Group Mentoring:

    An Alternative Way of Working

 

Valerie Clifford
Associate Professor, Higher Education Development Unit,

CeLTS, Monash University.

 

Abstract

 

This paper considers the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs in the university environment. To meet some of the difficulties that arise with paired mentoring schemes an alternative is offered in the form of a Facilitated Group Mentoring Program. Such a program offers participants a collaborative way of working towards career planning and development, and for the institution a way of approaching cultural change.

 

Introduction

 

The advantages of mentoring for all parties involved, the women being mentored, the mentors and the institutions have been detailed in Imogen Wareing’s paper. Women are particularly seen as needing mentors because: of a lack of career planning; they are more likely to hold short term contract positions; their social isolation in institutions; their lack of access to formal and informal power structures and the low value often assigned to women’s research and teaching areas (Hall, 1994; Johnsrud and Wunch, 1994; Morley, 1994). These factors are often apparent in university environments.

 

Universities are strangely compartmentalised environments where people often focus on their individual departments, rather than on the university as a whole. Departments are structured around academic disciplines and the focus of academics tends to move along discipline lines, from their department to national and international networks, rather than out to the wider university community. Within these structures and networks young men appear to receive mentoring and to develop a concept of their career path. However, the same process does not appear to work for women. Women traditionally, have little access to informal mentoring within their disciplines so there is a need to formally create such opportunities. University women also appear to lack knowledge of the structures and procedures of their own universities for career development and so need social networks to gain knowledge and support (Bazeley et al., 1996; Boice, 1992). This lack of knowledge, and of mentoring, disadvantages women and leads to an under-utilisation of, and a loss of talent to, universities.

 

Although the concept of mentoring receives much praise the reliance on the adequate functioning of the partnership has also been seen to be its downfall. Such relationships that occur naturally appear to give great mutual satisfaction. The difference between the formal and informal relationships appear, essentially, to be that in the informal situation the mentor and mentee know each other and have built up a rapport and trust over time. In any formal relationship this factor is essentially missing. In formal schemes difficulties arise in terms of training, commitment and the relationship itself. The inadequate training of participants, a lack of on-going training and support and a lack of definition of the objectives of the relationship can all hinder the development of the relationship and lead to a lack of commitment to its success. Relationships also need time in which to develop and there is often an underestimation of the time involvement for this process to take place. The relationship itself is vital and in some cases the mismatching of pairs means that the mentoring relationship does not develop. The relationship can also become stale, neither person realising that either, the relationship has achieved its aims and so can be terminated, or that new goals need to be adopted to energise the relationship. The development of dependency by the mentee is also problematic. In cross-gender mentoring the balancing of the relationship between the personal and the professional may be especially difficult. There is also a need for the relationship to be dynamic, to grow and change as the mentee develops their confidence and skills and for the mentor to ‘let go’ when the mentee no longer needs them (Clutterbuck, 1991; Murray and Owen, 1991; Caulfield, 1995).

 

A number of different strategies need to be in place to support women to achieve in their careers. This paper offers the concept of facilitated group mentoring as an alternative mentoring strategy. The strategy is illustrated in the university setting.

 

Women in the university environment

 

In universities women are over represented in the lower grades and under represented in the upper grades (Brooks, 1997, Burton, 1997; Clifford, 1996). Research on academic women shows that this is so, even when account is taken of qualifications and years of experience (Brooks, 1997). Women are less likely to hold continuing positions than men; they receive less mentoring than men and plan their careers less. There are few senior women available for mentoring and these are already over-burdened with committee work and postgraduate supervision. Senior women seeking mentors find this especially difficult (Caulfield, 1995: Stanton, 1996). Some departments have very few female academics and so women academics can be socially isolated. Women lack access to formal and informal power structures where resources are allocated and opportunities arise to attend conferences, attend courses, edit journals etc. For academic women a low value is often assigned to their research and teaching areas (Brooks, 1997).

 

With so few senior women available as mentors it means that women are mostly mentored by male colleagues. Cross-gender mentoring, while often good if women are looking for access to networks of status and power, are problematic in terms of ‘culture’ (male orientation to job and off-job responsibilities), perspectives, sexual static and emotional dependency. In Western society women have, traditionally, been seen as economically and emotionally dependent on men. These traditional roles can play them-selves out in a mentoring relationship. Roles could become those of e.g. a traditional father-daughter relationship, of a guru and follower, or of Cassanova and harem (Heinrich, 1991). However the relationship develops some form of sexual tensions will be involved and may need to be acknowledged. Some men now report staying clear of mentoring female colleagues due to the threat of a misinterpretation of their actions. Byrne (1989:20) quotes one male academic she interviewed as saying ‘With any luck, discrimination is easier to defend and less embarrassing than sexual harassment charges’. A 1995 AGCPS report on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology further describes “a strong sense of masculine ownership of the whole area of Science, Engineering and Technology, as an area of knowledge, as an area of study, as an area of research and as an area of employment. A second characteristic of the behaviour is that it consistently emphasises solidarity and shared identity, values and interests between men and boys in such a way that excludes, alienates, marginalizes and isolates the girls and women who, by definition, are the outsiders” (Women in Science, 1995:3).

