Mentoring and coaching in academia: Reflections on a mentoring/coaching relationship

Abstract

The changing landscape in Higher Education has made it more difficult for less experienced academics to find persons willing and able to invest in, and support their professional development. Mentoring and coaching provide psychosocial assistance in the work space, which assists mentees to deal more effectively with role ambiguity, role conflict and a perceived uncertain environment. This paper presents a single case study of two academics at a university in Jamaica. Using minutes collected from 19 meetings over nine months, the paper discusses the processes and outcomes of an academic mentoring/coaching relationship on the professional development of a faculty member. The main findings indicated that the mentee was positively impacted by opportunities related to career advancement, expanded thinking, scholarly confidence, facilitation of a collaborative culture, and the importance of goal setting in academia. Based on these positive impacts, the mentor and mentee theorize that mentoring is an important activity that should be facilitated in higher education through structures peculiar to each unique context.

Mentoring and coaching in academia: reflections on a mentoring/coaching relationship

The changing landscape in Higher Education has made it more difficult for less experienced colleagues to find persons willing and able to invest in, and support their professorial development. More experienced academics point to not having the time (Ehrich et al., 2004) and being pressured to publish and research (Pololi and Knight, 2005) as major factors contributing to them not being able to get involved in the mentoring process. Other long-term academics have also pointed to inexperience and lack of skills. In institutions where no formal mentoring programme exists, the issue of mentoring will be particularly problematic because only a limited number of persons will interpret their role in academia as having a duty to mentor others.

The mentoring literature suggests mentoring provides benefits which may act as a cushion against the challenges experienced by employees facing organisational change (Viator, 2001). Mentoring can encourage employees to feel appreciated by the organisation as mentors feel their knowledge and experience is valued by their peers and super-ordinates, and it allows mentees to feel that the organisation is prepared to invest in their future. Mentoring also helps to rekindle the enthusiasm of disillusioned employees, and to revitalise plateaued staff and senior staff. It also helps to raise the self-esteem and self-confidence of academic staff. Mentoring provides a safety valve for career-related frustrations, allowing mentees to discuss incidents that impact on their professional lives. Moreover, it provides psychosocial assistance in the work space, which assists mentees to deal more effectively with role ambiguity, role conflict and perceived environmental uncertainty (Viator, 2001). It can encourage employees to manage changing environmental issues relating to organisational culture and politics, which can impact negatively on self-esteem and performance if not appropriately managed. Mentoring is therefore a developmental tool that provides a number of organisational benefits beyond those to individuals, such as professional development and career progression.

Mentoring has gained increased popularity as a strategy for developing an individual's professional knowledge and skills. In their view, Wilson and Berne (1999) argue that teachers' learning and development, for example, could be enhanced with a collaborative culture of ideas sharing and experimentation. Invariably, based on the developmental nature of the mentoring relationship the mentor will need to coach the mentee based on specific skills to be developed.

Contextualisation

University X was founded in the 1950s as a training institute for students in technology education. In 1959 its name was changed to that of a ‘college ’, for which it later received approval from the national parliament in 1964. As a ‘college ’, the institution continued to make a contribution to national development through various programme offerings; in 1986 it was granted degree-awarding powers, a move which was endorsed by the local education ministry. On 1 September 1995, through an Act of Parliament, University X was thus formally accorded university status under its current name (Ellis et al., 2012).

University X's work is important to Jamaica's national development given its specialist focus on science and technology. This is perhaps confirmed through annual increases in student uptake, moving from just over 50 at its founding to just over 11,000 in 2012. Similarly, University X has seen exponential growth in its programme offerings, from four at its founding to over 70 currently – many of these programmes are franchised through links with community colleges and/or other institutions in the Caribbean. In 2012, University X employed 420 full-time academic and approximately 700 non-academic staff (Ellis et al., p.69).

