on landing my first academic appointment. I was feeling blessed, peaceful, and confident in my new role. I have been blessed with Fran Kochan as my mentor. She is one of the wisest women that I know. From the moment we met, she always had my best interests at heart. Mentorship can be life-changing. Fran was the most instrumental mentor in helping me to build my career in the academy. Without her mentoring, I would not be where I am today. I found it humbling to have her to look up to and to share goals with. She helped guide me in my decisions, and we developed a mutual respect and admiration for each other. Dr. Kochan personifies what one should look for in a good mentor. She groomed me as her mentee to be a sound professional and made working with her an interesting and memorable experience. Subsequently, upon entering the ranks of the professoriate, I had a better appreciation for the importance of mentorship. I The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 123–127. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

123

124 • SHEILA MOORE

am very thankful for Fran, who shared some of her time to help guide me through this journey. The profession of education presents a wide range of opportunities, so I always appreciated having Fran’s advice on how to achieve my goals best. Not only do we share the same passion for our profession, but Fran shared a desire for me to be successful in my career and to maximize my potential. INTENTIONALITY Fran Kochan intentionally chose me to be her mentee. When I arrived at Auburn University in 2006, I was at the end of a life-changing event, and had twenty plus years as a teacher and school leader, so pursuing the doctoral degree was a logical choice for me. Fran had already accomplished a lot to advance the “art of mentoring” when I met her, and being the intentional mentor that she is, she identified the potential in me to succeed in the academy. In choosing a mentee, the mentor would be well advised to consider the old saying: “It’s not the IQ but the ‘I Will’ that counts.” That is how Fran embraced mentoring with me. When I inquired of her intentional mentoring towards me, Fran shared with me that she looked for highly motivated and hard-working mentees because they are likely to benefit tremendously from a mentorship. Fran was wise enough to have a clear assumption that we would work well together. Although we shared gender identities and had similar backgrounds in school leadership, we embraced our different racial identities, which led us to value our mentoring relationship in a caring, open, and inspiring way. Both the mentor and the mentee must be open and truthful. Honesty is a necessary condition for developing trust, which is ultimately an essential glue in the sealing of the mentoring relationship. Fran valued honesty. Fran modeled the expectation for her mentees to embrace a good work ethic and show commitment to seeing the best in individuals. Fran engaged students from different kinds of lives and accepted them just as they were. She moved through the world in a way where she did not see flaws or defects in people. I lacked self-confidence when I began my doctoral program. At that time, I was experiencing personal issues and was trying to get an even balance with personal, work, and school. Fran began to empower me. She provided inspiration and encouragement so I could grow in confidence and develop the skills necessary to be successful. As the intentional mentor, Fran provided guidance that enabled me to grow intellectually and emotionally as well as providing me with opportunities to develop my skills. Fran recognized that much as a parent, providing intellectual and emotional support to me was important. In other words, Fran encouraged me, and she helped me to develop persistence in the face of adversity. PREPARATION Fran was my dissertation chair and introduced me to the world of the academy. She was my career, academic, and research mentor during my doctoral matricula-

Mentored in Career Development • 125

tion. She also introduced me to the hierarchical structure of the academy and the value of academic and professional pursuits. What struck me most early in the dissertation process was how Fran was a good listener. She paid attention to my words, including tone, attitude, and body language. She heard what I was telling her without first interpreting or judging. Through careful listening, Fran conveyed her empathy for me and understood my challenges. I trusted Fran with my career trajectory. After listening to my goals to serve in the academy, Fran intentionally began to outline and shape my career path. When Fran first approached me with the idea of preparing a manuscript dissertation, I was a little hesitant. Being the intentional mentor, Fran knew of my hesitations but also knew I could succeed. Academia was the logical choice in my career path, and Fran said I would benefit much from preparing a dissertation that only ten percent of doctoral candidates complete. She intentionally made sure I understood how more marketable I would be in the academy if I prepared a manuscript dissertation. Thus, began the nuts-and-bolts of manuscript preparation—all for the better. I can say I had three publications upon entering the academy. Yes, I was marketable!!! My career was significantly enhanced by Fran’s direct interaction in shaping my research agenda. Again, intentional, all in preparation for the career in the academy. I benefited from direct exposure to Fran’s research skills, and she nurtured my budding interest in researching the academy. Also, Fran provided opportunities for me to work on projects with her, which was an effective means by which to build our relationship and introduce me to working with others in a collegial manner. INTENTIONAL CAREER NETWORKING Fran’s intentional mentoring facilitated my career because she networked on my behalf. Fran provided opportunities for me to meet face-to-face with deans and department chairs who were seeking educational leadership faculty. Furthermore, she provided opportunities for me to attend regional and national conferences to cultivate my research and communication skills. It was important to her to serve adequately as “my agent.” Fran’s reputation was stellar, and I received royal treatment because she believed in me, and others believed in me, too, because of Fran. Fran was acting on my behalf, and this gave me an added advantage of advanced job notifications, personal introductions to those who were hiring, keeping me current in my career, and well connected with the higher education community. She had connections and was happy to use them and put me forward for jobs. KEEPING IN TOUCH I never thought about not staying in touch with Fran after graduation. It was obvious that we were not only mentor and mentee but friends as well. Fran had

126 • SHEILA MOORE

facilitated all my preparation for success in the academy, and I was confident that I had the tools I needed. She was instrumental in making sure I was ready. Fran, the intentional mentor, gradually transitioned the relationship from studentmentee to colleague-mentee, and Fran transitioned from dissertation chair-mentor to colleague-mentor. I knew she would have a significant impact on my career. My preparation at Auburn under Fran’s guidance was superb. When I received my first academic appointment, Fran expressed some reservations about me accepting a tenure-track position there. But being who she is, she supported me. Fran knew my preparation and the level of excellence I demanded of myself and my need to give back. Fran supported me and kept me focused on my career path. We continued our habit of emailing and typing in the subject line “checking in.” This ritual was our established communication method when it was time to get together and engage in our mentoring relationship. I knew to call her and give her an update on what I was doing. We developed strategic career goals for me in terms of publishing in reputable journals, presenting at conferences, and building my state and national presence. Our strategic planning assisted me in receiving several awards during my first academic appointment. I remember Fran telling me I would benefit much from preparing a manuscript dissertation. Well, I was awarded the Outstanding Junior Faculty Paper during my first year in the academy. The paper was one of the manuscripts from my dissertation. Fran had the look of “proud mama” when the award was announced at our educational leadership conference. All three of the manuscripts prepared in my dissertation were published during my first year in the academy. Through Fran’s guidance, my publication identity was established by the time I entered my second year of the academy. From there, Fran provided opportunities for publishing whenever she could. During my third year and fourth year in the academy, I was awarded Innovative Teacher of the Year from the university of my first academic appointment and Mentor of the Year from an organization Fran introduced to me when I was a doctoral student. Again, I remember Fran telling me the benefits of and encouraging me in the course Preparing Future Faculty. Well, it paid off! I also modeled what I saw Fran do in mentoring. The students at the university of my first academic appointment had not seen this type of intentional mentoring focused on career preparation. I established a mentoring and professional development program for the students, and the program received many accolades. Fran supported me in my service activities and was instrumental in helping me develop a sound service agenda. However, I was overwhelmed in my first academic appointment. My six years at this institution were not without challenges. I expressed what I was experiencing to Fran and sought her guidance. I was on a tenure-track trajectory and wanted to be successful. I experienced a toxic work environment and had been encouraged to leave, even by Fran! The career preparation at Auburn embraced high

Mentored in Career Development • 127

ethical and professional standards, research excellence, and innovative teaching; therefore, this is what I carried with me into the academy. Furthermore, Fran reminded me that I had been prepared and had the tools to be successful in the academy. In her wisdom, she put on her dean’s hat and became “my agent” again. She reviewed my vita, wrote letters of recommendation, made phone calls, and celebrated when I received an offer at a research one university. FRIENTOR Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, what are you doing for others?” Mentoring is a way to contribute to others by dedicating yourself to a person’s well-being. To me, this describes Dr. Frances Kochan. Our mentoring relationship was about building a synergistic relationship based on common interests and goals. One of my mentors coined the phrase “frientor”—friend and mentor, and this also is a characteristic of our relationship. When I met Fran at Auburn, we instantly developed a relationship based on a shared passion for the profession of education and our desire to learn more about ourselves. The nice thing about having an intentional mentor is that she will consciously or unconsciously push you to do more. For example, knowing that I can depend on Fran for guidance and or professional development, I am constantly thinking of ways that I can contribute to making sure her work is not in vain. As a mentor myself, I have observed key things that Fran has done for me, and I want to exhibit those qualities with my mentees. By investing in my mentees, I hope to contribute to the profession. This level of investment is something I could not accomplish with merely my contributions, but I can because of Dr. Fran Kochan.

CHAPTER 13

MENTORED IN SELF-EFFICACY Maysaa Barakat

I was born in Heliopolis, a suburb of Cairo, Egypt. In the mid-1960s and 1970s, Heliopolis was a developing upper-middle-class neighborhood, with Indian Laurel and Royal Poinciana trees on both sides of the streets, mid-rise residential buildings, and a pleasing architectural environment. Residents of Heliopolis were generally well-educated professionals, whose lifestyle was a happy medium between modernity and tradition. I grew up sharing the middle-class values of my generation: education, hard work, fairness, and, most importantly, empathy, which was a focus of my parents’ teachings to my brother and me. Currently, I am in my fifth year as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology (ELRM) at Florida Atlantic University (FAU), and I have just submitted my portfolio for promotion and tenure. My appointment with the department of ELRM, FAU, was a result of a personal and professional journey across time, places, people, cultures, and ideas. An unintended but welcomed result of this journey was my assuming the role of “bridge person.” According to Merchant and Shoho (2006), a bridge person is a leader who adopts a social justice stance and is “committed to creating a bridge between themselves and others, for the purpose of improving the lives of all those with whom they work” (p. 380). Even as a child, within my extended family, I existed “in-between” and knew how to bridge the metropolitan culture of Cairo, Egypt, and the tranquil culture of my grandparents’ small conservative village. Many years later, I chose to study The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 129–133. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

129

130 • MAYSAA BARAKAT

architecture, a discipline that bridges science and art. When I made the career shift to education, I was aware that education was also a discipline that bridges science and art. Like architecture, education required the ability to focus on the small details while maintaining vigilant consciousness of the big picture at all times. Because I joined the professoriate after 15 years of working as a school leader, bridging the gap between theory and practice or the schism between researchers and practitioners is also very important to me. I assume this position of in-between with ease and a sense of familiarity, informed by a wealth of experiences and inspired by mentors from all walks of life. Among those who influenced me, Professor Kochan, a woman with an extraordinary personality who believes in basic human rights, and acknowledges that everyone, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, ability or sexual orientation must enjoy the freedom to make choices for themselves and receive equitable opportunities for learning and development. Dr. Fran Kochan is a professor, dean, and mentor, whose influence on my life remains quintessential. An educator, scholar, and pioneer in her field, she was instrumental in breaking the glass ceiling in her profession, paving the way for other women to follow in her footsteps. Like my mother, she was strong in a gentle way, leading with competence and empathy. I will forever be indebted to Dr. Kochan for her impact on my professional development, and her invaluable advice while preparing for the job market. The impact of Dr. Kochan’s mentorship on my personal and professional development has been multi-faceted and diverse; however, for this chapter, I will focus on her influence on my self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as one’s belief in their ability to accomplish a specific task or endeavor. Self-efficacy can be developed and is a “much stronger predictor of how effectively people will perform a given task” than either their self-confidence (i.e., a personality trait, which determines how confidently people feel and act) or self-esteem (i.e., the extent to which people like themselves), and is considered to be a powerful motivator for people to achieve goals (Heslin & Klehe, 2006, p. 705). “Research has found that self-efficacy is important for sustaining the considerable effort required to master skills” and is a determinant of people’s persistence and commitment to their professional development in pursuit of improved job performance (Heslin & Klehe, 2006, p. 705). Researchers have identified three key sources or strategies to develop selfefficacy, which are 1) enactive self-mastery or performance accomplishments, 2) role-modeling or vicariously experiencing events through modeling, and 3) verbal/social persuasion or positive feedback (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2009; Heslin & Klehe, 2006; Versland, 2016), all of which were utilized by Dr. Kochan as she mentored me. In terms of enactive self-mastery, Dr. Kochan afforded me many opportunities to complete tasks or portions of tasks effectively, build on these successful experiences, and eventually set the stage for continued success. Examples of these opportunities were serving as the co-editor of the Southeastern Regional Council

Mentored in Self-Efficacy • 131

of Educational Administration (SRCEA) yearbook and helping organize the Alabama Association of Professors of Educational Leadership (AAPLE) meeting and conference, in addition to co-teaching and co-authoring of papers and conference presentations. When I started helping Dr. Kochan with the SREB yearbook, she tasked me with specific administrative and organizational assignments, like creating excel sheets with authors’ names and contact information and developing folders for manuscripts under review. She then gradually added to my responsibilities until I was completely in charge of organizing the peer review process and all its complexities and related decision-making steps pending her final editorial decisions. Bandura argues, these “mastery experiences” raise self-efficacy beliefs; in addition, these beliefs about personal capabilities drive people to accomplish the goals that they set for themselves. Role-modelling, the second source of self-efficacy, happens when a person witnesses others model an undertaking that they are trying to learn and envision themselves performing it successfully (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2009; Heslin & Klehe, 2006; Versland, 2016). Observing Dr. Kochan teach with compassion and challenge students’ thinking, conduct meaningful research, build consensus and lead with kindness and empathy inspired my confidence that I, too, could model her behavior and be as successful. I share many attributes with Dr. Kochan. We are both women and mothers; we both value diversity; we’ve both had international experiences; We’ve both been immersed in many different cultures. These similarities, in my mind, make it even more feasible that I could follow in her footsteps. Versland (2016) supports this viewpoint stating, “models are most effective at raising self-efficacy when they are personally liked and are seen as having attributes (e.g., age, gender, and ethnicity) similar to those of the individuals who observe them” (p. 706). Vicariously experiences or role-modeling can produce measurable and lasting changes in performance (Schwarzer & Warner, 2013). Dr. Kochan is a cheerleader to all her students. Her positive feedback always highlights how consistent efforts result in individual and team development and ongoing progress; she never instigates or tolerates peer comparisons. By maintaining a positive focus on effort and growth, she exemplifies verbal persuasion, which is the third source of self-efficacy. Heslin and Klehe (2006) proposes, “verbal persuasion builds self-efficacy when respected managers encourage and praise individuals for their competence and ability to improve their effectiveness” (p. 706). When Albert Bandura introduced his theory of self-efficacy in 1997, he based it on two tenets of social cognitive theory 1) self-regulation, and 2) self-reflection, through which people analyze past events and determine future actions. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performance” (p. 391). He then argued that individuals with high self-efficacy set higher

