Mentoring Programs: Characteristics Within HRD and Higher Education Contexts

Abstract

Problem

Mentorship directly and indirectly impacts an organization. Therefore, human resource development and higher education professionals often become responsible for mentoring program design, implementation, and assessment.

Solution

Mentoring literature for HRD and higher education contexts describes the complexity and benefits for individuals and organizations. Workplace themes associated with HRD are present in higher education mentoring ecosystems. This practitioner contribution reviews relevant mentoring research and evidence-based practices, prior to a descriptive and thematic analysis of current mentoring program design frameworks, two rooted in HRD and two associated with higher education. An aspirational goal for higher education professionals engaging in applied HRD efforts and HRD academic programs and their participants to span the institutional silos and learn more about each other.

Stakeholders

Mentorship practitioners and scholars, regardless of workplace affinity, will be able to easily identify actionable ways to incorporate evidence-based practices and recommendations into their mentoring ecosystem, program, and organization.

The purpose of this article is to contribute anchors within the mentorship literature for the field of human resource development (HRD) and higher education. In addition, this article will provide both descriptive and thematic analyses of four current mentoring program design frameworks, two representing each workplace context. In full transparency, I identify as a mentorship development professional in higher education who also recently had an epiphany that I moonlight as an HRD professional! This realization occurred from frequent interactions with HRD graduate student team members, increasing workforce-themed requests and collaborations for mentorship activities, and a steady recognition that HRD and mentorship are better together.

Since the turn of the century, substantial challenges impact HRD and workforce. Employee mental health and well-being issues intensified alongside the COVID-19 pandemic (Jeong & Park, 2020; Saxena, 2023). At the same time, traditional HRD processes transitioned into alternate work location and hybrid workplaces (Jeong & Park, 2020). HRD professionals remain committed to issues involving race, gender, and access within their organizations (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005; Saxena, 2023). Similarly, the emergence of Gen Z and Gen Y entering workforce currently tests the resilience HRD career development practices (Saxena, 2023).

Mentoring in Human Resource Development

To effectively address these timely and forecasted challenges, HRD is experiencing an increased reliance on familiar mentorship themes. Although mentorship and HRD are indeed associated, the two fields have seldom interacted, much less overlapped at a high degree, until recently (mentorcliQ, 2023; Deng & Turner, 2023; Hezlett & Gibson, 2005; Jeong & Park, 2020; Saxena, 2023). At the individual level, mentoring can improve employee performance and motivation, along with their leadership and KSA development (Cheng et al., 2020; Deng & Turner, 2023; Grocutt et al., 2022; Jeong & Park, 2020). Organizationally aligned mentoring activities improve organizational communication, promote healthy workplace climate, and guide sustainable knowledge transfer (Deng & Turner, 2023; Gisbert-Trejo et al., 2022; Hegstad & Wentling, 2004; Hezlett & Gibson, 2005; Saxena, 2023). Two scholarly reviews of mentorship engagement within Fortune 500 companies occurred in the past two decades, including Hegstad and Wentling’s (2004) discovery that mentoring was a process that influenced organizational culture. mentorcliQ (2023) reported formal mentorship programs have grown in popularity, with 84% of Fortune 500 companies in the United States of America now having a mentoring program, revealing nearly a 15% increase in recent years (mentorcliQ, 2023). However, additional HRD research on formal mentoring program evaluation and effectiveness is needed.

Early in the twenty-first century, researchers (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005, p. 448) identified four issues pertinent for mentoring in HRD context, and is used to further describe mentoring activities within HRD: (1) defining and measuring mentoring, (2) identifying dynamics involved in mentoring relationships, (3) understanding the different types of mentoring relationships, and (4) differentiating mentoring form other workplace relationships.

The first issue encourages HRD professionals to thoughtfully consider mentoring intervention participants, as well as the evaluative instrument(s) for documenting experiences and effectiveness (Gisbert-Trejo et al., 2022; Grocutt et al., 2022; Hezlett & Gibson, 2005; Jeong & Park; 2020; Saxena, 2023). How does the organization define and value mentoring? Are both clear and agreeable with employees? Along these lines, ongoing individual and program assessment can guide the mentoring activities at various stages. For instance, mentee self-assessments can determine interpersonal skill and other KSA capacity, while open-ended questions can aid in determining the mentor’s commitment to the initiative (Jeong & Park, 2020).

The second issue highlights the nuances and complexity often associated with mentoring and workplace relationships (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005). How does employee behavior change because of program participation, and if so, is there an impact on the organizational climate? Furthermore, HRD professionals are often responsible for leading and evaluating the effectiveness of an organization’s mentoring activities (Deng & Turner, 2023; Grocutt et al., 2022; Saxena, 2023). Collecting mentoring data beyond overall engagement expands into qualitative and longitudinal analysis, research methods utilized to reveal meaningful contextual dynamics and impact (Jeong & Park, 2020).