A major challenge facing University X is to ensure that its staff will understand the academic and professional obligations that are aligned with acquiring university status. The evolution of this ‘institute ’ to ‘college ’, and latterly to a ‘university ’, means that all academics who work therein need to possess the requisite skills to competently operate in this environment and at this level of the nation's education system. And where academics do not possess such skills, support must be given to them in developing these skills and/or they must identify ways of developing them. Recognising the need to help staff transition, University X has put systems in place to assist staff in acquiring higher degrees (a necessary qualification for operating at the university level). Though these are excellent strategies, as academics in this context the authors of this paper recognise that the acquisition of a higher degree alone will only be a minimal ingredient in helping staff understand the obligations aligned with achieving university status, and helping staff become effective academics within their context. This paper argues that mentoring and coaching represent other avenues to assist staff in understanding their academic obligations and developing skills needed to be effective academics at university X after achieving their higher degrees. Currently there is no formal system at University X that provides this opportunity for academics. In this paper, the issue of mentoring and coaching in higher education is explored through a review of literature on the evolution of mentoring and coaching, and the benefits that mentoring and coaching give rise to.

Literature review

Mentoring

Mentoring is an important development activity that can have a positive influence on the growth and professional development of those involved in a mentoring relationship, but more so the person being mentored (Daloz, 1986). However, mentoring support in higher education is sometimes difficult to access, based upon a number of reasons. Boice (1992) suggests mentoring was not freely available to lecturers in higher education, pointing to the fact lecturers may therefore be more unwilling to mentor others. Only limited change has been noted in this area (Sambunjak et al., 2006; Wutoh et al., 2000), with female staff reporting feelings of marginalisation due to the political nature of education institutions (Gibson, 2006).

Recognising that mentoring has an important role to play in developing staff, and with a view to making mentoring more available to lecturers, various recommendations have been put forward on possible approaches such as the setting up of formal mentoring programmes (Gardiner, 2005). Formal approaches would typically involve two academics at different stages of their career, working together on a formal plan of action to be agreed upon by, usually, a mentor (an academic with more experience of doing a particular thing or working in a particular area/topic) and a mentee (an academic with less experience of doing a particular thing or working in a particular area/topic). In Higher Education, mentoring has been linked to career advancement (Burke and McKeen, 1997; Higgins, 2001), increased self-confidence (De Vries, 2005), and personal satisfaction and growth (Ehrich et al., 2004).

There are several challenges associated with the successful implementation of mentoring programmes. For example, consideration has to be given to personality fit, subject specialisms and/or the particular skill being sought by a mentee, mentoring experience of a mentor, and work experience of a mentor – all or some of which may be important to one mentee but not the other. Formal (traditional) mentoring programmes can restrict participants (De Janasz et al., 2003); therefore, the outcome of a mentoring activity (based on assumptions about knowledge and power and where these reside within a mentoring relationship) can diminish the likelihood for meaningful change occurring (Darwin, 2000). In these mentoring arrangements, learning is seen as linear and top down, and the mentoring relationship itself may become overprotective and inhibitive (Diamond and Mullen, 1997).

Today's Higher Education environment has changed significantly compared to three decades ago when formal mentoring programmes were first introduced into higher education (Darwin and Palmer, 2009). Promotion and tenure are not guaranteed; lecturers, including early career researchers have to win grants in order retain employment, and academics are under increased scrutiny to undertake funded research and publish in top quality international journals (sometimes at the expense of teaching and/or being involved in collegial activities such as mentoring) (Altbach, 2000; Belar, 1998). Higher Education is an increasingly competitive environment, where collaboration is often talked about but is far more difficult to achieve in realty. Furthermore, it is an environment where academics are more inclined to guarding their time rather than committing it to the professional development of others. As a result, this study embarked upon a self-selected or informal mentoring approach.