132 • MAYSAA BARAKAT

goals, believe that their actions will render positive results, exert vigorous efforts, persist in overcoming obstacles and setbacks and being more likely to meet their set goals (Bandura, 1997, 2009; Versland, 2016). Reflecting on a specific critical incident that defines my relationship with Dr. Kochan and leads me to realize that she is the depiction of self-efficacy and that my self-efficacy is centered on her example. I was facing a professional challenge, and she sat with me, and we went over what I needed to do, she helped me set very high goals, played multiple scenarios of possible obstacles and probable setbacks, assured me that she was confident in my commitment, capability, and success. Finally, she concluded by saying, “you put in the effort, do your best, and then release the whole thing to the universe.” This trust in the process and hopeful expectation of positive outcomes (based on well set goals and thoughtful organized and scaffolder efforts in pursuit of these goals) exemplifies self-efficacy. As Versland (2016) argued, “People act on their beliefs about what they can do, as well as on their beliefs about the likely results of their actions” (p. 300). “Release (it) to the universe” has become Dr. Kochan and my motto. A motto not founded on meaningless superstition but rooted in hopeful confidence in the process of self-efficacy. Dr. Kochan believed in me, she believed in my capabilities and provided me with opportunities to build my capacity as an educator, scholar, leader, woman, and human being. She did that by generously offering me ongoing opportunities to develop mastery as an educator and researcher and by supporting my development through scaffolding activities. She continues to mentor me as a faculty member offering invaluable advice, recommendations, and positive feedback that continues to build my self-efficacy. I watched her model being a transformative leader who is constantly navigating the tension between promise and critique (Shields, 2010). She recognizes assets and builds on them, develops capacity in all who crosses her path; however, she is critical of the status quo, and perpetually seeks progress and improvement. These characteristics motivate me to strive to become more like her—an empathetic and transformative teacher, leader, and scholar. I am fortunate to have Dr. Fran Kochan as my teacher, mentor, role model, and friend and strive to pay forward all that she has done and continue to do for me. REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2009). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organization behavior (2nd ed., pp. 179–200). New York, NY: John Wiley. Heslin, P. A., & Klehe, U. C. (2006). Self-efficacy. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 705–708). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mentored in Self-Efficacy • 133 Merchant, B. M., & Shoho, A. R. (2006). Bridge people: Civic and educational leaders for social justice. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education. (pp. 85–109). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Schwarzer, R., & Warner, L. M. (2013). Perceived self-efficacy and its relationship to resilience. In S. Prince-Embury & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Resilience in children, adolescents, and adults: Translating research into practice (pp. 139–150) New York, NY: Springer. Shields, C. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4) 558–589. Versland, T. M. (2016). Exploring self-efficacy in education leadership programs: What makes the difference? Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 11(3), 298– 320.

CHAPTER 14

MENTORED IN SKILL DEVELOPMENT Jason C. Bryant

Growing up in a rural town in Alabama, it seemed as though my future opportunities were going to be very limited based on the obstacles before me. I was cared for by many family members, but specifically my grandparents. My grandparents raised ten children of their own and then raised my twin brother and me after my parents’ divorce. I am sure they never imagined being called to take in ninemonth-old twins, but they did so with love and grace, raising us as their children. My grandparents provided us with what they could; what they could not provide, they hoped we would receive from the school. What many people did not realize, but was not uncommon at the time, was that neither of my grandparents could read or write. My grandparents, like many other African Americans from rural towns in Alabama, could not read nor write. Getting an education for them was not a reality, but it was a reality for their children and their grandchildren. It was during those early days of school that I saw the impact teachers made and decided that I wanted to be a teacher. I saw the patience in my first-grade teacher’s eyes as she helped me learn to read. She always made me feel capable and smart. She made all her students feel as though we were the smartest students she had ever taught. That feeling of accomplishment was so reassuring as I began to work with the intervention teacher, where the hard work produced even more results, and I no longer needed to be pulled from class for support. The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 135–139. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

135

136  •  JASON C. BRYANT

Another attribute that I gained from my teachers was the passion they had for learning. It was not memorizing facts, but engaging with information so that we made connections. One such example was my eighth-grade history teacher that had us complete a characterization project in which I was Mark Twain. Because of the high standards he set, I physically transformed into Mark Twain for the project as I completed my oral presentation to the class. All of my teachers had such an important role in my life. I began my journey by practicing in my room or with cousins during the summers, honing what would become more than a skill, but the craft of teaching. I remember coming home from school, and instead of just sitting at the table to do homework, I would go into my bedroom and repeat the lessons from the day, but now I was the teacher with my imaginary students. During the summer, I would babysit my younger cousins, and this gave me actual “students” that were now in my classroom. My teachers knew that I wanted to be a teacher, so they would give me old copies of teacher’s editions that were no longer being used in the school, and I would use these as I developed lessons for my “students.” I am sure my cousins wanted to be doing other things, but I had learned from my teachers about the importance of school, so I wanted to share with them what I had learned. As I moved into high school, my cousins were not so receptive to being my students, so at that point, I would tutor other students and use those opportunities to hone my craft of teaching. As I enter my fourth year as an Assistant Clinical Professor in the Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology (EFLT) department at Auburn University (AU), I cannot help but look back on the seventeen years I spent in K–12 and reflect upon how those experiences shaped the teacher leader and clinical professor that I have become. The skills, the adversity, the tenacity, and all of the emotions that helped me achieve success in my career would not have happened had it not been for the mentoring relationship I developed with Dr. Fran Kochan as a doctoral student at Auburn University. Although she was no longer a principal, she relied on her skills as a leader to mentor countless numbers of students at Auburn. Buckner and McDowelle (2000) remind us that principals play a key role in developing teacher leadership because they have had the training and experience needed to develop their leadership skills, and therefore give them the unique perspective to identify, develop, and support teacher leaders in their schools. While Dr. Kochan was not my principal, she was a model mentor and someone that I looked up to as a true instructional leader. Her legacy as a leader was well established, and as Siccone (2012) described, an effective leader “needs an expansive repertoire of practices and the wisdom and flexibility to be able to adapt to various leadership roles and the unique demands of the particular set of circumstances (p. v). All of this was evident in her professional career as a teacher, school administrator, university professor, and dean. My introduction to Dr. Kochan was during my second year as a doctoral student in the Administration of Elementary and Secondary Education program at

Mentored in Skill Development • 137

Auburn University. That year, I was also beginning my first year as a middle school principal in a new school system. Because of my background in K–12, I was asked to serve on the search committee for the tenure track educational leadership professor position. Those initial meetings were opportunities for us to learn more about the committee members as we began the search process. We also began to talk about dissertation topics and my potential plans for the future. As a new principal, I was just trying to keep my head above water, but as time went on, Dr. Kochan began to help me develop my skills as a scholar and instructional leader. Skills can be learned and developed (Northouse, 2019), and Dr. Kochan saw potential in me, as she did with many of her students. Over the next two years, Dr. Kochan’s influence would be instrumental to my success as I developed my dissertation topic and completed the doctoral program. Her kindness and ability to connect with others is a skill that comes naturally to her and is probably the skill that brought us together. As a principal of a diverse student population, it was important for me to use my past experiences to guide me as a leader and, more importantly, make connections with my students, parents, and teachers. Moving forward with the remaining coursework and the writing of my dissertation, we developed a strong friendship. Her mentoring led me to the next step in my professional career, teaching at the collegiate level. Northouse (2019), drawing on the work of Katz, defines skills as what leaders can accomplish, and further adds, “the ability to use one’s knowledge and competencies to accomplish a set of goals or objectives” (p. 44). Often these are broken up into three specific skills: technical, human, and conceptual. Looking at this from a practical viewpoint, we could add the concepts of working with things (technical), working with people (human), and working with ideas (conceptual) (Northouse, 2019; Northouse, 2018). As a teacher, school leader, professor, and dean, Dr. Kochan embodied each of these effortlessly and counseled me on how I could continue to grow as a student, teacher, school leader, and assistant clinical professor. The technical side of this was easy for me to develop as these related to the day-to-day tasks, projects, and assignments that I would complete within my school or through my doctoral studies. Dr. Kochan helped me to determine which technical skills were most important and how to prioritize these for success. The human skills were a strength of mine, but Dr. Kochan helped me to build additional human capital outside of the K–12 world by introducing me to professional networking. My ability to network eventually led to my selection as a Jackson Scholar through the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). Dr. Kochan perfectly modeled these human skills by doing what Northouse (2019) describes as “being sensitive to the needs and motivations of others and taking into account others’ needs in one’s decision making” (p. 45). Writing a dissertation requires a clear understanding of the ideas you want to address through the study. This conceptual work with Dr. Kochan was what helped me develop a strong dissertation and add to the body of research on two topics that some may not have connected before. Making these conceptual con-

138  •  JASON C. BRYANT

nections was so important in telling the story of school integration and the importance of racial identity for two communities coming together. The dissertation process can be lonely and requires independent time to grapple with the writing process, but Dr. Kochan did not completely abandon any of her students as they worked on their final doctoral work. She was always there to provide support and feedback, but only after the student had put in the necessary effort to create a product that was reflective of the work required for a Ph.D. When I was attempting to avoid the uncomfortable subject of how little writing I was doing, I would bring homemade cakes to Dr. Kochan’s writing class. Who doesn’t like a red velvet cake or Italian cream cake after a long day of work? After only two cakes, she caught on to my plan and told me I could not bring another cake to class until I had written a second chapter. She was not confrontational, and she did not make me feel like a failure in front of my peers, but she guided me to hone those technical skills (writing) so that I was not solely relying on my human skills to move me through the dissertation process. She knew that I was standing in my way of producing a successfully written and defended dissertation. She was extraordinarily proficient in providing feedback that would push my writing and productivity to the next level. Buckner and McDowelle (2000) stated that feedback is essential in the development of any leader, and it is important that the feedback be specific, begin with what was done well, and be limited to no more than two or three weaknesses at a time. She taught my classmates and me that technical skills play an essential role in our success as students and also as leaders in our schools. The most difficult part of the dissertation-writing process was using conceptual skills to work with and write about ideas. Those that have been through a graduate program understand how important ideas are to the overall understanding of and success of any organization. Northouse (2019) writes, “a leader with conceptual skills works easily with abstractions and hypothetical notions” (p. 46). My dissertation topic was very personal to me because it dealt with racial identity-development during school integration in the South, specifically during the Freedom of Choice movement. As a student of mixed heritage, I dealt with many unpleasant situations because of the color of my skin. I lived the life of a biracial child growing up in the 80s when it was not “easy” being mixed, and I wondered that if I struggled, what was it like for those students during school integration? I was able to share my stories about growing up with my African American family while knowing that I had a White family out there. Through many conversations about my childhood and work in schools, I was able to wrap my mind around this topic and use the conceptual skills that Dr. Kochan had discussed with me to connect my experiences in the 1970s and 1980s to our schools of today. What Dr. Kochan created over those two years was a well-developed professional writing community. For our writing community, Dr. Kochan helped us go beyond friendly conversations and create an atmosphere where there was open communication, trust, rapport, and continuous inquiry and improvement (Childs-

Mentored in Skill Development • 139

Bowen, Moller, & Scrivner, 2000). As each of us reached milestones in our academic journeys, we were there to celebrate each other, and when things were not where they should be, we were there to support each other! This is truly what Dr. Kochan embodies for all that have had the opportunity to be mentored by her, formally and informally. Our class produced a state department official, a school superintendent, a local school board member, a higher education administrator, and a clinical professor, just to name a few. When I look back, I can see how Dr. Kochan touched each of us in developing our skills: technical, humanistic, and conceptual. Words cannot truly express the impact that Dr. Kochan has had on all of those who have had the privilege to know her, work with her, and, most importantly, become her friend. Her knowledge is deep, and her love of learning is even deeper! She truly embodies what I would like to aspire to as I continue my path in higher education. The skills that I have learned impact the work that I do each day and will continue to do for another fifteen to twenty years. As I began this chapter, I mentioned the obstacles that I had to face, not because my family did not want me to succeed, but because of the circumstances that helped me become the leader, I am today. I was the student who started kindergarten, not being able to read. I was the student who was on free lunch. I was the student who could only participate in extracurricular activities that were held during the day because of transportation issues. I was the student who dealt with the loss of my grandparents (my caregivers) at pivotal times in my life. After all the adversity and my growth as an educator, I was blessed to be introduced to a true champion of education and the biggest cheerleader you could ever have, Dr. Frances K. Kochan. REFERENCES Buckner, K. G., & McDowelle, J. O. (2000). Developing teacher leaders: Providing encouragement, opportunities, and Support. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 35–41. https:// doi.org/10.1177/019263650008461607 Childs-Bowen, D., Moller, G., & Scrivner, J. (2000). Principals: Leaders of leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650008461606 Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership theory and practice (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications. Northouse, P. G. (2018). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Siccone, F. (2012). Essential skills for effective school leadership. Boston, MA: Pearson.

CHAPTER 15

MENTORED THROUGH SPONSORSHIP Dana M. Griggs

Research consistently demonstrates the significance of mentoring relationships between university faculty and graduate students. In this chapter, a mentee of an effective mentor discusses mentoring domains, roles of mentors, and strategies to use in the mentoring relationship. Six roles that research says mentors should play will be highlighted. An effective mentor should be a skillful advisor and teacher, a good listener and effective communicator, a sponsor, protector, and opportunity-maker, a model of scholarly research, a self-confident leader, and a lifelong learner. This chapter combines research and the writer’s practical experiences to honor the legacy that Dr. Frances Kochan is creating in mentoring.

