Effective Mentoring
Requires Confidentiality
© 2008, Barry Sweeny
A True Mentoring Story That
Led to Disaster
Picture this incident which really happened. What
it happened it actually led to the end of a mentoring relationship
for about two months before the problem could be discovered and
dealt with.
The mentor and the supervisor met each other walking in the hallway.
The supervisor remembered that this employee is working as a mentor
with a more junior employee this year. The supervisor wants to
show that she remembers this fact and that she appreciates the
effort the mentor is making. So...the supervisor says "Hi,
how's the mentoring going?".
The mentor answers, "Really great! Sarah (the protege) has
come along so nicely. She has mastered day-to-day management of
her work flow and her performance and relationship with the clients
are outstanding. We are lucky to have her on staff here. I really
have learned a terrific amount from her. Plus, working as a mentor
has really helped me to re-evaluate my own work for ways to improve
it. As hard as it is to work full-time and mentor at the same
time, I really love it!"
Did the mentor's response place the confidential
mentor-protege relationship at risk?
Yes, it did. In fact what happened next did too.
Later, in an evaluation conference between the protege and the
supervisor, the supervisor stated "Sarah, we are all pleased
that you are on our staff. I am particularly pleased with the
growth you have shown and your learning curve. You have really
come a long way this year and your mentor agrees with me. I am
pleased to recommend that the company offer you another contract
next year. Congratulations!"
A Loss of Trust
As pleased as Sarah was to be offered a new contract,
she was shocked to realize that the supervisor and the mentor
had been discussing her performance behind her back. She had understood
that the conversations between her and her mentor were completely
confidential, but she concluded that was, apparently, not the
case.
Even though the actual conversation and what the
supervisor said was ALL POSITIVE, Sarah felt hurt that the mentor
had done this. Sadly, Sarah could not bring herself to say anything
about it to either the supervisor or her mentor.
From that moment on Sarah did not share her concerns with her
mentor. Sarah felt wary of openly expressing where she felt inadequate
as an employee and where she wanted to grow professionally. The
substantive work of mentoring came to a halt and the mentor could
not understand what had happened. The mentor wrongly concluded
that since Sarah was rehired, that she felt she had "arrived"
and didn't want or need to work with the mentor any more.
It was only during a mentor peer support group meeting when the
issue arose and the mentor program coordinator (this author) began
to investigate and intervene. When the true stories emerged, the
coordinator called a meeting of all those involved, asked each
to listen without asking questions until the end, and asked first
the mentor, then the supervisor, then the protege to tell what
had occurred and what they thought and felt at the time. Skillful
facilitation saved this particular mentoring relationship. Also,
skillful coordination led to changes in the mentoring and managers'
training about how information should and should not flow in the
mentoring context.
YOU also need to integrate such information and
discussion into your trainings for mentors and manages. The following
chart is a representation of the "flow of communication"
that all parties in the author's program agreed to follow. In
countless situations and programs ever since then, the author
has used this format to prompt discussion and consensus on this
very touchy issue. It is recommended that YOU use this model in
your program as well.
-
"Mentoring
Information Flow Chart: Keeping Confidences"
| THE
PROTEGE |
<
< ===== > >
Two way dialog is OK between
the protege & the mentor. |
THE
MENTOR |
| Has a concern
that the Mentor-Protege interaction stay confidential, and
an interest in improving in areas identified in his/her
own performance evaluations. |
Has a concern
to maintain the Protege's trust by keeping discussions confidential,
PLUS a desire to support the Supervisor & the Protege
in work on weaknesses identified in the protege's performance
evaluations. |
| Two
way dialog is OK between the protege and the supervisor.
|
|
- This dialog must remain ONE WAY. The
Supervisor can give information to the mentor.
The mentor can NOT discuss
the mentoring pair's work with the Supervisor. |
| THE
SUPERVISOR |
| Has a concern
that the Mentor-Protege discussion remain confidential so
risk-taking & growth will occur, and a desire to enlist
the mentor in support of the Protege for work on weaknesses
identified in the protege's performance evaluations. |