There is limited literature on self-selected mentoring arrangements. This paper conceptualises self-selected mentoring as a process in which a mentee identifies a potential mentor based on a perceived and/or actual alignment between the mentor's experience and/or expertise and the needs of the mentee. It is a non-incentivised, informal approach, worked out and agreed between mentee and mentor and is driven by the professional needs of the mentee. The mentee however is responsible for initiating contact with the prospective mentor, and not the human resources department of the university or any other department or unit. As reported later in this paper, this approach to mentoring was beneficial to the mentee but also suited to the current Higher Education environment. This approach is also considered to be an effective way of supporting professional development among colleagues who have equal rights but have different skills and experiences. In a self-selected mentoring relationship, such as the one being reported on in this paper, the role of the mentor is constructed as follows:

an advisor who assists the mentee in setting and attaining career goals;

a strategist for networking and building relationships that will sustain a successful academic career;

an advocate for scholarly values and academic integrity;

adept at resolving difficult work-related issues;

able to provide constructive guidance and practical feedback;

sensitive to the challenges of creating a work–life balance;

prepared to make a reasonable time commitment;

responsive to professional issues associated with identity including gender, race/ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation.

(Adapted from Brown University, 2010–2011)

In this paper mentors are viewed as trustworthy advisors who share insights and knowledge gained from their own experiences in the process of developing others.

Coaching

The literature distinguishes between two types of coaching: performance based coaching which focuses on specific practices and/or the attainment of a benchmark; and in-depth coaching that focuses on a client's deeper cognitive or psychoanalysis issues. This paper focuses on performance-based coaching. Coaching is hence defined as a helping relationship between (a) a less experienced academic (acting as a client), and (b) a more experienced academic (acting as a consultant) who uses a range of behavioural and other techniques to help the less experienced academic achieve a mutually identified set of goals, agreed formally or informally. In this relationship, a coach facilitates a client's active engagement, learning and commitment to a course of action.

Drawing on studies on coaching models used in and outside the field of education Huff et al. (2013) developed a five phase model to represent the key paths clients follow with their coaches to understand and make meaningful changes in their professional roles. There are five basic principles in this model:

(1) Groundwork involves building an effective working relationship between the client and the coach. In this phase, coaches use skills such as active listening and asking questions rather than prescribing specific actions.

(2) Assessment and feedback help the client to obtain clear pictures of themselves as educational leaders, especially as coaches review teachers' feedback with clients. Coaches ask questions to ensure they correctly understand the content of the feedback, assess what the client has learnt from it, and explore its meaning and implications. Coaches can be an integral part in emphasising the difference between how a client is perceived by peers/colleagues, and pinpoint blind spots in his/her views.

(3) Goal setting is the process of moving from an informed perspective (such as seeing the difference between others' versus an individual's own perspective on a situation) to establishing a specific, measurable objective to be achieved. The coach's responsibility is to help the client select a meaningful target for change, and design and commit to a goal or set of goals that are Specific Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound.

(4) Action planning involves designing a specific path or set of concrete steps that, if followed, could lead to achievement of the goal. The coach's responsibility is to facilitate the design and specificity of the various steps that will lead to accomplishing the goal. A system of accountability is also important in this section.

(5) Ongoing assessment and support involves measuring progress over time (such as at each phase/step), addressing any challenges that emerge, providing encouragement and support to build motivation, and keeping the client on track. This also involves anticipating how the client can maintain the changes and, hopefully, build on them over time (Mavrogordato and Canon, 2009).

Methodology

This section provides a description of the processes utilised by a mentor and a mentee in establishing and enacting a mentor–mentee relationship. To begin with, the mentee knew what she wanted to achieve professionally within and beyond a 12 month period; what skills she needed to build and extend, and what network contacts she needed to move herself forward. Using a process of self-selection, the mentee identified a mentor (a senior academic) with specific characteristics (for example: skills, experience, professional reputation and network contacts) that she felt could help her further develop and advance in her career. Following an initial meeting where the mentee outlined her professional development needs and the mentor explored those needs to try and understand them, a decision was made to engage in a mentoring/coaching relationship.