Keywords: Mentoring, Sponsorship, Advisor-Graduate Student, Roles of Mentor I am writing this festschrift in honor and celebration of my mentor, Frances Kochan. One of her many accomplishments is her knowledge and scholarly achievements in mentoring. Dr. Kochan was my mentor throughout the writing process and publication of my dissertation and for the duration of my career as a K–12 educational leader. Without her mentorship, I could not have faced tremendous The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 141–149. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

141

142  •  DANA M. GRIGGS

barriers and effected the necessary change in my career. When I decided to retire from K–12 education, she coached me through several higher education phone conference interviews and campus visits, and she has advised me in my new position as an assistant professor in educational leadership. Dr. Kochan and I have collaborated in scholarly writing and publications, and she has provided opportunities for me to develop my research agenda. She is a constant source of advisement and keeps me focused on my goals. Dr. Kochan is not only an accomplished writer on all things mentor-related, but she masterfully models her research in practice. This chapter on faculty-graduate student mentoring relations and all of my future work in the realm of mentoring are dedicated to Dr. Kochan, my mentor, and my friend. MENTORSHIP BETWEEN FACULTY AND GRADUATE STUDENTS Definitions for mentor and mentorship vary by study and researcher, but there is a consensus among research findings that the relationship formed between faculty and a graduate student is an important facet of the graduate student’s educational experience and promotes success. Researchers have demonstrated that mentorship shapes graduate students’ research skills, professional identity, and socializes them into their future work cultures (Bova, 2000; Lechuga, 2011). Finch and Fernandez (2014) highlighted the benefits of mentoring for graduate students related to program satisfaction and professional self-image. In a study by Hadjioannou, Shelton, Fu, and Dhanarattigannon (2007) that examined the increased levels of stress and anxiety linked with doctoral work also found that mentorship positively impacted the participants’ acquisition of professional socialization, scholarly writing skills, and academic discourse, while providing support and encouragement that alleviated the stress and anxiety caused by the doctoral program of study. Crisp and Cruz (2009) revisited Hadjioannou et al. in their review of mentoring literature and found the study to be instrumental in furnishing a promising social framework to aid in student retention through the faculty-student mentoring relationship. There is much research on mentoring and the roles good mentors play that encourage mentee success. Crisp and Cruz (2009) drew from their review of the literature on mentoring to describe what they call the four latent variables or domains. The four domains include “psychological and emotional support, support for setting goals, and choosing a career path, academic subject knowledge support, and the existence of a role model” (p. 538). In recent years, six roles mentors play in a mentoring relationship are consistently referred to in research. According to research, an effective mentor will be a skillful advisor and teacher, a good listener and effective communicator, a sponsor, protector, and opportunity-maker, a model of scholarly research, a self-confident leader, and a lifelong learner.

Mentored Through Sponsorship • 143

Psychological and Emotional Support When mentors provide psychological and emotional support, they actively listen, encourage, communicate regularly with the mentee, and proffer support. The mentor provides feedback to the mentee’s expressed concerns, fears, and problems. The mentor also provides moral support and builds the mentee’s selfconcept (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). Beres and Dixon (2016) describe the psychosocial function as a way the mentor builds the mentee’s competence, confidence, and identity through role modeling, counseling, acceptance, and friendship (p. 112). Schnaiberg (2005) wrote that when his graduate students are anxious about the program or about their futures, he tells them stories about his experiences, challenges, and uncertainties. He believes that genuine mentorship involves a “far deeper relationship” than advising (p. 30). Spending time with one another and learning the mentees’ fears and goals strengthen and inform the mentoring relationship. The psychological and emotional support domain of mentoring encompasses the identified role of the mentor as a good listener and effective communicator, which is identified as significant in most mentoring research (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). Karakose, Yirci, Uygon, and Ozdemir (2016) examined the effectiveness of mentorships at public universities in Turkey using such variables as the frequency of meetings and methods of communication. They found that for all methods of communication, the frequency of the communication mattered most and urged mentors to communicate regularly with their mentees. Schnaiberg (2005) commented that trust weighs heavily in the success of a mentoring relationship. Both the mentor and mentee must share their thoughts, successes, and limitations. They must feel free to be open and expressive with one another. Active listening and communication are the foundations for building the trust needed in mentoring relationships. Support for Setting Goals and Choosing a Career Path The second domain identified by Crisp and Cruz (2009) is support for setting goals and choosing a career path. The mentor works with the mentee to assess strengths, challenges, and abilities. Then, the mentor assists with setting goals for the mentee’s education and future career goals. The better the mentor relationship, the more focused the mentor’s assistance. The role most associated with this domain is skillful advisor and teacher— providing academic guidance and instruction on a wide range of knowledge and skills, which include soft skills such as interpersonal communication (Lechuga, 2011). Mentors advise their mentees on expectations and procedures that help them navigate graduate school and dissertations and teach them the tools that are needed to excel in the program and life after graduation. Lechuga (2011) calls the role a mentor plays in this domain, an agent of socialization (p. 766). He writes that mentors should provide professional development

144  •  DANA M. GRIGGS

for their mentees to include public speaking skills and presenting their works at conferences. He notes that developing a sense of professional competence in graduate students is a key goal for mentoring. Although mentors are preparing mentees for future employment, they should also be the “ambassadors of the profession by imbuing students with a sense of professional responsibility and introducing them into the culture of academe” (p. 768). Schnaiberg (2005) states that he coaches his mentees in the reality of graduate education, explaining the formal rules and the students’ roles within the department. Academic Subject Knowledge Support This domain represents the learning and teaching that occurs inside and outside of the classroom (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). Mentors provide the support and encouragement that mentees need to validate their educational journeys and succeed in their studies. Mentors challenge their mentees’ thoughts and beliefs and evaluate them for coursework and writing requirements. Mentors also provide support for external success and protect mentees from negativity. Mentors nominate their mentees for awards and positions, increasing mentees’ visibility to future employers (Crisp & Cruz, 2009). In conjunction with the completion of the mentee’s dissertation, the mentor should strive to aid the mentee in getting published at least one time before graduation. Support from the mentor must move toward the fulfillment of the mentee’s dreams. The sponsor, protector, and opportunity-maker for the mentee is the role of mentors in this domain. Schnaiberg (2005) writes that he encourages his mentees to present their works at professional conferences, where he introduces them to colleagues from different universities and former students to increase networking opportunities for research and future employment. He also notes that as mentees complete their studies, “the role of the mentor changes, and often shrinks” (p. 38). Schnaiberg states that his mentoring changes to counseling once his mentees begin looking for (new) jobs after graduation. He provides them with interview strategies and information on the departments where they apply. The Existence of a Role Model The fourth and final domain identified by Crisp and Cruz (2009) from their review of literature on mentoring, the existence of a role model, focuses on the various ways the mentee learns from the mentor as a role model. The mentee learns by communicating with the mentor about his or her past experiences. Much is learned from observing the mentor interacting with other professionals, leaders, and students, working through conflict, and balancing work, writing, and personal activities. While the existence of a role model is a domain in and of itself, all four domains require the existence of a role model. Developing a sense of professional competence in graduate students is an important mentor’s responsibility (Lechuga, 2011). As a model of scholarly re-

Mentored Through Sponsorship • 145

search, the mentor shares their writing schedule, works in progress, and research interests. The mentor can invite students with similar interests to review his or her papers for publications or contribute as a second author. Schnaiberg (2005) advises his mentees to “try to avoid teaching summer school. This practice permits them to keep their summers for research and writing” (p. 39). The mentor exemplifies being a role model by being a self-confident leader. Mentors who are self-confident leaders can provide guidance and vision for their mentees without micro-managing and empower mentees to acquire and use their skills and talents effectively (Weisblat & Sell, 2012). Mentors who are leaders in their field teach from experiences and lessons learned. It takes a self-confident leader to inspire students to dream more and do more. Weisblat and Sell (2012) wrote, “Advancing graduates to degree completion and career success hinges on the training they receive throughout their education and on the feedback and support they receive from mentors and peers” (p. 77). The growing diversity of student populations is one reason faculty mentors must be lifelong learners. Today’s students need to acquire skill sets beyond their disciplines including research methods, writing skills, ethics, partnership-building, technology and computer skills, presentation skills, professional networking skills, interview skills, conversational English skills, grant-writing skills, and exposure to nonprofit agencies (Weisblat & Sell, 2012). To fulfill the growing and ever-changing list of technical skills needed to educate today’s graduate students, faculty mentors need to embrace continuous learning. Weisblat and Sell (2012) state that graduate education must change as the world changes, and its mission should be twofold: “(1) to sustain the specialization of the discipline, and (2) to encourage students to initiate and pursue creative avenues within changing industries to this global economy” (p. 63). DR. FRANCES KOCHAN AS FACULTY MENTOR Described below are each of the four domains, or latent variables, that represent the mentoring concept identified by Crisp and Cruz (2009) within their review of mentoring literature. Dr. Kochan has exemplified each role as my mentor over the last seven years. When the time came for me to choose my major professor and the chair of my dissertation committee in my doctoral program at Auburn University, the program coordinator recommended that I meet with Dr. Kochan. I was serious about my research, wanted to publish articles from my dissertation, and thought I might want to write a manuscript dissertation. Dr. Kochan was the professor to work with when writing a manuscript dissertation. Dr. Kochan taught my cohort only once, so I did not know her as well as some of the other professors with whom we had multiple classes. I scheduled a meeting with her to tell her my topic and what I wanted to research. I had already chosen to use appreciative inquiry as a research tool and explained that I was interested

146  •  DANA M. GRIGGS

in using the manuscript dissertation format. After our meeting, she became my dissertation chair, and much more. Psychological and Emotional Support Dr. Kochan is the definitive model of psychological and emotional support. She began each meeting or phone call asking questions that would get me talking, and she listened when I spoke. She knew from experience that although I was serious about my research and writing, my job as a high school administrator was demanding, and things happened outside of my control. Anytime that I spoke with her, she made me feel as if she had infinite time to listen to what was important to me. I hated telling her that I had not had time to write certain weeks because of student hearings or preparing for visiting teams, etc. During those conversations, she would ask me to tell her about the things that were consuming my time. She knew that if I worked through the other demands on my time, then research and writing could become my priority once again. She shared many stories from her past experiences that helped me gain perspective. Other times, she would help me think through a situation and find a solution so I could refocus my energy on the task at hand. Dr. Kochan knew she needed to talk with me to support my work in all facets of my life and that the frequency of our conversations mattered. Support for Setting Goals and Choosing a Career Path Dr. Kochan acted as my sounding board through my doctoral program and beyond. She facilitated my goals for completing various dissertation chapters, knowing when to defend, and preparing for graduation. She also encouraged my K–12 leadership goals. Although I planned to stay in K–12 education, she encouraged me to present my research at regional conferences. She attended each of my presentations. At those conferences, she would introduce me to colleagues and former mentees at other universities. I think she believed in her heart that I would end up in higher education, so she knew that I would need networks, publications, and presentations. She encouraged me to think about moving to higher education, even if I felt that I needed to wait until I could retire. In the meantime, she read and provided input on my entry plans for new jobs and grants that I wrote for the next innovation. She encouraged my hopes and dreams, even when they led me further away from joining higher education. Although I was happy in my responsibilities as a K–12 leader, I realized that I wanted to be like Dr. Kochan. She was dedicated to her profession, and she was poised and wise. I have always admired her, and she can take much credit for the professor of educational leadership that I am becoming. Academic Subject Knowledge Support This domain of mentoring includes providing support inside and outside of the classroom. More importantly, it encompasses the ways mentors challenge and

Mentored Through Sponsorship • 147

stretches the thinking of their mentees. An example of this occurred when I had the opportunity to teach politics in education to doctoral students. I did not want to do it because I felt unprepared and insecure. When I mentioned my feelings to her, she began to list the many political issues and situations that I had worked through and had overcome as a teacher and administrator. She reframed my way of thinking about politics in education so that it was no longer negative. She pointed out that much can be accomplished through politics. She reminded me of how my leadership changed when I began using politics for my school’s gain. She insisted that I was the only person who should teach the class because I could use my experiences to inform other leaders and influence change in education through my students. This class is now one of my favorites. I receive the highest SOTs (Student Opinion of Teacher) for this class. I was fortunate that all of my advisors were supportive of me as a student. I was nominated for several academic recognitions and leadership-related scholarships. My advisors are references for me on my curriculum vitae, and Dr. Kochan has written many letters of recommendation and letters of support for me through the years. She is still an active mentor for me, although that role has evolved now that I have moved to higher education. I still sometimes lean on her for mentoring, but we now communicate more as colleagues, co-researchers, and long-distance friends. The Existence of a Role Model Dr. Kochan has exemplified all three roles described within the domain of the existence of a role model. She is certainly a model of scholarly research, and she has modeled the way to work with and encourage scholarly research among her graduate students. As my mentor now, she is instrumental in my scholarly progress as a professor in higher education because she never stops encouraging my scholarly pursuits. Although I am an assistant professor, I have reached full status because of her encouragement and support in my writing. She made sure that I published all three manuscripts from my dissertation. She and another advisor, Dr. Ellen Reames, have provided opportunities for me to author book chapters in books they’ve edited and mentored me while allowing me to be the third editor of a book. Dr. Kochan still listens to and advises me on problems I have in my research and my job. We share experiences and hopes for our personal lives. She encourages me at every intersection in my career to boldly take the next step. As a self-confident leader, Dr. Kochan modeled self-confidence and guided me on my journey to higher education. When I was a graduate student and K–12 administrator, Dr. Kochan was the impartial listener and often my sounding board. She listened and helped me see the big picture in many situations. She would relay similar situations that she experienced, and we would discuss the decisions she made. Now that I am in higher education, she listens and provides advice grounded in her various experiences. She is the voice that I seek when situations present themselves, and I need unbiased feedback.