 

The needs expressed by women are often varied, ranging from mentoring in their discipline area, to organisational knowledge, to confidence and skills building. It would require a number of different people to deal with them these multiple needs of career development and social networking. (Cawyer, Simonds and Davis, 2002; Johnsrud and Wunch, 1994). Accessibility has also been found to be an important feature of mentoring (Cawyer, Simonds and Davis, 2002) and in the university environment staff are often away for considerable periods of time, from one to twelve months on conference, study or long service leave. De Vries (1998) figures for The University of Western Australia also indicate that there is a significant annual turn over of staff (30% for academics and 40% for general staff ).

 

What is a mentor?

 

A mentor is essentially a person who aids a person’s self development. ‘A mentor is someone who assists staff to self-assess their performance and to identify future goals and action plans’ (Hall, Higgins and Anderton, 1995). Six key areas of mentoring have been identified as: the politics of the organisation; the norms, standards, values, ideology and history of the organisation; the skills and competencies necessary for succession to the next level; paths to advancement and blind alleys; the acceptable methods for gaining visibility in the organisation; the characteristic stumbling blocks in the organisation and personal failure patterns (Limerick and Heywood, 1992).

 

Mentors are also seen as someone that you can trust to share your personal feelings and viewpoints, and to act as a sounding board for personal and work related concerns. There is also an investment of emotional energy and friendship (Hall, 1994). This psychosocial support is seen as important in developing a sense of professional identity and greater self confidence (Kram and Isabella, 1985; Vasil, 1996).

 

Mentors are seen as performing many roles; as career sponsors/advisers, teaching the job, providing networks, teaching the informal system, as protectors, role models, encouragers, counsellors, advocates and cultural advisers (Hall, 1994; Hall, Higgins and Anderton, 1995; Johnston and McCormack, 1995). The relationship itself can range from being individual and paternalistic to being a collective peer relationship. It can be informal and spontaneous, or formal and structured, or facilitated with particular goals as its objective (e.g. developing research potential, Johnston and McCormack, 1995).

 

Kram and Isabella (1985) categorised three types of supportive work relationships: information peers who share information about their work and the organisation, collegial peers who share information and have a moderate level of trust and self-disclosure so they are able to receive greater emotional support and feedback, and special peers, which involves a high level of trust and self-disclosure. These relationships develop with different colleagues and the latter form of relationship may take several years to develop (Cawyer, Simonds and Davis, 2002).

 

It appears that some form of networking, the opportunity to form a number of different relationships to meet different needs and access to a variety of skills, knowledge and role models is desirable. A form of group mentoring would be more able to meet these diverse needs than a single mentor.

 

Facilitated Group Mentoring

 

In the model of facilitated group mentoring groups are formed across the university, bringing together women from different departments, academic and general staff and women from different levels. The group is recognised as important by the participants and the university and builds networks across the university. The women will all have different knowledge and perspectives to bring to the group about the university; they will have different talents and each tap into different networks. Working together and sharing their knowledge will enhance the knowledge of the whole group and assist them in strategising for career advancement. Bringing projects to the group for feedback widens the perspectives that can contribute to the development of the project enrich the work. The women also provide emotional support for each other in the workplace and open up new networks to each other. Everyone in the group is a mentor and a mentee, the group essentially mentors itself. ‘The synergy of a group enhances its capacity to achieve and succeed with the potential to permeate an entire structure at the level of the personal, team, institutional and inter-institutional’ (Mullen and Lick, 1999 cited in Mullen and Kochan, 2000:195).

 

Relationships within the group can be varied and do not rely on one dyad. Also people leaving the group permanently or temporarily does not suspend the mentoring process. The women share the responsibilities and privileges of group membership and take responsibility for each other’s success. ‘Collegial Groups then, operate at a number of levels. Firstly, they provide a space where women can create their own environment, provide mutual support and test and develop understandings of the nature of Leadership, and their own Leadership capacities. Secondly, Collegial Groups provide a supportive and effective base from which to tackle issues of the institutional environment. Thirdly they offer an [institutional] model of a way of operating; a consciousness of process which has a proven “track record” of strategic planning, staff and organisational development’ (Pyner, 1994, 13).