Since the initial meeting lasting approximately 2 hours, there have been 19 face to face meetings, supplemented by various Skype, telephone and email conversations, covering a period of nine months during the academic year 2012/2013. Face-to-face meetings usually lasted between one to two hours, while online discussions and telephone conversations lasted anywhere between five minutes to an hour depending on the nature of the issues involved. Each session, whether Skype, email and/or face-to-face involved setting, completing, reviewing or clarifying a task (such as a piece of writing).

This paper presents a reflective analysis through the use of a single case study of this mentor–mentee relationship within a 12 month period. The research question ‘How can academic mentoring/coaching impact the professional development of a mentee?' was used to guide the reflective analysis. Meeting notes were used to provide answers to this question. The notes were compiled, and sorted using dates, activities and outcomes of meetings. These were then grouped in clusters based on similarity of comments, activities, and outcomes. Themes were independently assigned by the mentor and mentee, after which they were discussed and a decision made about the emergent themes. The procedure of independently assigning themes was carried out to ensure that the themes when selected adequately represented the data.

Results

Based on the analysis of data, five main themes emerged relating to the impact of academic mentoring/coaching on the professional development of a mentee. The themes are: career advancement and expanded thinking; increased scholarly confidence; working collaboratively; skills development; and goal setting and action planning. These are presented in turn below.

Career advancement and expanded thinking

Career advancement and expanded levels of thinking are reasons academics engage in research. According to the mentee one of the impacts of the mentoring relationship was the exposure to new fields of enquiry and motivation to advance in her career. This was achieved through being supplied with a comprehensive list of indexed international journals which was to be targeted for future publications. In addition, there were suggested approaches to constructing a theoretical framework for journal papers: introduction to the concept of institutional habitus (values, norms and practices of social groups within an institution); working to strict timelines for completing papers for publications; and being reflective and reflexive in order that papers produced can lend themselves to or include an element of theory building. Other related impacts include opportunities to discuss career plans such as seeking out a Fellowship abroad, and participation in targeted international and local conferences (meeting notes of 4 and 26 October, 26 and 27 November 2012; 2 May, 10 June 2013).

Increased scholarly confidence

The mentee's level of academic confidence increased as a result of decisions made at meetings, recognition of research work done by the mentee, and feedback received on tasks completed. Reflective and reflexive thinking was the decided approach used by the mentor to help the mentee hone her skills. In the words of the mentee, ‘I feel bright and motivated to seek other avenues for growth’. This increased confidence, coupled with an expansion in the mentee's thinking, underpinned her successful completion of two additional writing tasks: a chapter for a book; and the publication of a book from her PhD dissertation (meeting notes of 25 October, 12 November, 3 December, 2012; 1 May 2013).

Collaborative working

Flexibility is an important element in any relationship. During the mentoring/coaching process, the mentee experienced real freedom to share ideas about new opportunities, insights about work to be undertaken, and the space to use the mentor as a ‘sounding’ board for brainstorming ideas. There was ongoing support for activities within and outside the mentoring relationship (such as hosting of academic events by the mentee and guidance regarding networking and building capacity in academia). Additionally a collaborative approach was used by the mentor for all tasks so that the mentee could benefit from the process as much as she could. All writing tasks for joint publications were shared equally, with specific responsibilities being assigned to both mentor and mentee (meeting notes of 26 October, 26 November, 3 December 2012; 8 February, 19 April, 14 May 2013).

Skills development

One of the features of each face-to-face meeting was that each meeting ended with a decision about tasks to be accomplished before the next meeting. In addition a date in-between- meetings would be set for a review of progress being made. Many of these follow up review meetings were held via Skype or telephone. These provided the mentee with additional opportunities to improve skills in the areas of: qualitative data interpretation and analysis; argumentation; and general academic writing skills, especially when drafting papers for publication. The review meetings also helped the mentee to navigate (and in some sense, prioritise) other academic duties that interfered with the completing of assigned tasks (meeting notes of 19 and 28 November 2012; 14 January, 7, 11 February and 13 February–10 April 2013).