148  •  DANA M. GRIGGS

As a lifelong learner, Dr. Kochan inspires me to be better. Not too many months ago, I called her to catch up. I had no idea she was in Washington State consulting on a mentoring project! She is tireless in her research and service projects well into her retirement. I spoke with her earlier this week, and one of the many things we discussed was our next collaborative research project. Dr. Kochan is my role model. Since meeting her, I have observed her as a leader in the College of Education at Auburn, as a leader of graduate students, as a dedicated and brilliant scholar, and as a diligent mentor. When I think about Dr. Kochan, my feelings for her, and the many roles she has played in my life, I remember the acknowledgment in my dissertation: “I am thankful for and awed by the tireless commitment, enthusiastic support, and thoughtful guidance that [Dr. Kochan] gave me throughout my studies and dissertation journey. She was the sunshine shining throughout this educational voyage. I recognize and appreciate her warm-hearted taskmaster ways. She encouraged and supported me just enough to keep me focused and on-course when life pulled me away. Dr. Kochan instilled confidence in me as a researcher and writer, and I will be forever grateful.” She is still all of that to me and more. I hope that I can serve my graduate students in the same manner that Dr. Kochan served me. I will endeavor to emulate her and hope that my students benefit from our relationships as much as I have benefited from my relationship with her. I believe that Dr. Kochan said it best when she wrote: I have come to realize that engaging in mentoring/co-mentoring is part of an ongoing growth process. The process helped me grow as a person and a professional. Perhaps more importantly, it helped me discover another person’s soul and to reach within and discover my own (Kochan & Trimble, 2000, p. 27). REFERENCES Beres, J. L., & Dixon, J. C. (2016). Examining the role of friendship in mentoring relationships between graduate students and faculty advisors. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 9, 111–124. Bova, B. (2000). Mentoring revisited: The black woman’s experience. Mentoring & Tutoring, 8(1), 5–16. Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50, 525–545. Finch, J. K., & Fernandez, C. (2014). Mentoring graduate students in teaching: The FCCI Model. Teaching Sociology, 42(1), 69–75 Hadjioannou, X., Shelton, N. R., Fu, D., & Dhanarattigannon, I. (2007). The road to a doctoral degree: Co-travelers through a perilous passage. College Student Journal, 41(1), 160–177. Karakose, T., Yirci, R., Uygun, H., & Ozdemir, T. Y. (2016). Post-graduate students’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of mentoring relationship at universities. Rista de Ceretare si Interventie Sociala. 52, 252–264. Kochan, F. K., & Trimble, S. B. (2000). From mentoring to co-mentoring: Establishing collaborative relationships. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 20–28.

Mentored Through Sponsorship • 149 Lechuga, V. M. (2011). Faculty-graduate student mentoring relationships: Mentors’ perceived roles and responsibilities. Higher Education, 62(6), 757–771. Schnaiberg, A. (2005). Mentoring graduate students: Going beyond the formal role structure. The American Sociologist, 36(2), 28–42. Weisblat, G., & Sell, C. (2012). An exemplar in mentoring and professional development: Teaching graduate students transferable skills beyond the discipline. Journal of Research Administration, 43(1), 60–84.

CHAPTER 16

MENTORED IN RESEARCH Bill Bergeron

This article is chronology of my journey from being a lazy student in high school who was never going to college to a first year Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at a research 1 university. This journey is filled with an incredible cast of characters and mentors which made this possible. While there are many people over the more than forty-four-year professional journey who have help guide me to this point. This is the story of how I was guided in the transition from the hierarchical, military style to a more eclectic style of leadership. But the this is much more this is about how I became a better teacher and administrator while developing my ability to conduct research and create manuscripts.

Keywords: mentoring, educational leadership, leadership style As I reflect on my appointment as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies at the University of Alabama, College of Education, my journey was filled with incredible and valuable experiences, which were guided by a cast of characters that provided the guidance and mentorship which made this possible. I was, without a doubt, one of the most unusual graduate students when I started the Ph.D. program at Auburn University. I was not a great student in high school. I told my dad I was not going to college when I graduated from high school, and I joined the Marine Corps as an infantryThe Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 151–156. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

151

152 • BILL BERGERON

man. It did not take me very long to figure out that there had to be a better way to make a living than the life of a foot soldier and that all the war movies lied about the glory and intrigue. After completing my initial tour in the Marines, I decided to attend college at Auburn University and earn my degree in Criminal Justice. I spent several years on the streets of Montgomery, Alabama, as a police officer working third shift. I realized that I was not going anywhere and decided to reenlist in the military as a logistician, eventually earning my commission as an officer. I am a retired soldier with twenty-two years in the service. Throughout my career, I served in leadership roles of increasing responsibility. When I retired, I decided my experiences as a police officer and marine needed to be shared. I also had a love for learning and history. I noticed from leading the young men and women of the military and the people I dealt with as a police officer that many people lacked guidance, focus, and mentorship. I was in the tenth year of the teaching of what was essentially my third career; I had developed a real interest in working with at-risk students. Many of these kids needed a mentor that would show genuine interest in and concern for them. I tend to gravitate toward the harder to reach kids within the school. These kids need someone who will listen, and they want someone who will provide guidance and direction. I am that teacher/administrator. Long before I lost my son, these kids were important to me, and when I snag one, it is a great joy for me. While many teachers shun these difficult students, I love teaching them and providing them with the tools they need to be successful. While I cannot save them all, I do try to help. I want my students to know the problem solving and analytical skills necessary to make good decisions about every aspect of their lives. I prefer to teach the standard classes, with all the associated problems, than I do to teach the advanced classes where the children tend to come from privileged homes and educated middle-class parents. All too often, in high schools, education is carried out by teachers in isolated rooms covering information in an isolated manner. Our students do not see the relevance in their education, nor do they develop the skills necessary to transfer that knowledge from one subject to the next or their daily lives in general. Additionally, our high schools need to ensure that students develop the necessary problem-solving skills and are capable of transferring knowledge from one setting to another. In addition to my military experiences, I had personal experiences and tragedies that have helped me find common ground with my students. While teaching high school, I lost my adult son to a drug overdose on January 28, 2011. I have taken this tragedy in my life and turned it into an opportunity to help my students, their parents, and members of the faculty and staff who are dealing with addiction in their lives. I have talked with countless parents and members of the faculty who are struggling with the addiction of their children or themselves. I am currently in my eighth year as an educational administrator and am the Director of Alternative Programs for Elmore County, but will be leaving soon for my new position as an Assistant Professor at the University of Alabama.

Mentored in Research • 153

While completing the Educational Leadership doctoral program with the guidance and mentoring of Dr. Kochan, my leadership style changed dramatically from hierarchical, military-style leadership to a more “eclectic” style of leadership. I still believe that the overriding purpose of leadership, no matter what type of organization, is to accomplish the goals and objectives outlined in the organization’s mission and vision statements. While the successful accomplishment of goals and objectives of an organization is the main goal of leadership and the driving force behind the decisions and actions of the organizational leadership, it is the employees that make the organization successful. When a leader becomes overly task-oriented and fails to attend to the concerns of the employees, the organization is on a collision course with disaster. While the bottom line is task accomplishment, an unmotivated or dejected workforce can prevent the organization from meeting its’ goals and objectives. I have come to understand the role of an educational leader in shaping this organizational culture is multifaceted. According to the research, and from my personal experience both as a teacher and a military leader, who has attempted to change an organization’s culture, it is important for the leader to know the dominant and predominate subcultures within the organization, how they came to be and their current posture within the organization. As leaders, we need to fully understand the organizational culture before we can effectively change that culture. Leaders have to be the point person for the core values of the institution. The leadership has to lead the way in reinforcing the positive cultural traits and eliminating the negative traits that are holding the organization back. Finally, it is incumbent upon the leadership to reinforce the positive aspects of the organization’s culture, use gentle but positive leadership techniques to modify negative aspects of the culture and to remove the dysfunctional aspects of the school culture. It is important to remember that as a school leader, there will never be a single or monolithic school culture; not everyone is going to conform to the prevailing norms, values, and goals that make up the dominant culture. Dissent is always a good thing when managed properly. No organization is perfect, and no leader has all the right answers; dissatisfaction and dissent can be healthy. It is only with debate and discussion that we maintain a focus on the true purpose of an organization, and that organization continues to adapt, persevere, and overcome obstacles to accomplishing its organizational goals and objectives. It is the leader’s responsibility to manage this debate and effectively shape the organization’s culture. A word of caution to new leaders, Rome was not built in a day, and you will not change the culture of an organization, especially if the dominant culture is counter-productive, overnight. For a leader, the most valuable tool at our disposal in managing any aspect of our organization is effective communication. The area I believe that I need to focus on as an educational leader is in the area of collaborative leadership. I know from my experience that I do not have all the answers; many times, in my career, my subordinates have identified and developed a course of action that was successful. I have always believed I was a strong

154 • BILL BERGERON

proponent of collaborative leadership. However, these instruments are tending to reveal that my task-oriented leadership still tends to rise to the surface. Due to my leadership experience, I have had the opportunity to serve in many leadership positions as an educator. Initially, I had no desire to leave the classroom. I believed that I could have the greatest impact on my one-hundred-fifty, plus students as their teacher. What I have learned as an administrator is that I can have a positive impact on the entire student body. I also can help develop the teaching methods and attitudes of all the schools’ teachers and support staff. I enrolled in the Ph.D. program to have the credentials to go along with my experiences as a leader in the military, as a classroom teacher, and as a school leader. Many people have had a significant impact on my life’s journey—my mom and dad, my children, my wife Beth, and leaders I have served with throughout my working life—however, few individuals in have had as significant an impact as my mentor and friend, Dr. Frances Kochan. While Dr. Kochan was not my first mentor, she has had the greatest impact on my professional growth as an educator. Dr. Kochan’s mentoring did not start when she agreed to become my dissertation committee chair. It started with the first time I had the pleasure of interacting with her. Bozeman and Feeney (2007) stated that mentoring is the informal transfer of knowledge, social capital, and psychosocial support. Dr. Kochan worked to help me realize that there was a better way to meet the needs of my students. Her mentoring and guidance helped transform my teaching from a job to a calling. As a relatively new teacher, recently retired from the military, I was not prepared for the lack of “order and discipline” in the classroom that I had grown accustomed to in the military. In the military, there was an instant and unquestioned response to my commands. Dr. Kochan helped me transform my perception of good teaching from kids lined up in a row diligently hanging onto every word of my lecture to a facilitator helping students to develop their critical thinking, dialectical reasoning, and problem-solving skills. In short, Dr. Kochan helped me become a better teacher and administrator before she helped me become a better researcher and author. I was told early on in my Ph.D. program that Dr. Kochan was the best faculty member to chair my dissertation committee if I planned to join the academy. Klinge (2015) tells us that mentoring is normally the process of the mentor, a more experienced individual guiding their protégé in their development, learning, and maturation. As Allen and Eby (2007) stated, mentoring includes, but is not limited to, role modeling, exposure, visibility, protection, acceptance, and affirmation. In addition to mentoring me to complete my dissertation, Dr. Kochan spent an enormous amount of time, ensuring that I was exposed to all aspects of the academy. She conveyed her extensive knowledge of conducting research, writing, and publishing. As McDowell-Long (2004) stated, mentors, ensure their protégés are exposed to senior decision-makers and introduced to the mentor’s networks. Dr. Kochan’s encouragement enabled me to present my research at many conferences where I met others in the academy. I began to see what life as

Mentored in Research • 155

a college professor would entail. I have presented at a total of nine conferences while under the mentorship of Dr. Kochan. These conference presentations began on a small scale. I presented at state level conferences moving to regional conferences and culminating with presentations at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in San Antonio, Texas, and the Annual Convention of the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA), Denver, Colorado. Dr. Kochan enabled me to learn the entire process of submitting a proposal, developing the presentation materials, and leading the presentation. Dr. Kochan ensured I was, as Holder-Webb and Tromperter (2016) recommended, prepared to become a functioning member of the marketplace of ideas and within the quality control process of the journals. When we started the process of developing presentations, I was not very confident that I belonged on the stage with the other more experienced and accomplished presenters. However, Dr. Kochan, sensing my uneasiness, reminded me that few of the individuals attending the conferences had ever faced decisionmaking with the magnitude of consequences that I had in my prior careers. Dr. Kochan used a series of scaffolds to help support my transformation from student to a member of the academy. Something like what Collet (2018) called the Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model (GIR). While the Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model (GIR) was developed to support the professional development of practicing classroom teachers, its application in my case was instrumental in my development as a leader, teacher, and researcher. As I developed both the skills and self-confidence, Dr. Kochan removed the supports, forcing me into my “Zone of Proximal Development” (Vygotsky, 1978). This concept means that one takes an incremental approach to change results in the least disruptive way to the individual’s comfort zone. Vygotsky (1978) describes this as the zone of proximal development. According to Vygotsky, when students are pulled out of their comfort zones into the zone of proximal development, they will work to adjust, or become comfortable in their new positions. The zone of proximal development is where learning occurs. According to Vygotsky, the change will not occur until people are in their zone of proximal development. This fact creates their motivation to learn (Burnes, 2004). Dr. Kochan provided me the transformational mentoring necessary to enable me to make the transition to the academy. Transformational mentoring empowers protégés to improve their effectiveness while being supported through their journeys. A key part of the journey requires protégés to move out of their comfort zones and into the Zone of Proximal Development. Crane points out that when people are left to their vices, many choose to remain within their comfort zones. The effective transformational coach pulls protégés out of their comfort zones by encouraging and supporting their efforts to move into the Zone of Proximal Development. Once protégés move out into the Zone of Proximal Development, their self-esteem improves, and they are more willing to be creative and take the initiative. Crane finishes his book by stating,

