Toward more evidence-based mentoring

Transcription

1 Prof. dr. Nico W. Van Yperen University of Groningen, the Netherlands Keynote at the European Mentoring Summit Leeuwarden, March What evidence do we currently have? Workplace mentoring: An effeceve talent development strategy in organizaeons? Why, when, and for whom does it (not) work? Main point: Why do we need a Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring? 1. To appraise and use the evidence that we have. 2. We need more evidence! 1. Workplace mentoring praccces seem to have a posieve influence on mentees agtudinal, behavioral, and mocvaconal career outcomes. 2. Enhancing factors are fit (perceived similarity), relaeonship quality (mutual trust and respect, effeccve communicacon), and clarity of purpose. 3. Unfortunately, effect sizes are relaevely small, parccularly where outcomes were objeccvely measured (e.g., salary). stairwaytotalent.nl 3 4

2 1. ReacEon criteria AffecCve reaccons, uclity judgments 2. Learning criteria Immediate knowledge, knowledge retencon, behavior/skill demonstracon 3. Behavioral criteria Transfer to the job 4. Result criteria ProducCvity gains, cost savings, error reduccon, customer sacsfaccon } Internal criteria } External criteria Design: Short term: IntervenEon group T1 Mentoring T2 Control group T1 T2 Long term: T3 T3 Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1967). Evaluation of training. In R. L. Craig & L. R. Bittel (Eds.). Training and development handbook (pp ). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 5 6 Positive objective career outcomes, including salary and promotions. Improved managerial and leadership skills. Updated technical expertise and knowledge. Enhanced support and information network. Increased visibility, recognition, and base of power within the organization. Personal gratification, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Renewed meaning in one s working live, particularly when job content plateaus have been reached. Organizational attractiveness ( a caring organization ) and enhanced staff retention. Improved integration of new employees and talent recognition. Improved (vertical and horizontal) communication (e.g., enhanced perspective-taking). Higher staff morale, motivation, and organizational commitment. Enhanced employee efficiency, productivity, and creativity. Superior business learning. 7 8

3 5. Literature pertaining to negaeve mentoring experiences is very limited. Mentors may claim undue credit and being deceptive, technically incompetent and self-absorbed. Mentors may over-delegate to mentees. Overprotection and paternalism. Sexual tension. High demands made on the time of the mentor (combined with low incentives). Unrealistic expectations from the side of the mentee, including no expectation of reciprocation. Perceived personal failure where the mentoring relationship appeared to be unsuccessful. 5. Literature pertaining to negaeve mentoring experiences is very limited. 6. The quescon Why and when (and for whom) does mentoring (not) work? has been largely ignored. Therefore, we need a Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring! EffecCveness = goal ajainment. Mentoring is a goal-oriented, highly individualized human change methodology. For example, goals may refer to: Knowledge and skills Interpersonal issues Autonomy and work-home balance Networking issues Career development Sample measures: 1. Specify your goal: 2. Expected level of afainment at Time XX: 3. At this moment, how far are you from this expected level? 4. How commifed are you to pursuing this goal? 5. How difficult do you consider this goal? The strength of mentoring lies in the fact that all par3es benefit from it. The mentee gains confidence and has the feeling of not standing alone. The mentor develops skills as a leader, trainer, and coach. ( ParEcularly older employees may benefit from being a mentor: They tend to be more suitable for the job due to their generacvity mocvacon, preference for emoconally meaningful experiences, and well-developed emoconal competencies. Mentoring may renew meaning in their working live because they are more likely to have reached their job content plateaus. Doerwald, F., Scheibe, S., & Van Yperen, N. W. (in press). Role of age in workplace mentoring. In N. A. Pachana (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Geropsychology. New York: Springer

4 4. Research should idencfy addiconal ingredients (beyond the mentor-mentee relaconship) that explain the (in)effeccveness of mentoring, including: Focus on weaknesses or strengths? Strengths Perceived Intrinsic MoEvaEon Competence Effort IntenEons Our finding (over-and-over again): Individuals are likely to put more effort into their personal development (e.g., online learning accvices) when they work on their perceived strengths rather than their perceived weaknesses. However: In talent management programs, individuals are typically directed to learning accvices to address their deficiencies. This oken makes sense, but it may be more effeccve aker self-affirmaeon using their strengths. Hypothesis: Mentoring may be most effeccve when focusing on both strengths and weaknesses. Hiemstra, D. & Van Yperen, N.W. (2015). The effects of strength-based versus deficit-based self-regulated learning strategies on students' effort intentions. Motivation and Emotion, 39, Growing your mind: Hope or evidence? 4. Research should idencfy addiconal ingredients (next to mentor-mentee relaconship) that explain the (in)effeccveness of mentoring, including: Focus on weaknesses or strengths? Mindset See also

5 Mindsets: Consequences for talent management and mentoring practices Your intelligence is something about you that you can t change very much. Agree Disagree Talent = innate/gifted Preference for exclusive talent management approaches. Assumption: Innate talent is a necessary (but not a sufficient) condition for reaching exceptional performance levels. HRM focus: Identification and retention of talent. Talent = acquired Preference for inclusive talent management approaches. Assumption: Training, development, and experience are the main reasons for achieving excellent performance (certain innate factors may play a role as well). HRM focus: Training and development of talent. Fixed mindset ( enety theorist ) Growth mindset ( incremental theorist ) Meyers, M. C., Van Woerkom, M., & Dries, N. (2013). Talent - innate or acquired? TheoreEcal consideraeons and their implicaeons for talent management. Human Resource Management Review, 23, Goals: Strengths and weaknesses Mediators: Self-confidence Intrinsic mocvacon Effort Outcomes: Goal afainment Well-being Job performance Conclusions 1. Workplace mentoring seems to be an effeceve talent development strategy in organizaeons. 2. To bejer understand why, when, and for whom it does (not) work, we need more evidence. Moderators: Quality mentor- Mentee relaconship Growth mindset 3. Therefore, we need a Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring! 19 20