Goal setting and action planning

Goal setting and planning of activities were key features that characterised the mentoring/coaching process. Each meeting had a clear purpose underpinned by set tasks. These were also time bound, although allowing for much flexibility as regards other commitments, new ideas, possible confusion about issues, and life in general. As stated above, each meeting was characterised by the setting of targets to be achieved which were usually derived through a process involving: questioning by the mentee; feedback by the mentor; reflection by both mentee and mentor; and objective setting, usually by the mentor in consultation with the mentee (meeting notes of 4 October 2012–10 June 2013).

Discussion

Mentoring is critical to the professional success of individuals in Higher Education as it represents an important professional development tool for career advancement and intellectual development (Johnson, 2007; Mladenovic, 2012). As postulated by Penner (2001), mentoring provides an opportunity for increased exposure to ideas and an introduction to people who can be helpful to the mentee. Exposure to a network of people who can be helpful to the mentee provides a learning opportunity through which the mentee can be helped in navigating complex social career dilemmas. The mentoring relationship therefore must be led by an experienced professional and should be grounded in trust, respect and agreed upon goals as the mentee seeks to advance his/her career. The mentoring process reflected upon in this paper was characterised by trust, respect and mutually agreed upon goals that propelled career advancement for the mentee. Furthermore, the data suggest that the reflexive and reflective nature of this mentoring relationship allowed the mentee to seek after opportunities that lead to career advancement.

Mentoring and coaching foster a professional relationship that helps individuals to acquire skills needed to remain relevant and competitive in the Higher Education academic environment (Dean, 2009). However, as evident from the data presented in this paper this professional relationship will yield better results if it is harnessed rather than forced or coerced. Clawson (1985) argues that formalised mentoring is not essential as most people naturally find those from whom they can learn. A question then that emerges is whether mentoring should be formally or informally organised. According to Lockwood (2002), research on the comparison between a formal and informal mentoring programme indicated that informal mentoring relationships provide greater results than formal mentoring relationships. Lockwood further indicated that the difference between formal and informal mentoring programmes may be due to their structure, as formal mentoring programmes typically last less than a year and focus on short-term developmental goals while informal mentoring programmes last longer and focus on ongoing developmental needs of the mentee through coaching as they emerge.

In examining the processes that characterised the mentoring relationship in this case study, it was recognised that an informal mentoring process through self-selection was used to identify and engage with the mentor. It is argued that this approach is preferred as it allows for a mutually inclusive decision-making process without the ‘trappings’ of systemic issues. The mentee in this study is of the view that the mentoring/coaching relationship had significant impact on her because the process was self-selecting. In this case the mentee carried out her own self-assessment, the mentor understood what was needed, and both parties determined their own targets and timelines. It is believed, and as this study has shown, that a self-selecting mentoring relationship or process reduces potential power struggles and paternalistic tendencies that Darwin (2000) and Diamond and Mullen (1997) argue characterise traditional mentoring approaches. This paper posits that a self-selecting approach results in deeper, more transformative changes compared with a formal rigid structure where mentoring is constructed as a process of passing on knowledge from mentor to mentee. This study suggests that the self-selecting approach allowed for the mentee's increased level of scholarly confidence in generating knowledge, sharing ideas, and expanding learning frames.

Consequently, for any mentoring relationship to be successful there must be flexibility characterised by accountability in the approach used to cater to the needs of the mentee. The first level of flexibility experienced in this mentoring relationship was the self-selecting nature of the initiation of the relationship. According to the data presented the mentee initiated the process based on key characteristics of the mentor, and ensured that the mentor was clear on areas for development. In addition the mentor was flexible in engaging the mentee outside of a systematised structure. The second level of flexibility experienced was where the mentor employed performance coaching to aid the mentee in achieving specific objectives. As evident from the data reflecting on the processes targets, timelines and monitoring and accountability procedures were always established to ensure that objectives were achieved. Though the literature is keen on making a distinction between the concepts of mentoring and coaching, the mentor and mentee recognised that through mentoring there were several instances where coaching was utilised to assist the mentee in achieving specified targets. In order to yield the most beneficial results, this led both parties to conclude that self-selecting mentoring is inextricably linked to performance coaching. As a result of this approach the mentee gained new insights into her potential, thereby leading to a discovery of self and confidence in possessed abilities. This therefore corroborates the roles Brown University (2010–2011) identify as necessary to be carried out by a mentor. These may include, but are not limited to, helping the mentee to compensate for lack of experience and skill, assisting with navigating difficult experiences, and helping the mentee to develop clear and independent thinking.