156 • BILL BERGERON

“it is not what we do that changes, it is how we do it and the fact that we do it” (Crane, 2001, p. 232). Dr. Kochan forced me to move into my Zone of Proximal Development, making me a better student, teacher, leader, and researcher. Without Dr. Frances Kochan’s guidance, I would not have made it through the doctoral journey and into the academy. I am forever grateful for her belief in my abilities, even when I doubted myself. REFERENCES Allen, T., & Eby, L. (2007). Common bonds, An integrative view of mentoring relationships. The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp. 397–419). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. (2007). Toward a useful theory of mentoring: A conceptual analysis and critique. Administration & Society, 39(6), 710–739. Doi: https://doi. org/10.1177/0095399707304119. Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 997–1002. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14676486.2004.00463.x. Collet, V. (2018). Scaffolds for change: The graduate increase of responsibility mentoring model. In A.M. Green (Ed.), Across the domains: Examining best practices in mentoring public school educators throughout the professional journey (pp. 203–226). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Crane, T. G. (2001). The heart of coaching: Using transformational coaching to create a high-performance coaching culture. San Deigo, CA: FTA Press. Holder-Webb, L., & Tromperter, G. (2016). Mentoring Ph.D. students into effective teaching and service: Challenges and opportunities. Issues in Accounting Education, 31(2), 151–154. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/1ace-51319. Klinge, C. M. (2015). A conceptual framework for mentoring in a learning organization. Adult Learning, 26(4), 160–166. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159515594154. McDowall-Long, K. (2004). Mentoring relationships: Implications for practitioners and suggestions for future research. Human Resource Development International, 7(4), 519–534. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886042000299816. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

CHAPTER 17

MENTORED IN DUAL COMMITMENTS Virginia R. Knight

Successful mentoring involves having two or more individuals willingly form a mutually respectful, trusting relationship focused on goals that meet the needs and foster the potential of the mentee while considering the needs of the mentor, and the context in which they both must function (Kochan, 2002, p. 284)

I slowed my footsteps as I approached Dr. Frances K. Kochan’s open office door. Our Curriculum Theories class had ended a short time earlier, and I was hoping to have a few minutes to speak with my professor. My heart was as heavy as the load of course books, notebooks, and personal belongings that I held in my arms. I hesitated before I knocked on the door; how could I explain to Dr. Kochan my fears and concerns when I didn’t even completely understand them myself? I was thrilled to be recently admitted to the doctoral program in the Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology at Auburn University; this new venture was the realization of a deeply held dream. I previously had the opportunity to teach undergraduate education students at the University of Montevallo, and the experience ignited an intense desire to attain my doctoral degree and to work further with educational research and education students. I glanced at my watch; the hands warned me that I had thirty minutes to get home to relieve the babysitter. I was the single parent of three wonderful, young The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 157–162. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

157

158  •  VIRGINIA R. KNIGHT

children–my son, Brad, was in first grade, my daughter, Kim, was in preschool, and my daughter, Kelly, was in nursery school. My children were the joy of my life. I took a deep breath. “Dr. Kochan?” Bright eyes and a warm smile greeted me as Dr. Kochan invited me into the office, directing me to a chair beside her. I was in awe of Dr. Kochan. I had heard so much about this brilliant new addition to the Auburn University faculty, and I understood why she was so loved and respected when she was my professor for the first time. Dr. Kochan had a passion for students and the world of education. I was so impressed with her knowledge, experience, commitment to education, and inspiring guidance in the course that I was taking at the time. Dr. Kochan turned away from work on her desk, focusing her complete attention on me. Wanting to present a professional and confident persona (as I believed any doctoral student should), I was mortified to feel tears stinging my eyes. My fears and concerns tumbled out as the tears streaked down my cheeks, and my voice choked with emotion. Proceeding through my graduate studies was my dream, but was this dream of mine truly attainable? How was I going to meet the requirements of my doctoral program successfully? What about my children? How could I be a supportive mom to them in the process? Dr. Kochan smiled, handed me a Kleenex, and patted my hand. “You are right where you are supposed to be, Ginny….and I am here to help you. We are going to do this together.” This moment sparked the beginning of the wonderful mentoring relationship between Dr. Kochan and me. Gaining a doctoral degree is a challenge for any graduate student; it demands commitment and perseverance as the graduate student faces demanding, rigorous study that typically takes four to ten years to complete as she/he learns to become a researcher (Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). Doctoral student attrition, referring to doctoral students dropping out of the program before finishing their degrees (Ali & Kohun, 2007), is a very real concern within doctoral programs (Caruth, 2015) with reported rates of approximately 50% across disciplines (Nettles & Millett, 2006). Attrition rates of underrepresented doctoral student populations, such as single parents, have been reported at even higher rates (Gardner, 2008). What kept me, a prime attrition candidate in the eyes of educational research, from giving up on my doctoral program? What enabled and empowered me to persevere through the many years of coursework, research, and dissertation requirements? I truly believe that Dr. Kochan’s guidance and mentoring made all the difference in my successful graduation with my doctoral degree in 2006 instead of being just another statistic in doctoral student attrition data. Dr. Kochan didn’t view me as “a high-risk doctoral student.” As with all her students, Dr. Kochan focused on individual talents, skills, and gifts, encouraging us to develop these attributes and our unique contributions to the education field. Challenges facing a single parent doctoral student vary and may include: personal doubts of the doctoral student in his/her ability to complete a doctoral de-

Mentored in Dual Commitments • 159

gree; financial and funding concerns; childcare responsibilities; family obstacles/ problems; personal/child illnesses or injuries; few or no productive research experience opportunities; and time-consuming outside employment that impacts progress in the doctoral program (Pop & Wiest, 2016; Welton, Mansfield, & Lee, 2015). Dr. Kochan was aware of such challenges, and she did not flinch or minimize any potential barriers that appeared in my path as I progressed through my doctoral studies. One day, while discussing a particular challenge together, Dr. Kochan thought a moment, then declared, “It is what it is.” I was crestfallen. Was she implying that this was an impassible barrier? Was my situation hopeless? Dr. Kochan quickly explained: no situation was hopeless; no challenge existed that did not include a solution, even if not immediately visible; no closed door did not precede another, perhaps better, door that was open wide. “It is what it is” meant that we now identified, recognized, and understood the challenge before us, and armed with this information, we could determine the best steps to forge ahead. My doctoral program path would prove to uncover one potential barrier after another, yet Dr. Kochan helped me navigate successfully through each one. Financial challenges were eased with a graduate assistant position; this assistantship not only enriched my doctoral program with new experiences, projects, and research initiatives, it allowed me to meet many additional educational leaders and colleagues, as well. Dr. Kochan expanded my educational abilities by providing experiences in teaching undergraduate education students; supervising undergraduate education interns in traditional internships as well as supervising students exploring year-long internships, internships at Celebration School (Celebration, FL) and internships offered in other countries; assisting in an early childhood curriculum and teacher professional development initiative with Beijing, China; and many other enriching professional experiences. Additionally, this graduate assistant position allowed me the flexibility to better support Brad, Kim, and Kelly during the day during their school hours. I was able to leave campus briefly to attend a program or teacher/parent meeting at my children’s nearby schools. It allowed me to personally deliver Kelly’s parakeets to her classroom for a show and tell, visit Kim’s second-grade “Treetop Café” lunch for parents, and attend a sporting program involving Brad’s youth baseball team. This flexibility allowed my parental priorities to facilitate my doctoral student priorities; in one such opportunity, I interviewed Brad’s baseball coach regarding a research project for my qualitative research class exploring the impact of youth baseball team involvement and the self-esteem development of boys. Dr. Kochan viewed my children as the asset that they were; she recognized the support, encouragement, and love that I received from them as I was striving for my educational goals (Jairan & Kahl, 2012). My children were very important to my academic success (Tehan, 2007), providing both emotional and practical support (Jairan & Kahl, 2012). Brad, Kim, and Kelly accompanied me to the AU library, reading and completing their homework assignments as I worked on my research projects. I found scribbled declarations of “I’m proud of you, Mommy” on

160  •  VIRGINIA R. KNIGHT

my dissertation drafts. Hidden notes of love and encouragement would pop into view as I opened books or my purse. Many evenings found us crowded around a table at Books-A-Million, reading, and studying while developing a love for mocha frappes. Household chores and shopping were a team effort between all of us. Even though Brad, Kim, and Kelly were 100% children first and found many things much more interesting than folding laundry or putting away toys, I would often experience working hard on an assignment to suddenly hear the whir of the vacuum cleaner, the clink of dishes being unloaded from the dishwasher, or the sight of a special breakfast prepared. They knew I was working hard to complete a project, and they wanted to be supportive. Being a mother herself, Dr. Kochan understood and appreciated the experiences Brad, Kim, and Kelly encountered as they grew up accompanying me on my doctoral journey. She listened to many updates regarding their latest triumphs and challenges, often sharing wise insights. These insights always involved the importance of appreciating the moment, the importance of family, and the power of laughter. Dr. Kochan was entirely committed to her role as my mentor, yet a successful mentor-mentee relationship does not release the mentee from the commitment to the relationship, either. (Kochan, 2002). I understood the time, sacrifices, and determination Dr. Kochan was contributing to my doctoral journey. As a mentee, I contributed different responsibilities to our mentoring relationship. Without words spoken, I understood that I was responsible for bringing my “best self” to every class, every assignment, every research project, every educational initiative, and every word written in my dissertation. This mentee’s responsibility wasn’t always easy for me; I was immature in a lot of ways and had a lot of growing up yet to do. Time management, a challenge for many doctoral students (McAlpine & Amundsen, 2013), was one such area of needed maturation for me. One seasoning experience involved a Saturday morning class cohort meeting for which I had offered to bring breakfast items. The early morning preparation hours had slipped by too quickly for me, and I was late as I rushed into the classroom with the muffins and orange juice; Dr. Kochan and my cohort members were waiting for me. I quickly rushed over to Dr. Kochan to apologize, offering an excuse for the early morning trials trying to settle Brad, Kim, and Kelly for the day with their babysitter, gathering all the breakfast items, maneuvering the last-minute obstacles, and I saw the reaction in Dr. Kochan’s eyes. The same eyes that conveyed wisdom, support, and encouragement also held personal responsibility: MY personal responsibility or lack thereof. There was no reprimand given, but I immediately understood; Dr. Kochan depended on me to come through with my responsibilities, both large and small, both academic and personal. I looked again; her eyes communicated understanding, and “I know you can do this” reassurance. Colleges and universities have recognized the power of mentoring graduate students in the successful completion of their doctoral studies and are implementing mentoring services to their graduate students; these services are extended to the

Mentored in Dual Commitments • 161

unique needs of single-parent graduate students, as well. The University of Washington Graduate School devotes a section of their website to mentoring, including topics such as “Mentor Memos,” “Mentoring Guides for Students,” and “Mentoring: A Guide for Faculty” (University of Washington, 2018). The Rackham Graduate School at the University of Michigan (2018) states “faculty mentors play a crucial role in the success of graduate students; at Rackham, we hear this message frequently from students” (p.3). The Rackham Graduate School believes that the mentoring relationship is very beneficial to the faculty mentor, as well, by stating: Far from being an optional extra, or a task to be attended as time permits, mentoring is as essential to a faculty member’s success as teaching, research and publication are, and for the same reasons: it benefits both students and mentors as it advances the discipline, ensuring the quality and commitment of the next generation of scholars (p. 6).

While Auburn University did not have formal mentoring services in place in 1995 when I began my doctoral studies, the institution had Dr. Frances K. Kochan, a true trailblazer in mentoring relationships within the education field. As a mentor, she developed not just me but Brad, Kim, and Kelly as well, into life-long learners. Each of us values wisdom, learning, and expanding our horizons. As Dr. Kochan supported my dream of completing my doctoral degree, each child has learned the importance of pursuing knowledge and personal dreams. Brad, Kim, and Kelly learned first-hand the magic of mentoring; having witnessed my professional and personal growth through my mentoring relationship with Dr. Kochan, each has reached out to mentors of their own as they embark on their careers. I thank you, Dr. Kochan; you have taught, prepared, and mentored me well. As your mentee, I have watched your progress from Director of the Truman Pierce Institute to full professor to Assistant Dean of the College of Education to Interim Dean to Dean of the College of Education. As my mentor, you watched me progress from a tearful single mom novice doctoral student to single mom, doctoral candidate, to defending my doctoral dissertation, “Perceptions of the Role and Effectiveness of a School Assistance Team in Facilitating School Improvement in a Low-Performing School in Alabama,” to hooding me at my graduation and to begin a career with Teacher Certification at the Alabama State Department of Education. As wonderful as these progressions were, some characteristics remained constant: integrity; character; respect; and doing one’s very best, both professionally and personally. You held and still hold me accountable to these treasured principles. As I stepped away from Auburn University after my doctoral program, I encountered many wonderful opportunities and life challenges. It is what it is. In that long-ago first office visit, you told me that we would handle challenges and successes together. Now armed with your wisdom, guidance, and support etched in my life and family, you are beside me always. Forever your mentee, —Ginny

162  •  VIRGINIA R. KNIGHT

Kelly, Ginny, Kim, and Brad at the beginning of Ginny’s doctoral program at Auburn University.

Kim, Brad, and Kelly today.

Brad, Dr. Frances Kochan, Ginny, and Mike (Husband)

REFERENCES Ali, A., & Kohun, F. (2007). Dealing with social isolation to minimize doctoral attrition— A four-stage framework. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2, 33–49. Caruth, G. D. (2015). Doctoral student attrition: A problem for higher education. The Journal of Educational Thought, 48(3), 189–215. Gardner, S. K. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33(2), 125–138. Jairam, D., & Kahl, D. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: The role of social support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 311–328. Kochan, F. K. (2002). Volume 1 in perspectives in mentoring: The organizational and human dimensions of successful mentoring across diverse settings. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2013). Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors, and administrators. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(4), 438–444. Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to PH.D. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Pop, K., & Wiest, L. (2016). Balancing family responsibilities and graduate school demands. Educational Research: Theory & Practice, 28(2), 40–42. Tehan, L. (2007). Advising the single-parent college student. The Mentor. University Park, PA: Penn State’s Division of Undergraduate Studies. University of Michigan. (2018). How to mentor graduate students: A guide for faculty. Retrieved from: https://www.rackham.umich.edu /downloads/publications/Fmentoring.pdf. University of Washington. (2018). Mentoring: A guide for faculty. Retrieved at https:// grad.uw.edu/for-students-and-post-docs/core-programs/mentoring/mentoringguides-for-faculty/ Wao, H., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2011). A mixed research investigation of factors related to time to the doctorate in education. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6, 115–134. Welton, A., Mansfield, K., & Lee, P. (2015). Mentoring educational leadership doctoral students: Using methodological diversification to examine gender and identity intersections. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 10(2), 53–81.