 

A facilitated mentoring group is based on the concept of an action learning group where a group of people support each other and give feedback on each others’ work. In this learning community all learners share leader-ship with the facilitator operating as head learner as well as follower (Barth, 1991). This concept has been used in a variety of settings to meet a diversity of needs. In all situations the group provides support, information and feedback to each other. The group members may be involved in research projects, may critique each others’ academic writing, and may be working separately or together on a work-based project. Whatever the desired outcome of the groups the ideology and processes are similar.

 

The role of the facilitator in the group is to keep the group on track and ensure the health of the group. The facilitator will take responsibility for organisational matters such as time and place of meetings, organising visiting speakers, circulation of materials, keeping of group records. This does not mean that the facilitator necessarily carries out these tasks, just that she ensures that they are completed. The facilitator is responsible for the process of the meetings, ensuring that everyone fully participates, that the environment is supportive and caring, and that the group, as far as possible, addresses the needs of the individuals.

 

It is vital that the facilitators are well trained and experienced. They need to be familiar with group dynamics and group processes and see their role as that of a guide and a support. They need to be able to respond effectively to the emotional demands of the group. In work situations the expectation often is that the focus will be on the task and personal matters will not enter the work-space. However, discussions of women’s careers cannot take place in isolation from their domestic lives and the groups will find themselves hearing each others life stories and confronted with previous hurts and current crises. In the group individual friendships will arise that will respond outside the group to personal revelations, but inside the group the facilitator may need to guide the group in terms of the level of involvement that can be entered into in relation to people’s personal affairs. The group needs to be able to respond empathetically when a group member is distressed but not to become involved in ‘counselling’. A facilitator also needs to know where and when to refer group members for expert assistance outside the group or when to bring an expert into the group so that the group can benefit from their knowledge. Co-facilitating can also be beneficial in terms of sharing perspectives on what is happening in the group and developing strategies to maintain the group.

 

Another facet of the group is the task that is the focus of the group and this is often some form of work-based project. Mentoring is not just a cosy chat; it always involves the mentee in some work towards the goals of the mentoring relationship. Some groups have a common goal eg improving their academic writing, while in other groups members will each find their own work-based project on which to focus. These projects should be an integral part of the work environment so not adding to people’s workloads but providing a focus to a specified area. It is sometimes necessary and advisable to involve workplace supervisors in this planning.

 

Mentoring groups do not just happen, they need organising and funding. To be successful they need to be supported by top management and to have a designated Project Coordinator working with a Management Committee, which represents women from across the university. At the University of Canberra the Vice Chancellor put half the funding for the project on the table and told faculties to supply the other half. An inducement for faculties was that they had to meet Equity targets and were able to count support of the Women’s Group Mentoring Program towards their Equity targets. A project coordinator was employed two days per week and support was given in terms of workload recognition for the facilitators and the group members. The Management Team’s role was treated as membership of a university committee. Funding was also required for training the facilitators and for a two-day residential workshop to establish the groups.

 

Outcomes of Facilitated Group Mentoring

 

Facilitated group mentoring creates a space for individual women to come together and collectivise their experience and work together on their personal-professional goals. It provides a collaborative way of working which supports individuals and enhances the work environment. This is advantageous to the individual and the institution. It also provides the opportunity to create an effective agenda of change for women by challenging existing power structures and
competitive ways of working.

 

Evaluations of facilitated mentoring groups show that the main outcome for the women is an increase in the confidence, along with greater knowledge and understanding of the structure and workings of their organisation. The women are also more successful when applying for promotion than women who have not been part of the group. A number of women also take up new positions within or outside the organisation. The women also have a wider network of colleagues to draw on for work and social support (Hunt, 2001; Marchesi, 1999; Lord, 1997; James, 1996; 1994; Pyner, 1994; Milligan and Genoni, 1993).

 

The main difficulty associated with maintaining the groups are time commitment and work place support. Colleagues may not understand the aims of the program or be convinced of the necessity for the program. Women have experienced a belittling of their membership of the program similar to the undervaluing of women’s research and teaching. Although meetings are scheduled in work time and are allocated in the workload, in reality workloads are not lessened so extra time has to be found.

 

Within the groups expert facilitation is vital as the needs of the group participants are diverse and the affective and task needs have to be carefully balanced. Facilitators need to understand the holistic aims of the program and be able to work towards that understanding with the group members, developing ideas about group processes, group roles and working cooperatively. The concepts of ‘leadership’, ‘feminism’ and ‘cultural change’ may all need to be explored at some stage.