In any mentoring relationship the mentor can be seen as an academic advisor charged with the responsibility of professional development of an individual. One of the important influences on the professional development of the mentee in this case study over the nine months period and beyond was the collaborative approach utilised by the mentor. The reflective data indicate that the mentee experienced a great deal of freedom in theorising alongside the mentor, and shared equal division of tasks at times to achieve identified targets.

The collaborative engagement utilised entailed a three step process. The first step was active listening by the mentor to understand mentees needs. The second was questioning to explore ideas shared or issues that needed to be resolved. The third step involved co-constructing of ideas. The co-constructing of ideas was twofold in nature, where the mentor provided direction through coaching and co-constructing through mentoring which then led to goal setting. It must be noted however that this collaborative process did not always occur in a linear manner but, depending on both parties, at times was quite cyclical. This further reduced any power relation that could have emerged in the relationship, and allowed for agency despite structure. In turn, this allowed for ongoing feedback and feed-forward (Miller, 2013) which enabled the mentee to hone skills in analysing and interpreting data, building arguments for discussion and improving writing skills (especially when drafting papers for publication). One of the essential components of mentoring relationships that are intended to be developmental is that the mentor must first understand mentoring (Irby, 2013). The flexibility in providing feedback in this mentoring relationship showed that the mentor had an in-depth understanding of mentoring.

According to, feedback is an integral component of the mentoring relationship as it helps the mentee to obtain clear pictures of their role as an educational leader. In addition, Allen et al. (2010) indicated that feedback is the driver to any successful mentoring relationship, and therefore must be given keen attention. Feedback provides a means of nurturing the mentoring relationship. It allows the mentor to acknowledge the mentee's strengths, motivate the mentee to improve weaknesses, and for both parties to devise strategies for moving forward. In this study feedback was frequent and occurred through the use of technology or face-to-face meetings. This was particularly significant to the mentee as there were several instances where the mentee drew on the mentor's knowledge and experience outside of a scheduled meeting to steady herself in relation to her ideas and interests. It must be noted that the feedback given by the mentor was within an atmosphere of trust and mutual focus, and was well received. It is therefore instructive that before it is given, feedback in any mentoring relationship should be characterised by a clear understanding by each party that the feedback is about developing the mentee's career.

Mentoring therefore must be underpinned by goal setting and action planning in order for the mentoring relationship/process to be successful. In this study meetings were used to set clear targets and actions. In addition, there were review meetings aimed at providing in-between-support and/or clarification, where needed. Meeting notes served as the basis for auditing progress, and holding mentor and mentee accountable for decisions made. This was where coaching became crucial to the relationship as the mentor served as a coach for identifying very specific objectives, and provided a set of concrete steps to achieving these objectives. The outcomes of such decisions however rest in the ambit of the mentee. The mentor may provide vision, motivation and the right connections to advance the mentee's career, but it is the mentee who must become responsible for executing these plans within his or her own realities. It therefore means that a mentee must be very clear about the expectations to be derived from the mentoring relationship, and devise a realistic action plan along with the mentor for achieving those expectations.