CHAPTER 18

MENTORED THROUGH WHOLENESS Mirna I. Ramos-Diaz

Transformative Co-Mentoring (TCM): a relationship between two or more individuals with the goal of creating a lasting change in them and in the environment(s) in which they function. —Ramos-Diaz & Kochan, 2020 It was toward the end of the day. I found myself tired, sleepy, a bit discouraged and wondering if I could sit through another presentation. As I looked at Webster, my service dog, I said, “little fellow, let’s sit here, read the brochure, and see if there is a presentation that catches my eyes. Oh, wow, this topic aligns with “Roots to Wings.” The topic was “Culture Aspects of Mentoring” (Kochan, 2017). At that time in my life, I was a co-founder of a transformative co-mentoring program for Native American and Latino/a students living on Native lands in southcentral Washington State. The program’s goal was to enhance the entrance into the healthcare profession while maintaining steadfast the values and traditions of the students we served. I had practiced as a pediatrician in the Native American lands of this region for over 11 years. At the time, I was transitioning from clinical practice to academia and mentoring youth in the area. Mentoring youth came naturally for me; however, academia was as foreign of a language and The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 163–168. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

163

164  •  MIRNA I. RAMOS-DIAZ

culture as the U.S. and English language had been when I first arrived from Cuba via Spain in my mid-teens. I remember the day in October of 2017 when I first met Dr. Kochan. I was sitting on the left side, towards the middle and on an aisle, in a large conference room at the National Mentoring Conference at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I listened attentively to her soft, gentle voice. She was very knowledgeable, and her words were imbued with humility and ease of transmitting knowledge from life experiences and scholarly work. At the end of the presentation, Dr. Kochan said: “I am happy to share my presentation with all those who are interested.” I patiently waited until Dr. Kochan had spoken with multiple individuals before introducing myself and expressing my appreciation for her presentation. I gave her my business card and asked her if she could send me her presentation. She said, “when you get back to your state, send me an email, and I will send it to you.” She then asked me a little about myself. I told her that I was a pediatrician transitioning into academia and that I found the latter to be challenging on many levels. Without hesitation, she replied, “Oh, honey, you need someone like me to mentor you!” Thoughts of a recent, negative mentoring experience immediately whirled through my head, and I said to myself, “oh no, I’m am out of here?” Her offer to mentor me caught me off guard because, as a clinician, it was my job to take care of others. As an immigrant daughter, I also quickly learned that I needed to take care of my family and myself. This realization often led to taking leaps of faith and asking for help to understand my homework or fill out college and financial aid applications. Perhaps because of my history of taking leaps of faith or because of the immense need for mentoring and enhancement of mentoring roles in our school, I took another leap of faith by sending her an email when I returned home. Dr. Kochan sent her presentation along with materials she had written and materials from other authors that she thought would be of assistance to me. She included articles on culture (Kent, Kochan, & Green, 2013), policy (Fransson & McMahan, 2013), and definitions of mentoring (Dominguez & Hager, 2013). I had previously been learning the definitions for what I was doing organically—as I was doing them—and been expanding my horizons exponentially. One day, it dawned on me to investigate Dr. Kochan. I was so astounded by her accomplishments that I called her to leave a voice mail thanking her for her immense generosity. I did not feel that I had much to offer this professor and did not want to presume to take her time. However, I did not reach her voice mail; to my great surprise, Dr. Kochan answered her phone! Our correspondence continued, evolving into sessions on mentoring. My excitement about mentoring, teaching, academia, and knowledge grew with each conversation. Soon, she accepted an invitation to present the “Roots to Wings (RTW) Transformative Co-Mentoring Program to our medical school students and to help observe the program. What followed changed the trajectory of my life

Mentored Through Wholeness • 165

as a Latina woman, teacher, and spouse. Dr. Kochan impacted and continues to play an important role in transforming many aspects of my life. However, I have gotten ahead of myself. In 2012, I began teaching at Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences College of Osteopathic Medicine (PNWU-COM). Soon, I started seeking ways to give back to the people who and the Land that welcomed my family and me. In the communities where I had practiced pediatrics, the children lacked sufficient opportunities to grow and blossom in their educational endeavors. It is paramount that osteopathic medical students understand the culture, values, and traditions as primary care providers for Native American and Latino populations to provide culturally responsive medical care. The RTW mission is aligned perfectly with the mission of PNWU—to educate and train health care professionals emphasizing service among rural and medically underserved communities throughout the Northwest. RTW became the channel for my passion for diversity, equity, and inclusion. I recall Dr. Kochan’s comment to us during her first visit to PNWU— “you have something beautiful and good here; write it down.” Dr. Kochan arrived in the cold month of March 2018. By November 2018, she had invited me to write a chapter in The Wiley International Handbook of Mentoring Paradigm, Practices, and Possibilities. There was one significant caveat in her invitation—“usually individuals have six months to a year to write her or his chapter; you have three months if you decide to write it. I realize this is not fair to you, but the program is worth writing about for others to know. It is your decision, and I will work with you throughout the entire process if you choose to do it.” After much cogitating, I told her I would give it my best effort. The three months that followed were comparable in demand, sleeplessness, and exhaustion to my on-call days as a pediatric resident. Amid endless reading, writing, and rewriting, I experienced both moments of sheer joy—“I am writing a chapter—and doubt— “Will I ever finish this”! I recall two particular moments while writing the chapter, studying for my recertification board exam in pediatrics, and being the course director for clinical skills, when I told Dr. Kochan, “I am exhausted!” She assured me in the most gentle, loving, and firm voice, “you will be fine in the morning.” I resolved right then and there not to complain again. Her second comment, “you’re almost done,” became like my mantra. Somehow, she would convince me that I was much further along than I ever thought I was. She saw the light at the end of the tunnel long before I did, and I had come to trust the woman who had thrust me into writing. I did not doubt, with my whole being, that she desired the best for me and the young, underrepresented students in our valley and me. Dr. Kochan believed in me when I could not believe in myself and opened new horizons that would guide the second half of my life. The chapter “Roots to Wings—A Transformative Co-Mentoring Program to Foster Cross-Cultural Understanding and Pathways into the Medical Professions for Native American and Mexican American Students” was finally complete (Ramos-Diaz et al., 2020). In the months following, the RTW Program became

166  •  MIRNA I. RAMOS-DIAZ

a 2018 semifinalist for “The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development.” In 2019, I was a plenary speaker at the International Mentoring Association’s Annual Conference: Diversity in Mentoring Initiatives: Practice and Research (Ramos-Diaz, 2019a). In the same year, I presented at The American Association of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) Annual Conference: Educating Leaders 2019 (Ramos-Diaz, 2019b). In addition, with Dr. Kochan’s guidance, and the assistance of colleagues, we wrote 13 grant proposals—eleven of which we have received, and one is currently pending. Adding to the academic impact Dr. Kochan has had on my life, I was able to break the ceiling in academia for Latina women in medicine by applying for promotion and becoming an associate professor of Pediatrics in the Family Medicine Department at PNWU. Dr. Kochan directly guided me and mentored me through this challenging process—including authoring a pivotal letter of recommendation on my behalf. Throughout this incredible, surprising, and challenging journey, I have experienced many facets of mentoring. In its classic definition, mentoring is “… having two or more individuals willingly form a mutually respectful, trusting relationship focused on goals that foster the potential of the mentee while considering the needs of the mentor and the context in which they both function” (Kochan & Pascarelli, 2003, p. X). Dr. Kochan has exhibited unwavering trust and respect for the team that we created and for me. I continue to be keenly aware of her generosity with time, knowledge, and resources. As our relationship grew, I became more mindful of what I could offer. We share the same faith tradition and soon began discussing the spiritual aspects of mentoring, sharing our spiritual journeys followed naturally. I provided resources from my courses while completing a Master’s in Religious Studies at Gonzaga University, as well as from my studies at the Center for Action and Contemplation, founded by Franciscan Priest Fr. Richard Rohr. These shared experiences and interactions have enriched our lives and brought wholeness to our relationship. Our interactions allowed a deeper meaning of mentoring and the essence of human relationships. We have grown from a mentor-mentee relationship to a co-mentoring relationship. The latter is a collaborative form of mentoring. Mullen describes “collaborative mentoring as a productive force that unites individuals or groups in a reciprocal, mutual exchange and dynamic context for learning.” (p. 41). Our collaborative co-mentoring relationship has become a transformative co-mentoring relationship in which we have experienced a lasting change in ourselves and in the world in which we live by the way we interact with one another and with the environment in which we live (Ramos-Diaz & Kochan, 2020). Furthermore, our relationship has brought our families together. My partner and I have found in Dr. Kochan, a healer who has shared with us the struggles in a faithful, respectful, and loving marriage. Her patience in listening to our journey enriched with us a greater love for one another, which has, in turn, translated into renewed ways to communicate with one another. She welcomed us into her beautiful family in such a way that we now plan visits and vacations together.

Mentored Through Wholeness • 167

Dr. Kochan has been a balm in our lives. She exemplifies true love for humanity through acceptance, respect, seeking the best in others, walking with others, and forging new ways of being more a more fully alive and integrated part of society. Dr. Kochan embodies transformative co-mentoring in its truest form—human experience transformed by love. Over the years, I have kept all of Dr. Kochan’s email correspondence. As I write this, I thought, “what can I share that would benefit others starting on their writing journeys?” That is what she would want me to do with her teachings— offer them to others. Regarding writings, I hold these principles, dear, “I have learned that you learn to write by writing, reading, reflecting, and outlining” (Kochan, undated personal correspondence). She goes on to say, One thing I did learn about writing is that when you are preparing to write an article, you select one or two journals in which you think you might want to publish. Then, you find some articles in it that are reporting something similar to what you want to do (literature review, research findings, program design) and model your article on the ones in the journal (i.e., the length of the literature background, the methods, the structure of the article. (Kochan, personal correspondence, November 26, 2017).

Presently, I am honored to be writing papers with Dr. Kochan. Though writing is always a challenge, the joy of being and working with her surpasses any obstacles I encounter in the process. She has the insight, knowledge, wisdom, curiosity, and joy to look at something anew. Her passion for continued learning excites my imagination! She is open to learning and is not afraid to be challenged. In two years, she has mentored me toward wholeness! Forever grateful, I love you, Dr. Kochan—Mirna. REFERENCES Dominguez, N., & Hager, M. (2013). Mentoring frameworks: Synthesis and Critique. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(3), 171–188. Fransson, G., & McMahan, S. K. (2013). Exploring research on mentoring policies in education. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(3), 218–232. Kent, A. M., Kochan, F., & Green, A. M. (2013). Cultural influences on mentoring programs and relationships: A critical review of research. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(3), 204–217. Kochan, F. (2017, October). Cultural aspects of mentoring. Keynote address at the Annual Meeting of the Mentoring Institute at The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. Kochan, K. F., & Pascarelli, T. J. (2003). Global perspectives on mentoring: Transforming contexts, communities, and cultures. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Mullen, C. A. (2017). Critical issues on democracy and mentoring in education: A debate in the literature. In D. A. Clutterbuck, F. K. Kochan, L. G. Lunsford, N. Dominguez, & J. Haddock-Millar (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring (pp. 34–51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

168  •  MIRNA I. RAMOS-DIAZ Ramos-Diaz, M. I. (2019a, April). Cultural aspects of mentoring, Keynote address presented at The International Mentoring Association Annual Conference: Diversity in Mentoring Initiatives: Practice and Research at Florida State University, Gainesville, FL. Ramos-Diaz, M. I. (2019b, April). Roots to wings: A partnership response to the shortage of Native Americans in osteopathic medicine, Plenary session presented at The American Association of Colleges and Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) Annual Conference: Educating Leaders 2019. Washington, DC. Ramos-Diaz, M. I., Janis, M., Strom, H. M., Howlett, B., Renker, A. M., & Washines, D. E. (2020). Roots to wings: A transformative co-mentoring program to foster crosscultural understanding and pathways into the medical profession for Native American and Mexican American students. In B. J. Irby, J. N. Boswell, L. J. Searby, F. Kochan, R. Gaza, & N. Abdulrahman (Eds.), The Wiley International Handbook of Mentoring Paradigms, Practices, Programs, and Possibilities, (pp. 409–426). Ramos-Diaz, M. I., & Kochan, F. (2020). Transformative co-mentoring: Fostering change in individuals, institutions, lives, and the medical and health professions. Paper accepted for presentation at the American Educational Research Organization Annual Conference, April 2020: San Francisco, Ca.

CHAPTER 19

MENTORED IN THE ACADEMY Amy Serafini

Like so many former school administrators before me, the shift to higher education was far more of a rugged transition than I had anticipated. One would think that the ten years spent leading schools would adequately prepare me for the more serene “life of the mind.” How wrong I was! Knowing how to negotiate this very new and foreign world would be no easy task. Sadly, there weren’t evidencebased strategies to turn to, no leadership teams to bounce ideas off of, and certainly no years of accumulated wisdom upon which to rely. No, my successful entry into the academy would instead rely upon a far simpler strategy—I need to find role models for whom I could emulate. As one of the most successful people in my chosen subfield of mentoring, Dr. Fran Kochan was someone upon which I could model my new career. I met Fran for the first time in April 2018 at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Conference (AERA) in New York City. As fate would have it, amid the most challenging time in my life, I ended up needing more inspiration than I originally predicted. Fran’s inspiration has been pivotal, personally, and professionally. My introduction to Fran began with an email. The email came from my new colleague at Auburn University, suggesting that we all gather for dinner at the AERA conference. It seemed like a wonderful way to meet my new colleagues and begin this identity as a newly hired Assistant Professor at Auburn University’s Department of Educational Leadership. The email was as follows: The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 169–173. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

169

170  •  AMY SERAFINI Thursday, April 5, 2018 1:52 a.m. Hello New Colleagues, It was so good to speak with the two of you today. My, my, my we have a wonderful team, and we are so excited to have both of you at Auburn! Since all of us are going to be at AERA, we thought it might be fun to get together for drinks and dinner. In speaking with folks today, it looks like Thursday may be best for all. I am looking into a couple of really good Italian places. I don’t quite have a location yet, but let’s count on 6:30 as a meeting time. Fran Kochan is also copied on this email. Fran is part of our ed leadership team and was the Dean of the College up until a few years ago. She will be at AERA as well and would certainly enjoy getting to know you. So, Thursday, April 12, at 6:30 is the deal. I’ll let you know the location soon. Thanks, Ellen

La Mela Restaurant in New York City’s Little Italy was the restaurant in which I first met Fran on the evening of April 12, 2018. The group of Auburn faculty sat at a long table along the back wall of the tiny restaurant. Several Auburn faculty members were also in attendance, and this was my first-time seeing members of the Auburn College of Education faculty since visiting the campus for my interview in late January. The conversation was warm and encouraging, and yet, I was still a bit nervous. Looking back, I do not think it was the company of my new colleagues that made me nervous. You see, here I sat as a rookie professor claiming to have a research agenda focused on mentoring, and I was sitting across from not only the former Dean of the College of Education but the Godmother of mentoring, Fran Kochan. Fran had a soft, pleasant voice and was graceful in her mannerisms. She was a stark contrast from so many other academics I met to that point. From our very first exchange, I immediately felt a sense of comfort with her, despite feeling a bit intimidated and nervous as many might feel as a pre-tenure professor meeting one of her “intellectual idols.” I left the dinner with the desire to model my career after Fran’s example. After learning about the Mentorship and Mentoring Practices Special Interests Group (SIG), I was determined to join this group. To attend the SIG meeting, I would be required to change my flight itinerary, which I very gladly did. It was comforting to know that Fran would be in attendance. Ever the gracious host, Fran introduced me to members of the SIG, and I learned so much about the brilliant researchers who were committing their lives to strengthen mentoring practices at all levels of the educational system. I was so grateful as it gave me a chance to realize my place in this world, and importantly, how deserving I was to be a voice in the conversation.