Thirdly, employees likely engage in diverse mentoring activities within and across any organization (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005). The HRD literature suggests both formal and informal mentoring approaches are used in the workplace. Furthermore, each approach offers unique evaluative challenges (Jeong & Park, 2020). Informal mentoring impact is difficult to isolate the complicated and contextual variables, whereas formal mentoring programs lack substantial evidence to make a full determination. Other approaches could include Group Mentoring Programs and Individual Mentoring Programs (Gisbert-Trejo et al., 2022), with implementation guided by organizational context and size (Gisbert-Trejo et al., 2022). Therefore, literature recommends HRD professionals recognize organizational, individual, and contextual aspects impact their workplace communities (Grocutt et al., 2022; Hezlett & Gibson, 2005; Jeong & Park, 2020; Saxena, 2023).

Likewise, workplace relationships exist in many forms, such as the protégé’s mentoring network or simply supportive and caring co-workers (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005). Regardless of their mentoring engagement, employees engaging in mentorship activities should recognize their role during the time of interaction(s). Such individual reflection promotes formalized mentoring themes whereby mentoring is not left to chance.

Mentoring in Higher Education

Shifting into the higher education context, one of the more prominent mentoring resources in recent years is The Science of Effective Mentoring in STEMM (2019). This National Academy report is a robust literature review of many aspects associated with mentoring in higher education, such as defining mentorship, underrepresented populations, career development, and mentoring models. Mentorship development is another area highlighted in the report, with the Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research (CIMER, 2023) described as the exemplar because of their evidence-based mentoring competencies and curriculum with learning objectives, activities, and scenarios (Handelsman et al., 2005; National Academies of Sciences Engineering, 2019; Pfund et al., 2015).

The report was compiled by a team of mentoring experts—scholars and practitioners—who iteratively engaged with the broader higher education community through roundtables, listening sessions, and education literature. The team identified nine recommendations to design and inform future higher education mentoring activities. Notably, an online supplemental companion offers immediate utility by linking directly into the report, providing multiple examples of mentoring resources, and promoting their monthly podcast. Building on this effort are current working group and roundtables focused on “mentorship, well-being & professional development” (National Academies of Sciences Engineering, 2023; para. 2).

According to the higher education literature, formal mentoring programs can aid in connecting a mentor(s) and mentee(s), align to institutional goals and objectives, support diversity and inclusion efforts, and effectively assess mentoring relationship(s) (Lunsford, 2022; National Academies of Sciences Engineering, 2019; Orsini et al., 2019). A central support or point-of-contact (i.e., program manager) enables an operational structure to easily implement, monitor, and assess progress (Lunsford, 2022; National Academies of Sciences Engineering, 2019; Orsini et al., 2019; Patterson et al., 2021). As such, mentoring programs can be essential for connecting participants in limiting contexts influenced by geography, discipline, or organization (Lunsford, 2022).

Alignment with institutional goals and objectives can increase individual and collective capacity for professional development and productivity, each of which can positively impact institutional climate (National Academies of Sciences Engineering, 2019; Patterson et al., 2021; Pfund et al., 2015). The National Academy report (2019) outlines multiple federal funding mechanisms designed to support diversity, equity, and mentoring. Formal mentoring initiatives not only address a mentoring glass ceiling that affects faculty career paths, but also provide indirect benefits for safety, networking, and well-being among women and underrepresented minority faculty (National Academies of Sciences Engineering, 2019). Like the HRD literature findings, higher education mentoring scholars call for continued mentorship research (National Academies of Sciences Engineering, 2019).

Frameworks for Mentoring Program Design

Four current mentoring program design frameworks, two in HRD and two associated with higher education, are descriptively and thematically analyzed. The two HRD mentoring programs included modern mentoring (Saxena, 2023) and mentoring programs as leadership development (Grocutt et al., 2022), while the higher education context reviewed Developing Faculty Mentoring Programs: A Comprehensive Handbook (Kiel, 2019) and The Mentor’s Guide: Five steps to build a successful mentor program (Lunsford, 2022).

Modern Mentoring

“Modern mentoring” connects multi-generational workforce, specifically Gen Y & and Gen Z, and accelerates the pace of HRD-led mentoring activities (Saxena, 2023). These five mentoring program steps include: 1) design, (2) attract, (3) connect, (4) guide, and (5) measure.