Once clear goals have been outlined and an action plan devised, time management then becomes an important skill that the mentee must develop. As outlined by Feldman et al. (2013), findings from an interview with 54 faculty members (who served as mentors and mentees) indicated that poor time management on the part of the mentee and inadequate time management on the part of the mentor were major characteristics of unsuccessful mentoring programmes. Time management in academia is critical to productivity but it requires commitment. Commenting on the challenge of time management the researchers further stated that lack of time and attention to mentoring is not often intentional, but people in academic institutions are incredibly busy and some people over commit. Consequently, academic institutions that view mentoring as an important professional development opportunity for building capacity need to be facilitative of mentoring by establishing systems that encourage mentoring. These systems may be achieved through harnessed structures that are suitable to the context of the institution.

Mentoring and coaching in academia: is there a case?

Outside of academia, organisations view mentoring and coaching as necessary ways of discovering and improving the potential of their employees (Friday and Friday, 2002). Mentoring and coaching are seen as ways to keep employees engaged, retain key staff, manage performance, support change initiatives, and defining the organisation's culture (Conference Board, 2013). Notwithstanding the success of utilising this strategy to grow businesses it seems the academic world has not assimilated this way of developing staff as a priority. Higher Education has become a very competitive market place; it is critical for such institutions to adopt the best strategy so that they can retain the best staff and achieve competitive advantage. According to Welllins et al. (2009) the ability to effectively hire, retain, deploy and engage talent is the only competitive advantage an organisation possesses. Therefore institutions of higher learning need to recognise mentoring and coaching as a means of managing talent to achieve this competitive advantage.

Mentoring in academia is crucial for career advancement, heightened self-confidence of staff, and for providing an increased sense of belonging (Hobson, 2003). The data reported in this paper underscore this view. It allows the individual to understand the university's unwritten rules and reduces feelings of isolation (Levy, 2013). Furthermore, Douglas (1997) indicated that mentoring and coaching increase productivity and motivation and improves succession planning for the organisation. Feldman et al. (2013) noted that research has indicated that robust mentoring helps people with their career advancement and satisfaction, supports faculty retention and contributes to academic productivity. There is no single right way of establishing mentoring systems to acquire such benefits, but the approach taken must be appropriate for the specific circumstance. Kay and Hinds (2005) however offer some basic principles that can be applied to any situation. The first principle is that the mentor/coach needs to act and be impartial and independent of management. Secondly, the purpose of the mentoring relationship needs to be agreed to and reviewed by both parties. Thirdly, the means of contact needs to be established and agreed. Fourthly, confidentiality needs to be maintained. These principles should be given attention whether a formal or informal mentoring relationship is to be developed.

Conclusion

Higher education today is characterised by rapidly shifting priorities and objectives which suggest that procedures for managing change must be enacted. However, the context of Higher Education suggests a lack of commitment due to demands of being tenured, securing grants and publishing. The paradox is that if less experienced academics are to be successful in academia and if Higher Education institutions are to be transformative in what they do, mentoring is a crucial undertaking. The benefits to be derived for individuals and the organisation represent a change management opportunity that should be utilised (Viator, 2001). Experienced academics need to see mentoring as part of their professional responsibility and should make themselves available to mentor others even in the absence of a system or structure for mentoring, as was evident from the data presented in this paper.

However those who wish to participate must note that a forced or harnessed relationship is less likely to yield long-term transformative benefits, the result of which could be prevention of individual and institutional growth and development. The mentoring process reported on in this paper was not systematised or incentivised by University X, and it yielded tangible and intangible outcomes. From this self-selecting mentoring relationship the mentee has acquired invaluable skills that have led to career advancement in the areas of publications and conference presentations, confidence in thinking and executing tasks, how decisions are made about activities in which to be engaged, and how to move forward in becoming an effective academic. These skills in turn will serve as professional development tools for mentoring others.

Future research recommendations

Further research needs to be undertaken to find solutions as to how Higher Education administrators and faculty can provide an enabling atmosphere for mentoring amidst the often conflicting demands for faculty to be tenured, secure grants and publish. Additionally research could aid in providing clarity on the role of self-assessment by early academics and senior academics in engaging in successful mentoring relationships.