Mentored in the Academy • 171

Unfortunately, there was another reason why the New York AERA conference was memorable. Regrettably, that decision to attend the SIG meeting also lead to my fateful experience on Southwest flight 1380. About twenty minutes into the flight, the left engine experienced an uncontained engine failure. In the blink of an eye, debris from the failed engine broke the window in front of me and partially ejected the passenger in that seat. The rapid depressurization, extreme yaw, and rapid decent created panic and hysteria in the aircraft. Despite my best efforts to aid the passenger in front of me, I later learned of her passing. Roughly two days after the accident, and still, in a physical and emotional state of shock, I received an unexpected call. On the other end of the line was Fran. “Amy, Are you okay? Was that YOU who I read about? Were you on the Southwest flight that suffered an engine failure?” To my surprise, Fran knew. Fran knew I was on board that flight. I quietly and a bit embarrassingly said, “Yes.” Fran gasped. In a rapid and shocked tone, she explained that she learned about the accident and saw that my name was listed on the passenger manifest. During the call, Fran reassured me that she was available to assist me with my transition from postdoc to a professor when I was ready. She encouraged me to take care of myself and to reach out to her to discuss anything I may need. I did eventually reach out to Fran, but not until early August, once I finally settled in my office at Auburn University. I shyly phoned Fran to let her know I was ready to tackle the subject of mentoring as a new, pre-tenure professor. As expected, Fran was very conversational and went out of her way to demystify the world of academic publishing, which up to that point, was far more of a theoretical idea for me than one steeped in practical reality. Fran asked if she could email some resources related to publishing, and I gladly accepted her offer of help. Later that day, I received the following email: Dear Amy, Here is something about publishing. When you have time, we can talk about it. You are busier than I am, so just let me know what works. I know this has to be a crazy month for you, so do not feel compelled to talk right now. The publishing thing requires some deliberate learning, and it is part good writing and part just understanding the system. Have a great month, and enjoy your teaching. So glad you are there. Fondly, Fran

With her message, she included three documents. The first document was entitled Developing a Publishing Plan for Success. In the document, Fran outlined the principles of publishing. They included: (1) take a proactive stance, (2) develop your writing skills, (3) develop your publishing knowledge, (4) collaborate with others, (5) create organizing systems, and (6) prepare for and accept rejection. She went on to offer tips for taking a proactive stance as an author. They were: • Writing and publishing are not “natural acts” It takes practice; • You must develop a proactive attitude about publishing; • Volunteer to write (newsletters, association articles, special issues);

172  •  AMY SERAFINI

• • • • • •

Volunteer to review for journals or book publishers or grant funders; Ask editors what they are looking for; Read others writing in your research area- keep notes on what you will use; Consider what is missing in the literature and find your niche; Stay abreast of calls for special issues or book chapters; and Connect, connect, connect!!!!!

The next section of the document was devoted to guiding an aspiring author. She titled the section Developing your writing skills. Fran’s advice included: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Take every opportunity to learn to write for publication; Consider class projects; Make and follow-up on presentations at conferences; Volunteer to write for association newsletters and websites; Enter university competitions; Ask others to critique your writing; Read and critique journal writing; Read about writing—online, books, articles; Take a writing course; Go to writing clinics or centers; Collaborate and co-write with a seasoned author; and Develop your own writing style.

All of the information provided in this document was very welcomed. The last section of the document unveiled even more helpful information. The section was focused on developing your publishing knowledge. Fran offered: • Know the difference between refereed, reviewed, invited, open acceptance; • KNOW WHAT COUNTS IN YOUR INSTITUTION; • Look for Conference Proceedings and write for them when you submit for a conference; • Consider providing opinion pieces (op-ed); • Become familiar with the potential outlets for publishing; ○ Websites—Cabell; ○ Books—series, annuals authors, calls; ○ Browse; ○ Ask others; ○ Get samples; and ○ Association newsletters of journals. ○ Create a reference file of places where you might write An Excel spreadsheet was the second attachment. Along the left-hand side of the document were the names of the top journals in the field of educational lead-

Mentored in the Academy • 173

ership. For each journal listed, Fran provided the type of review (blind, editorial, etc.). For each submission, she also included the acceptance rate. The third attachment was information about Cabell’s. The resource began with an introduction to Cabell’s as a database for scholarly authors. An organized list of blind review journals was listed along with their acceptance rates. Fran also included journals that were not listed in Cabell’s. Fran’s mentoring at this time was vital. This period of my life was when it was very hard to focus as I was suffering from acute Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the airplane accident that at the time felt all-consuming. Reflecting upon that moment, I am certain the care I received from Fran instilled the desire in me to ensure I also “pay it forward.” As a current mentor to others, I want to share as much as I can with students, aspiring professors, or those suffering from traumatic experiences, just as Fran did for me. Throughout the Fall semester, I took advantage of Fran’s offer to provide feedback and suggestions for revising my writing. She made herself available by email, texts, and phone calls. During one of our calls, she listened to me grapple with a concept that linked mentoring and educational leadership simulations. Fran challenged my thinking as I vetted the concept. I feverishly took notes when she provided ideas to more fully develop the concept. One of the suggestions she offered was related to her work on Telementoring. In typical Fran fashion and consistent with her giving nature, Fran offered to send the book for me to read. Low and behold, the book arrived in my mailbox a few days later. In mid-March 2019, Fran and I sat on a bench in the hallway of a hotel in Gainesville, Florida, on the campus of The University of Florida. We were both attending the International Mentoring Conference. We huddled over my laptop and discussed the PowerPoint that supported a presentation I was scheduled to give. As I shared the presentation, I was extremely uneasy and filled with a great deal of fear. Those emotions were warranted because embedded in the presentation was my newly minted conceptualization of SimMentoring. To my surprise, Fran overwhelmingly approved the concept. With Fran’s validation, I heaved a huge sigh of relief. My feelings of doubt and uncertainty dissipated, and suddenly I was exhilarated and was officially embarking on my research path. Today, I continue with my research on mentoring. From the traumatic airplane accident, I have added an interest in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Post-Traumatic Growth (PTG). I remain inspired by the compassion that was shown to me by Dr. Fran Kochan. Thanks to her caring guidance, the novitiate is now a mentor in her own right. Moreover, I am better to “name” what I stand for (i.e., values and passions), determine how to make it happen (i.e., “secrets” to success in the academy), and can take (and now dispense) meaningful guidance.

CHAPTER 20

EPILOGUE Frances K. Kochan and Her Place in the Constellation of the Mentoring World Linda Searby

This book, called a festschrift, has been a labor of love as a tribute to Dr. Frances Kochan. A festschrift is an edited volume of essays and papers on a selected topic, that honors someone who is still living. Dr. Ellen Hahn and I wanted to honor Dr. Fran Kochan for so many reasons, but the chief reason was to highlight the many contributions she has made to advance the art and science of mentoring. The way we envisioned this tribute unfolding in this book was to have a section on the “science” of mentoring in which we would ask well-known scholars in the field of mentoring to share their scholarship so that the “science” of mentoring could be furthered. We wanted the second section of the book to be personal essays and tributes to Fran from her former students and others she has mentored who have gone on into higher education or positions of academic leadership. To make that section manageable, we selected contributors who represented the many different ways that Fran mentored them. We aimed to not only honor Fran’s deep scholarship over the 40 years of her career by advancing our knowledge in the science of mentoring but also to showcase the practical ways that Fran mentored individual emerging scholars so that our readers can learn from the ways she practiced the The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 175–177. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

175

176 • LINDA SEARBY

art of mentoring as an excellent mentoring practitioner. Fran truly is one of the brightest stars in the constellation of mentoring stars in the field. It was not difficult to find contributors for the “science” section because Fran is personally acquainted with so many top mentoring scholars in the U.S. and abroad in her professional constellation. She has written with them, presented with them, edited their work, and even mentored them. As we approached these individual mentoring scholars, none of them had heard of a festschrift, but all loved the idea of honoring Fran in this way. All of them have a deep respect for Fran. All have personal knowledge of her wide impactful scholarship, editing, and leadership in the field. All wanted to honor her by “paying it forward”—advancing the science of mentoring, as they submitted chapters based on their current scholarship and presentations. There is more top tier mentoring scholars and practitioners whom we could have asked to contribute because Fran’s personal and professional sphere of influence has been so wide. Likewise, we could have filled two volumes for the “art” section just from the testimonials from Fran’s former doctoral students. Dissertation students thrived under her instruction. Not only did she attract the best and the brightest, but she also was willing to work with those who struggled greatly with their writing. She never gave up on any students, and always found a way to get them to the finish line. Each one of Fran’s former students whom we approached was thrilled to be able to honor Fran by writing a testimonial of her dedication and encouragement. Fran is an icon. Fran Kochan is a woman, tiny in stature, but a giant in the mentoring world. Let me share with you how Fran entered my professional constellation. I first met Fran at a conference of the International Mentoring Association in Las Vegas in 2008. I had already made mentoring my area of research and writing, so I had bought her books and cited her in papers. I had her on a pedestal, for sure. At that conference, I saw her on the stage and determined to make an opportunity to meet her. Later that day, I noticed her sitting on a bench, looking at her program, and I got up my courage to approach her and introduce myself. She immediately exuded kindness towards me, invited me to sit down, focused on me, asking me about my research, encouraged me that it was worthwhile and interesting, and immediately gave me a creative idea for the next step in my research! To say I was thrilled would be an understatement. This giant of a mentoring researcher had paid attention to me! Later in my career, as I was recruited to Auburn University and got to work with Fran all the time, I would realize that this was Fran, always. As a caring colleague, she would drop in my office and say, “How ya doing?” and I never had a conversation with her that she did not affirm me personally, praise me for my work, lift me, and empower me. She always has more creative ideas than any one person could ever implement. Qualitative research is her forte because the stories and the lived experiences of others are what always fascinates her. Fran is now, not only in my professional constellation of colleagues but in my constellation as a dear friend. Fran is a lifter.

Epilogue • 177

Fran is also deeply spiritual. She lives her Christian beliefs out in everyday actions so naturally. At the end of the day, when I interviewed for the position at Auburn, Fran took me back to my hotel. We sat in her car and processed the day. She ended our conversation by saying, “Let’s just pray about this,” and she took my hand and started praying aloud, just as natural as could be. Fran is a faithfilled servant. If Fran Kochan has any flaw at all, it is that she cannot say “no” to anyone needing her help. This is because of her innate, giving spirit and caring nature. But she always appears to have boundless energy. She can accomplish more work in a month than anyone I know and juggle many responsibilities at once. And she has more creative ideas for new endeavors than anyone can accomplish in a lifetime. She was the first female Dean of the College of Education at Auburn University in an era when all the university deans were male. She was the founding director of the Truman Pierce Institute at Auburn, to advance social justice in educational leadership. She started the Barbara Jackson Scholars network for underrepresented minorities in the American Educational Research Association. After writing 12 books, 35 book chapters, editing 11 special issues of journals, and publishing 67 journal articles, her latest editorship in 2020, at the age of “70-something,” was for the Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring. (See Appendix for a list of her publications). Fran is a trailblazer. Mentors like Fran model mentoring as a profession. Though not a profession you can prepare for with a specified major in college, it is a helping profession akin to doctors, nurses, social workers, firefighters, and law enforcers. In a profession, individuals have expertise in their chosen fields and use it to reach an end—to contribute to society, advance knowledge, heal hurts, help the struggling, create safe places, and improve living conditions. I have never heard someone say, “I’m a professional mentor,” but if anyone could, it would be Fran, though it is highly unlikely that she ever got paid to be a mentor. But she is a professional mentor because she has both the prolific knowledge in the scholarship of mentoring plus the practitioner’s expertise to enact mentoring. Fran is a mentoring scientist and artist. In conclusion, we hope that you received two things from reading this book. First of all, we hope you received knowledge and new insights into the “how and the why” of mentoring (i.e., judge mentoring, ONSIDE mentoring, mentoring circles, the miracle question in mentoring, identifying future trends). Secondly, we hope that you received inspiration to be a better mentor yourself, seeing the impact you as one mentor can have on one mentee at a time. As you read how Fran Kochan mentored her students and new professors, you have a role model in how to empower others. So, if you have gained knowledge and inspiration from this edited volume as we honored Dr. Frances Kochan, we will have fulfilled our objective.