The design step provides mentoring program structure, describes the mentorship frequency and model, and develops an evaluation plan. The recruitment, training, and development of mentors and mentees, along with description of individual and organizational benefits, anchors the attract stage. Because step three is challenging and critical, Saxena (2023) recommends organizations and HRD professionals thoroughly invest in the connection of mentor(s) and mentee(s). Contextual and individual awareness are important, particularly as KSA development and needs vary across organizations. Step four emphasizes SMART goal formation as a process for mentorship to integrate KSA and career development. The fifth step returns to the evaluation plan introduced in the first step and enables the organization to effectively document the mentorship journeys and impact.

Mentoring Programs as Leadership Development

Recently, HRD researchers offered six recommendations for HRD mentoring programs that can concurrently develop leadership capacity (Grocutt et al., 2022): (1) select appropriate mentors and mentees, (2) establish effective mentorship norms, (3) set goals around leadership development, (4) provide evidence-based knowledge of leadership, (5) encourage mentors to reflect on their own leadership, and (6) allow time for mentees to practice their leadership.

Although the first recommendation is somewhat limiting by pairing a mentor and a mentee, HRD professionals should simultaneously recognize the participant’s interest in developing their own leadership. Or more broadly, a mentor or mentee’s ability to grow, which also demonstrates commitment to the mentoring relationship. The second step outlines the frequency, communication, and overall purpose for mentorship connections. Explicitly introduced in the third step, leadership development is implicitly described within SMART goal principles of specific, attainable, and measurable. The fourth step emphasizes evidence-based knowledge, and often attained from an HRD professional, mentor, or other training mechanisms. The fifth step encourages the mentor’s self-reflection, while the final step allows for mentees to apply their leadership development. Here is when the mentee’s reflective and iterative relationship with their mentor is informed by past and current leadership experiences, ultimately preparing the mentee for leadership and career growth.

Developing Faculty Mentoring Programs

The unapologetically but appropriately named Developing Faculty Mentoring Programs: A Comprehensive Handbook (Kiel, 2019) is indeed a valuable tool for anyone investing in faculty-centric mentoring programs. Written explicitly for faculty mentorship, the chapters neither read like a textbook nor novel, and yet content is succinct and clearly marked. One limitation is the strange format that hyperlinks mentorship resources within the pages. Such an approach is risky and inaccessible with no electronic version.

The Handbook is organized into five chapters that reflect the author’s objectives: (1) designing the mentoring program the unit really needs, (2) determining the services that are needed to support early career faculty, (3) designing and implementing programs for mid-career faculty, (4) guiding academic leaders to develop senior faculty, and (5) initiating the process through effective policies, practices, and planning. The appendices contain a rich source of training tools and resources that are useful for academic leaders tasked with designing and implementing mentoring and faculty development programs.

By considering the career stages of research and teaching faculty, as well as issues like productivity and academic department fit, mentoring professionals possess a full buffet to guide their faculty consultations and formal faculty mentoring program design.

The Mentor’s Guide

As a recent resource, The Mentor’s Guide: Five steps to build a successful mentor program (Lunsford, 2022), organizes into four parts: understanding of mentoring, five steps to build a mentoring program, enriching and strengthening the process, followed by vignettes and trends. Though Lunsford (2022) is an accomplished higher education scholar, this resource is written for higher education and non-academic professionals. The book situates in domestic and global organizational contexts, anchors to mentoring literature, and provides relatable mentoring program scenarios. Lunsford (2022) introduces the mentoring ecosystem and theory to describe the interacting complexities, influences, and contexts associated with the mentor-protégé model. Part II outlines the five-step framework: (1) identify the why, (2) map a theory of change, (3) recruit and prepare the right participants, (4) collect the right data, and (5) create a success story.

In step one, readers are challenged to consider their mentorship program’s main obstacle, which should ultimately align with an appropriate evaluation plan designed for the mentoring ecosystem. The second step recommends a logic model to linearly map the intended change(s) to address the why. The resource affirms the diversity of mentoring ecosystems and programs by providing valuable directions and strategies relevant for “facilitating how people ‘get together’” (Lunsford, 2022, p. 89). Step four addresses program evaluation concerns by providing pros and cons of various data gathering methods that do not require an evaluation expert. These data points help inform the final step, when mentoring programs and managers communicate their successes and pursue continual improvement.

Shared Themes Applicable to the Workplace

Therefore, this cursory review of current mentoring program design approaches for two HRD and two higher education settings revealed four shared themes apply to each workplace context: flexible structure, goal-influenced, outcomes for the individual and organization, and program evaluation.