 

Conclusion

 

Facilitated group mentoring offers institutions a way of working that enhances the work environment by being based on cooperation and mutual support. It is also a strategy for enhancing women’s careers. It is a way of disseminating organisational knowledge, encouraging the development of career enhancing projects and it provides networking and support. These facets of the program are particularly relevant to university women who can be isolated in their workplace and have little access to the knowledge and resources required for career enhancement.

 

References

 

Barth, R. (1991). Improving schools from within. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

 

Bazeley, P. et al. (1996). Waiting in the wings: a study of early career academic researchers in Australia. National Board of Employment, Education and Training Commissioned Report No. 50, Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.

 

Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

 

Brooks, A. (1997). Academic women. Buckingham, SRHE and Open University Press.

 

Burton, C. (1997). Gender equity in Australian universities. Canberra, EIP, DEETYA, Commonwealth of Australia.

 

Cawyer, C.S., Simonds, C. and Davis, S. (2002). Mentoring to facilitate socialiazation: the case of the new faculty member. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15 (2), 225-242.

 

Clifford, V. (1996). Mentoring for women academics. Research and Development in Higher Education Vol 19 Proceedings of Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Conference, Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education, University of Western Australia, published on floppy disc, disc 2.

 

Caulfield, V. (1995). University of Western Australia. Leadership Development for Women Program. University of New England Seminar. University of New England, Australia.

 

Clutterbuck, D. (1991). Everyone needs a mentor. Fostering talent at work. Great Britain, Institute of Personnel Management.

 

De Vries, J. (1998). Creating opportunities. An evaluation of the Leadership Development for Women Programme 1994- 97. The University of Western Australia, Centre for Staff Development.

 

Hall, C., Higgins, T. R., & Anderton, J. (1995). Training needs analysis. The academic mentor at Victoria University of Wellington. Victoria University of Wellington: University Teaching Development Centre.

 

Hall, E. M. (1994). Demystifying mentoring. My odyssey encompassing the experiences of New Zealand nurses. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Otago.

 

Heinrich, K.T. (1991). Loving partnerships. Dealing with sexual attraction and power in doctoral advisement relationships. Journal of Higher Education, 62 (5), 514-538.

 

Hunt, L. (2001). Evaluation of the Group Mentoring Programme for Women. Unpublished report, Group Mentoring Porgramme for Women, University of Canberra.

 

James. M. (1994) Leadership and advancement: two new programs for women. Equal Opportunity Practitioners in Higher Education Conference. Victoria, Australia, Monash University,

 

James, M. (1996). Leadership for or by women? Paper presented at 5th International Women in Leadership Conference, Edith Cowan University.

 

Johnsrud, L.K., & Wunsch, M.A. (1994). Barriers to success for women in academic life: perceptions of participants in a colleague pairing program. Higher Education Research and Development, 13 (1), 1-12.

 

Johnston, S. & McCormack, C. (1995). Developing research potential through a structured mentoring program: issues arising. Australia, University of Canberra. Centre for Enhancement of Learning, Teaching and Scholarship.

 

Kram, K.E. and Isabella, L.A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: the role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28 (1), 110-132.

 

Limerick, B. and Heywood, E. (1992). Mentoring, networking and women in management in Queensland. Paper presented at ANZAM, Sydney.

 

Lord, L. (1997). Women in Leadership, Edith Cowan University. Report to DEETYA. Western Australia, Edith Cowan University, Women in Leadership.

 

Marchesi, C. (1999). Group mentoring for women. Pilot programme evaluation. Unpublished paper, University of Canberra, Group Mentoring Programme for Women.

 

Milligan, S. & Genoni, L. (1993). A report of an evaluation of the Women in Leadership Program Edith Cowan University. Western Australia, Edith Cowan University.

 

Morley, L. (1994). Glass ceiling or iron cage: women in UK academia. Gender, Work and Organisation, 1 (4), 194-204.

 

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. & Lick, D.W. (eds.) (1999). New directions in mentoring partnerships: walkways we must travel. Theory into Practice, 39 (1), 4-11.

 

Murray, M., & Owen, M. A. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring. How to facilitate an effective mentoring programme. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

 

Pyner, C. (1994). Shaping the Culture. Women in Leadership Program 1993. Western Australia, Edith Cowan University.

 

Stanton, J. (1996). Evaluation of the Leadership Development for Women Program, The University of Western Australia. The University of Western Australia, Centre for Staff Development.

 

Vasil, L. (1996). Social process skills and career achievement among male and female academics. Journal of Higher Education, 67 (1), 103-114.

 

Women in Science, Engineering and Technology Advisory Group (1995). Women in Science, Engineering and Technology. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.
 

 

 

---

| Issue 62 (WAIS 2) Contents |