BIOGRAPHIES

Tammy D. Allen is Distinguished University Professor within the department of psychology at the University of South Florida (USF). She currently serves as the Director of the Occupational Health Psychology training program at USF and previously served as the Area Director for the Industrial and Organizational Psychology program. Research interests include work-family issues, career development and mentoring, and occupational health. Tammy served as the 2018–2019 President of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and is also a past president of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. She is a Fellow of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, the American Psychological Association, and the Association for Psychological Science. Dr. Maysaa Barakat, PhD is an Associate Professor at the Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology, Florida Atlantic University (FAU) . She received her master’s degree and PhD in educational leadership from Auburn University, Alabama. She has over 15 years of school leadership experience, both in Egypt and the United States. Dr. Barakat’s research interests and publications focus on issues of cultural competence, identity, social justice, educational leadership preparation and international education. The Art and Science of Mentoring: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Frances Kochan, pages 179–185. Copyright © 2021 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

179

180 • BIOGRAPHIES

Maysaa serves as President Elect for Florida Association of Professors of Educational Leadership (FAPEL) and is one of FAU’s College of Education Faculty Senators, in addition to having served as FAU’s Plenum Representative to the University Council on Educational Administration (UCEA) Fall 2016–Fall 2019. Dr. Barakat is also a member of the Leaders for Social Justice (LSJ) and learning and Teaching in Educational Leadership (LTEL) special interest groups (SIGs), American Education Research Association (AERA). Dr. Bill Bergeron is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy and Technology Studies at the University of Alabama. His background includes 22 years in the military in a variety of leadership roles both as a Non-Commission Officer and as a Commissioned Officer. He also has experience as a police officer, teacher and high school principal and director of alternative programs. His Research includes research in high poverty-high minority rural schools, alternative settings, and restorative justice. To date he has published several articles and given more than 10 presentations. In addition, Dr. Bergeron has taught a variety of leadership courses delivered in a variety of formats. Dr. Bergeron holds undergraduate degrees in criminal justice and social science secondary education. Master’s degrees in public administration, social science education, and educational leadership. Dr. Bergeron also has an education specialist degree and Ph.D. in educational leadership. Dr. Jason C. Bryant is an Assistant Clinical Professor at Auburn University where he began in January 2016 and is currently serving as the director of Truman Pierce Institute within the College of Education at Auburn. Dr. Bryant has seventeen years of K–12 experience as a former science teacher, assistant principal, and principal at both the middle and high school level in Alabama. He is a past president and board member for the Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration (SRCEA) and served on the executive board of the Alabama Association of Professors of Educational Leadership (AAPEL). Dr. Frances Kochan served as chair for Dr. Bryant’s dissertation titled Student Perspectives of Supporting and Hindering Factors in School Integration and the Role of Racial Identity in the Process, which he received from in Administration of Elementary and Secondary Education from Auburn University. David Clutterbuck is one of the earliest pioneers of coaching and mentoring. Visiting professor at four universities, he is author, co-author or co-editor of more than 70 books in the fields of coaching, mentoring, leadership and talent management. One of the original founders of the European Mentoring and Coaching Council, he is now its Special Ambassador. He leads a global network of mentoring trainers and consultants, Coaching and Mentoring International and is co-Dean of the Global Team Coaching Institute. Among his current projects is an ambitious programme aimed at creating 5 million school age coaches and mentors across the world.

Biographies • 181

Kathleen M. Cowin, Ed.D., is a Clinical Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at Washington State University. Kathleen leads the Principal Certification and Master’s in Educational Leadership program, and teaches and mentors aspiring K–12 school leaders. Her research focuses on the development of effective relational co-mentoring practices for educational leader formation and the creation of 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 also completed her Superintendent Certification. Kathleen is currently serving as the Chair for the American Educational Research Association Mentorship and Mentoring Practices Special Interest Group, and was a Plenary speaker on her process of creating and facilitating co-mentoring circles at the 12th Annual Mentoring Conference of the University of New Mexico Mentoring Institute. Lillian Eby, Professor of Psychology, joined the University of Georgia (UGA) in 1996. She is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, and the Owens Institute for Behavioral Research at UGA. Her research interests center on mentoring relationships, factors that predict individual career success, worker well-being, and the intersection of work and family life. She has published over 125 peer-reviewed journal articles and co-edited three books. In addition to her active scholarship, Dr. Eby serves as the Director of the Owens Institute for Behavioral Research, a service unit under the Office for Research that promotes and supports interdisciplinary social and behavioral science at UGA. Dr. Sydney Freeman, Jr. is a tenured associate professor of adult, organizational learning, and leadership at the University of Idaho. His research interest include the college and university presidency, faculty development, faculty careers, and higher education as a field of study. Dr. Freeman attended and completed his Bachelors of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies at Oakwood University, where in 2017 he was recognized as one of “the Alumni Faces of Oakwood University.” And earned a masters and Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration at Auburn University in Alabama where he was recently named “the 2020 recipient of the College of Education Outstanding Young Alumni award.” He was also recently recognized as one of the recipients of the “Accomplished Under 40” for the year 2020 by the Idaho Business Review. Bob Garvey is one of Europe’s leading academic practitioners of coaching and mentoring. He is an experienced coach/mentor working with a wide variety of people. Formerly Head of Research at York Business School, Bob has experience in a whole range of different types of international organisations and different business sectors. Bob subscribes to the “repertoire” approach to coaching and mentoring. He is in demand internationally as a keynote conference speaker.

182 • BIOGRAPHIES

Bob has a PhD from the University of Durham in the UK. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and has published many books and papers on the practice of coaching and mentoring. He is a founding member of the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) and Honorary President of Coaching York. In 2014, he received a lifetime achievement award for contributions to mentoring in 2018 he received an award for his contributions to coaching. Dana M. Griggs, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership and Technology at Southeastern Louisiana University, where she serves as the Master’s Degree Program Coordinator. Her research focuses on collaboration in education including partnerships, mentoring, and leadership preparation. She has published in books and journals and presented at the national, state, and local levels. Andrew J. (Andy) Hobson, PhD, is Professor of Teacher Learning and Development and Head of Education Research at the University of Brighton, UK. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, and a member of the national expert panel for Education for REF 2021, the UK’s system for assessing the excellence of research in higher education institutions. Andy’s research focuses on support for the professional learning, development and well-being of teachers and leaders, with particular emphasis on mentoring and early career teachers. He coined the term “judgementoring” and developed the ONSIDE Mentoring framework, both of which are the focus of his attention in this volume. Virginia R. Knight is an education specialist with the Alabama State Department of Education, working with the Educator Certification Section within the Office of Teaching and Leading. Since coming to the Alabama State Department of Education in 2004, she has worked with teacher testing, facilitating in the adoption of Praxis II subject matter tests for Alabama educators, educator certification, and educator background review. The experiences gained through her doctoral program at Auburn University, elementary/college level teaching, and state department opportunities have shaped her research interests in best practices in teaching, mentoring, and facilitating success in low-performing schools. Sheila D. Moore, PhD is a member of faculty in the department of Educational Leadership and Higher Education at University of Central Florida where she teaches educational leadership courses in both master and doctoral programs and serves dissertation chair A former teacher and school leader, Dr. Moore has also served the profession through the Florida Association of Professors of Educational Leadership (FAPEL), Florida Department of Education, Southern Regional Council on Educational Administrators (SRCEA), American Education Research Association (AERA), American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE) and others. Dr. Moore’s research interests include high poverty- high-

Biographies • 183

achieving schools, leadership preparation programs and clinical practices, forming collaborative partnerships for student success and social justice in school leadership with emphasis on female leadership in urban settings. Dr. Moore has been recognized and is the recipient of teaching, research, and mentoring awards. Carol A. Mullen, PhD, is Professor of Educational Leadership at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, and a J. William Fulbright Senior Scholar alumnus, awarded twice for research in China (2015) and Canada (2017). Dr. Mullen is a multidisciplinary scholar whose research and pedagogical interests in mentoring, educational leadership, and creativity utilize social justice lenses and international contexts. Her books include Canadian Indigenous Literature and Art (2020, Brill); Creativity Under Duress in Education? (2019, Springer, edited); and Creativity and Education in China (2017, Routledge). Forthcoming are Revealing Creativity and the edited Handbook of Social Justice Interventions in Education (both with Springer). She is recipient of the 2016 Jay D. Scribner Mentoring Award from the University Council for Educational Administration, as well as the 2017 Living Legend Award and the 2020 Theodore Creighton Publication Innovation Award from the International Council of Professors of Educational Leadership. Her PhD is from the University of Toronto. Angel Miles Nash, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at Chapman University in the Donna Ford Attallah College of Educational Studies. Prior to her current position, Angel was the Graduate Research Assistant for the University Council for Educational Administration’s Jackson Scholars Network. Additionally, Angel taught and led in K–12 schools for 15 years in Washington, DC, California, and Virginia. All of these experiences have galvanized her research endeavors examining the emboldening of Black girls and women in the K–20+ education pipeline, the professional intersectional realities of women of color, and the ways that educational leaders support underserved students in STEM education. She has published on these topics in peer-reviewed journals and books. Angel’s research, teaching, and service commitments collectively and intentionally reify her belief in educational leaders’ influence on the historically underserved populations on whose behalf she champions. Dr. Mirna Ramos-Diaz is Associate Professor of Pediatrics in the Department of Family Medicine at Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences (PNWU). She is a co-founder of Roots to Wings, a transformative co-mentoring program, which creates a pathway for Native American and Hispanic youth to become healthcare professionals. This program was named a semifinalist for The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. Dr. Ramos-Diaz has made presentations on mentoring in a wide variety of venues. Among them are a TEDx Talk, serving as a keynote speaker for the International Mentoring Association and research presentations at numerous medical research conferences. She has also published on mentoring, including co-authoring a book chapter in the

184 • BIOGRAPHIES

2020 Wiley International Handbook of Mentoring, and a chapter in a soon to be published book on mentoring offered through Information Age Press. Her professional dictum is, “Live where you serve and serve where you live.” Ellen H. Reames is Professor of Educational Leadership at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama. Her area of research is educational leadership program design. She enjoys exploring innovative ideas that promote continuous improvement in leadership preparation. Her focus of recent years includes partnership development between educational leadership preparation programs, K–12 school districts, other higher education leadership preparation programs and agencies closely tied to the K–12 districts. She has published in the Journal of Research on Leadership Education, the Journal of School Leadership and the International Journal of Educational Reform. She recently published a book titled, Rural turnaround leadership development: The power of partnerships. A second book, Partnerships for Leadership Preparation and Development: Facilitators, Barriers and Models for Change edited by Frances K. Kochan, Ellen H. Reames, and Dana M. Griggs is due to be released in 2020. Dr. Linda Searby, PhD, is an Associate Clinical Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Florida, where she teaches courses in leadership and administration, curriculum and supervision, action research, school change, and mentoring. She is the co-editor for the International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, and a reviewer for several journals in educational leadership. Dr. Searby has published over 30 peer-reviewed articles in mentoring research, specifically on the development of a mentoring mindset in the protégé, as well as conducted numerous presentations and trainings for mentors and protégés, including many in other colleges at University the of Florida. She is co-editor of the books, Best Practices in Mentoring for Teacher and Leader Development (2016), and the Wiley-Blackwell International Handbook of Mentoring (2019). Dr. Searby is a graduate of Lincoln Christian University (BA), Eastern Illinois University (MS), and Illinois State University (PhD). Dr. Searby is a member of the Executive Board of the International Mentoring Association, and was instrumental in bringing the association to its new home at the University of Florida in 2018, and chaired its International Mentoring Conference here in March, 2019. Most recently, Dr. Searby has formed an Affinity Group at UF for faculty and staff who work with mentoring programs across campus. Amy Serafini is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology at Auburn University. Prior to entering academia, Dr. Serafini served as school principal with 10 years of experience as an elementary school principal along the US/Mexico border. Dr. Serafini’s research interests include school leadership focusing on the professional development and mentoring of principals, inclusive education of special populations, and the role of simulations in principal preparation programs. Her work has been published

Biographies • 185

in the Journal of Research on Leadership Education, Leadership and Policy in Schools, and Education, and Educational Administration Quarterly. Mary Barbara Trube is a mentor, coach, and consultant with the Institute of Leadership and Education Advanced Development (ILEAD), Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU), PRC; a dissertation mentor and contributing faculty at Walden University, USA; and an adjunct faculty member at Florida Southwestern State College, USA. Dr. Trube has more than 50 years of experience in the field of education as a classroom teacher, curriculum specialist, and administrator; higher education faculty, early childhood programs director, and Assistant Dean for Academic Engagement and Outreach in a research-active College of Education. Her publications, conference presentations, and workshops for the past two decades have focused on mentoring, coaching, and transformational leadership in national and international contexts. She considers herself to be a life-long learner and a fortunate mentee-in-authorship of Dr. Frances Kochan. Michelle D. Young, PhD, is the new School of Education Dean at Loyola Marymount University and President of the National Policy Board for Educational Administration. In addition to her leadership roles, Young works with universities, practitioners and state and national leaders to improve leadership preparation and practice and develop a research base informing excellence in educational leadership. She is a Co-Founder and Co-Director of the INSPIRE Leadership Collaborative. Her work has significantly increased the focus of research on leadership preparation and brought research to bear on the work of policy makers. Her research is widely published in academic journals and books and has received several honors and awards. Upon her retirement from the University Council for Educational Administration after 19 years, Young was granted Emeritus status. Young’s work is available through ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Orchid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8380-9176. You can also follow her on twitter @ MDYoungLEAD and LinkedIn: MichelleDYoung. Dr. Lois J. Zachary, is an internationally recognized mentoring expert and speaker and founder of Leadership Development Services, LLC, and its Center for Mentoring Excellence. She is the author or co-author of six mentoring books, including the international best-selling book The Mentor’s Guide which has become one of the primary resources for individuals and organizations interested in promoting more learning-center mentoring practice. She is co-author (with Lisa Fain) of Bridging Differences for Better Mentoring: Lean Forward, Learn, Leverage. In addition, she has written and published hundreds of articles and blogs to promote her lifetime passion, mentoring excellence. Dr. Zachary received her doctorate in adult and continuing education from Columbia University, Teachers College. She holds a Master of Arts degree from Columbia University and a Master of Science degree in education from Southern Illinois University. She lives in Phoenix with her husband, Ed.