Each of these mentoring program design approaches offered a flexible structure to promote implementation and sustainability. All four frameworks emphasized the importance of attracting, selecting, and connecting mentor(s) and mentee(s) within and across their respective organization. Moving forward, mentoring program professionals in both contexts could explore the utility of Generative AI tools for mentorship recruiting and connecting. Each approach also recommended a point of contact or mentoring program manager to oversee the activities (Deng & Turner, 2023; Grocutt et al., 2022; Lunsford, 2022; National Academies of Sciences Engineering, 2019; Orsini et al., 2019; Patterson et al., 2021; Saxena, 2023). Interestingly, the term protégé was used as commonly as mentee (Grocutt et al., 2022; Kiel, 2019; Lunsford, 2022; Saxena, 2023).

The influence of goals (setting, reflection, and attainment) was present across the thematic analysis. The process of SMART goals was fully described by Lunsford (2022); Saxena (2023), while more subtly connected by Grocutt et al. (2022). Although not promoted, Kiel (2019) includes several reflective worksheets designed for academic leaders to identify career-spanning goals and mentee documentation of goal progress. Goals often highlight an employee’s training and development, another commonality among the four frameworks. For example, higher education recommends the CIMER (CIMER, 2023) evidence-based mentoring competencies and curriculum, as a facilitated mentorship development experience that builds individual and institutional capacity (National Academies of Sciences Engineering, 2019; Patterson et al., 2021; Pfund et al., 2015). All approaches recommended anchoring goals, training and development, and mentoring experiences through self-reflection, and if possible, application. Thus, the common theme of lifelong learning.

Evidence in both contexts demonstrated mentoring can have positive outcomes for individuals and organizations. Or “transformative” outcomes according to the National Academy report (2019, p. 15). Individually, HRD literature suggests KSA and leadership development, employee well-being, workplace performance (Chen et al., 2020; Deng & Turner, 2023; Grocutt et al., 2022; Jeong & Park, 2020; Saxena, 2023), whereas higher education findings similarly report career growth, well-being, and productivity (Kiel, 2019; Lunsford, 2022; National Academies of Sciences Engineering, 2019; Orsini et al., 2019). Some of the individual benefits are expected, whereas others may not be anticipated. For example, the notion of leadership development within a HRD mentoring program is innovative and perhaps an unexpected outcome. Lastly, there is benefit for either context when mentoring programs align to organizational mission, objectives, and goals.

Implications for Human Resource Development and Higher Education

Mentoring literature in HRD and higher education continue to call for more research, including formal mentoring programs and mentorship development (Grocutt et al., 2022; Hezlett & Gibson, 2005; Jeong & Park, 2020; Kiel, 2019; Lunsford, 2022; National Academies of Sciences Engineering, 2019; Patterson et al., 2021; Saxena, 2023). Three of the four reviewed frameworks include a step dedicated to measurement or evaluation, and even recommend beginning an evaluation plan alongside the initial mentorship program design. Data collection of engagement numbers supplemented with descriptive enables an organization to “create your success story” (Lunsford, 2022). Mentoring programs and initiatives, regardless of workplace affiliation, should commit to the notion data collection can also serve as a feedback mechanism to guide continual improvement and program iteration.

The field of higher education mentorship emphasizes HRD mentoring in two other notable examples. First, The Science of Effective Mentoring in STEMM (2019) defined mentorship as “a professional, working alliance in which individuals work together over time to support the personal and professional growth, development, and success of the relational partners through the provision of career and psychosocial support” (p. 15). Worth noting is this definition does not explicitly connect to higher education and can therefore be seamlessly applied to HRD context. More recently, the University of New Mexico’s 2023 Mentoring Institute is titled “Mentoring Networks: The impact of development relationships on the future of work” (Mentoring Institute, 2023). This annual venue attracts hundreds of mentorship practitioners and scholars representing education, government, non-profit, and industry organizations (Mentoring Institute, 2023).

Of course, distinct mentoring ecosystems and elements reside in both HRD and higher education. Though faculty indeed represent an institution’s workforce, their performance metrics, KSA development, and organizational influences are unique. Tenure, for example, is not a common practice outside of academia. And as many organizations and business external to higher education do, their HRD professionals may lead the broader push for mentoring program practices. After all, Kram's (1985) Mentoring at Work, a seminal resource that continues to influence both workplace contexts, originated in HRD literature.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the field of education development—the front-line for professional development in teaching, learning, and mentoring—can be slightly reframed as applied HRD for higher education. Educational developers and other higher education professionals engaging in HRD activities could benefit by learning more about mentorship, theories, and frameworks in HRD contexts. In the same vein, HRD programs, faculty, and students, could seek out neighboring campus partners in educational and mentoring development professionals to not only become more familiar with higher education mentorship trends, issues, and programs, but also apply HRD in institutional contexts. Both workplaces might encounter an epiphany whereby quickly discovering more is in common than first meets the eye!