Matching process
Mentor and mentee matching process
The aim of this project is to establish a more reliable set of information, on which matches between mentors and mentees can be made. While a fully automatic process is theoretically possible, it is likely in the great majority of cases that programme managers will want to work with data to identify effective matches. Intuition still has a significant role to play.
There are four factors, which appear from research and practical experience to play a role in compatibility. These are:
Cognitive elements:
- Demographic and instrumental factors (age, gender, location, power etc)
- Specific experience and knowledge
- Relationship purpose and duration
Emotional elements:
- Values (as per Reiss motivational profiling or a simpler, less expensive tool, if we want to devise one)
- Learning maturity (ability/ willingness to be stretched and to welcome / value different experience, perspectives, values etc)
The idea is to measure all four of these areas and score each according to degree of fit (scale 1 – 10) and importance for the mentee (scale 1-10). Low importance items would typically be omitted from consideration in matching. It won’t be possible to create a generic matching algorithm from this information, but it will give programme organisers a much clearer idea of who to recommendations is matched with whom. It may also open up the possibility of giving people more than one mentor, to meet different needs.
Detail of the four elements
Demographic factors
Do you have a preference (strong, moderate or weak) for a mentoring partner in terms of:
- Age Similar, different/ older, younger
- Gender Same, different/ male, female
- Race Same, different/ white, non-white
- Location Same, different/ local, distant
- Personality Same, different/ extrovert, introvert (possibly others?)
Specific experience and knowledge in area mentee wants to develop in
Do you have a preference (strong, moderate or weak) for a mentoring partner in terms of:
- Discipline Same (but more experienced), different
- Company Same (been there a long time), different
- Task Same (lot of practical projects in this area), different
- Focus Narrow functional/ professional v general business/leadership experience
Relationship purpose
Mentee: What is the intent of this mentoring relationship? (Tick all that apply.)
Mentor: What is your preference for duration and purpose of mentoring you engage in?
- Long term career support
- Short-term career support (specific transition)
- Long term personal development
- Short term personal development (specific skill or behaviour)
Emotional elements
Either use RMP or simpler approach:
| How would you describe yourself? Score 0 = not like me; 10 = exactly like me | How important is it for your mentoring partner to share this characteristic, if you are to have strong rapport? 0 = not important; 10 = very important |
| I am a more a practical person than an intellectual one | |
| I am usually self-confident, with little self-doubt | |
| Family is very important to me | |
| Integrity and ethicality are more important than getting the job done | |
| I place great importance on caring for others | |
| I tend to be stubborn and independent | |
| I value structure and order more than flexibility | |
| I like to take charge and exert control | |
| I am careful with money; I don’t like to see waste | |
| I am the life and soul of the party | |
| I think social formalities are very important | |
| I don’t forgive other people easily | |
| I think it’s important to say what I think, regardless of the consequences | |
| I value loyalty in myself and other people |
Learning maturity
How would you describe yourself? Score 0 = not like me; 10 = exactly like me
- I enjoy it when I have to review my long-established beliefs
- I seek out conversations with people, who have a different perspective to mine
- I like to have my ideas challenged
- I value insights into my motivations and how my mind works
- I value insights into my strengths and weaknesses
- I seek out honest feedback from others
- I find that even unconstructive challenge can be useful
- I would far rather understand than be proven right
- I instinctively see setbacks as learning opportunities
- When I choose a new job role, learning potential is at least as important for me as promotion
- I like to explore areas of knowledge, about which I know little, to give new perspectives on my main areas of expertise
- I have a wide and flexible portfolio of learning methods
How the matching process would be used
Mentors and mentees would complete all four sections, on line. Cognitive factors provide the first filter, with the highest matches being based on strong preferences. Values and learning maturity, taken together, provide the second filter. The programme manager uses the level of learning maturity to assess how much difference in values profile a mentee (and potential mentors) can accommodate. Finally, the programme manager takes an overall look at the data to test for “feel”.
Validating the matching process
We will need several levels of validation.
Face validation will come from sharing the model with associates and existing customers and gathering feedback.
Empirical validation will require collection of data from mentoring pairs (at least 150) at two time points: at matching and after 3 to 6 months, to assess relationship quality. We already have validated measures of relationship quality within MDS. Factor analysis should identify which questions in the values and emotional questionnaires cluster together. In the case of learning maturity, this should enable us to establish a reliable scale of learning maturity. Other analyses will enable us to explore links between, for example, relationship purpose and learning maturity.
Data gathering: We can apply the process to all willing CA clients and request our associates around the world to do the same. Data collection will be on-line and must be in a form compatible with SPSS or a similar analytical tool.
Data analysis: This project will make an ideal, time bound assignment for an MA/ MSc student in coaching & mentoring. I can approach Brookes, SHU, Henley, Ashridge, Middlesex, Hertford, Insead, the IMA, and/or enlist help of EMCC research committee. Mariola may be able to identify someone at one of the Warsaw universities.
Costs and resource requirements
The difficult work is already done, in conceptualising the model. Investment required would be:
Data gathering:
Recruitment: Integral to ongoing selling of programmes
Project management time: small (maybe couple of days liaising with overseas associates)
IT costs: Will need to be put on-line and tested
Data analysis:
Strictly speaking, only essential for the academically picky customer!
If we can off-load to an MSc student, no cost to CA
I suggest we aim to finance any data analysis by providing reports (at a fee!) to customers, who want more detailed information about how matching has worked….
© David Clutterbuck, 2015
Prof David Clutterbuck
Coaching and Mentoring International Ltd
Woodlands, Tollgate,
Maidenhead,
Berks, UK. SL6 4LJ
www.coachingandmentoringinternational.org
e-mail: info@coachingandmentoringinternational.org
Company registration number : 08158710