Content uploaded by Valerie Stead
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Valerie Stead on Oct 18, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Training and Development 9:3
ISSN 1360-3736
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148,
USA.
170
International Journal of Training and Development
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Oxford, UK and Malden, USA
IJTDInternational Journal of Training and Development1360-3736Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 20052005
9
3170184Articles
Mentoring: a model for leadership
development?
r
Department of Management Learning, The Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster,
LA1 4YX, UK.
* Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are organisations formed within the NHS to bring all services at the first
point of access for patients together at strategic and operational levels.
Mentoring: a model for
leadership development?
Valerie Stead
There appears to be a paucity of research on mentoring senior
leaders (Hobson & Sharp, 2005) and yet a growing interest in
the development of leadership through experience (Abra et al.,
2003; McCauley et al., 1998). This paper therefore presents and
evaluates a case study of a pilot mentoring scheme and pro-
gramme for Directors of Finance (DoFs) in the UK National
Health Service. The paper reviews DoFs’ leadership needs
within the three broad categories of pragmatism, effectiveness
and sustainability, and provides a case study detailing the
pilot mentoring scheme and programme. Values and challenges
posed by this initiative as a model for leadership development
are considered, and lead to the identification of eight cross-
cutting tensions connected to mentoring senior leaders. This
analysis provides lessons for the ongoing initiative and indi-
cates key learning about managing mentoring and mentoring
senior leaders that it is hoped will be of value beyond the scope
of this study.
Introduction
Leaders in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK face multiple changes at
strategic and operational levels. Most recently these include: the introduction of Pri-
mary Care Trusts* (PCTs) (Leese, 2002); the shift from internal market competition to
partnership working for Primary Care Groups (PCGs) (Willcocks & Conway, 2002);
and the reform of financial systems and proposed NHS Foundation Trusts (DoH,
2000a, 2002). The creation of specialist initiatives such as the NHS University and the
Leadership Centre for Health have established leadership development as a priority
(DoH, 2001, 2002). This paper presents a case study of a pilot mentoring scheme and
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
Mentoring: a model for leadership development?
171
programme for NHS Directors of Finance (DoFs). The case study is used to explore
the value and challenges of a mentoring model for leadership development, and to
raise issues for consideration of mentoring leaders beyond the scope of this initiative.
Reform of the UK NHS has identified a broad and publicly accountable role for
leaders in the NHS. This includes addressing the ‘improvement of patients’ care,
treatment and experience, the promotion of a healthier population, the enhancement
of the NHS’s reputation as a well-managed and accountable organisation and the
motivation and development of staff’ (The Modernisation Agency, 2003). Furthermore,
leadership and management development is recognised as vital in ‘driving forward
the modernisation of the NHS’ (DoH, 2001: 52).
The DoF role has typically been seen within a professional grouping in the NHS
(Dyson, 2003). However with responsibility for managing some of the most funda-
mental changes in the NHS plan, such as the introduction of a new pay system (DoH,
2002), the DoF is identified as a key role embracing corporate and professional lead-
ership (Dyson, 2003). The increasing breadth of the leadership role suggests alternative
forms of development and support to the largely traditional focus on the updating of
financial and technical expertise. This is reinforced by the NHS’s aim to develop its
workforce in a way which promotes lifelong learning and reflects a more team focused
approach rather than professional groupings (DoH, 2001, 2000b).
A review of development needs for Directors of Finance in the NHS
In 2002 the professional association for finance staff in the NHS, the Healthcare Finan-
cial Management Association (HfMA) approached the Centre for Training and Devel-
opment (CETAD) at Lancaster University in the UK to form a partnership that would
explore a way of developing new and aspiring DoFs within the NHS, and in particular
within PCTs. The partnership had two main aims. First, they wanted to meet the
particular needs of new and aspiring DoFs, mainly those in the newly formed and
forming PCTs. Secondly, they wished to develop an initiative that would act as a pilot
for future development.
A review of DoFs’ development needs, based on local discussions with the HfMA,
current DoH research (2001, 2002, 2003) and wider leadership development literature
(for example Alimo-Metcalfe & Lawler, 2001; Bryman, 1993), can be distilled into three
broad categories of pragmatic, effective and sustainable needs.
•
Pragmatic
needs are concerned with practical needs and concerns including devel-
opment that is accessible and flexible. The geographical spread and isolated posi-
tion of DoFs means that the opportunity to access development is important.
Flexibility is also important in timing to fit around busy work lives, and in method
and support to enable learning that can be managed at a local level and that
enables crucial and immediate problems to be addressed.
•
Effective
needs are those that are concerned with the development of knowledge
and skills to enable greater effectiveness in the role of DoF. Bryman (1993) pro-
poses that the interaction of individuals with their context is key to effective
leadership. Other identified areas include working within change, complex oper-
ational and strategic problem solving, networking, managing high-level relation-
ships, local and organisational knowledge and insight, cultural and political
awareness (Boyatzis
et al.
, 1995; Pedler
et al.
, 1997). In addition, studies addressing
the public sector (Finger & Bürgin Brand, 1999; Hartley & Hinksman, 2003) indi-
cate that public leadership development must take into account particular needs
including high transparency, public accountability, working across organisational
boundaries and with multiple stakeholders. Effective needs would also embrace
the broader leadership needs identified by the NHS including breaking down
organisational barriers, challenging old perceptions, building new systems (DoH,
1997, 2001, 2003).
•
Sustainable
needs are those concerning enabling and supporting career progression
and the role of DoFs within changing environments. These needs also include the
172
International Journal of Training and Development
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
ability to manage contexts and the need for development that is context relevant
(Alimo-Metcalfe & Lawler, 2001; Taylor
et al.
, 2002). Sustainable needs link into
the UK government’s lifelong learning agenda (DoH, 2001) of continuous devel-
opment and learning with a focus on motivating, empowering and developing
staff. They also concern enabling DoFs to become independent learners (Pedler
et al.
, 1997) and ‘responsible for learning’, that is being responsible for ‘building
organizations where people are continually expanding their capabilities to shape
their future’ (Senge, 1994, p. 6).
Mentoring leaders
Recent reviews of mentoring literature (Hobson & Sharp, 2005) conclude there is little
evidence of the effectiveness of mentoring and coaching for new leaders. However,
there is agreement that mentoring seems to offer significant benefits for leaders
including: role socialisation, reduced feelings of isolation, professional development,
increased job satisfaction, improved leadership skills and leadership-capacity building
(Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Fagan & Walter, 1982; Scandura
et al.
, 1996; Stott &
Walker, 1992). Mentoring as leadership development is also recognised as complex
and not without pitfalls or critique. While mentoring leaders can be viewed as a model
based on relational learning that is helfpful in co-creating a learning environment
(Beattie, 2002), there is criticism that it addresses only selected people rather than
building capacity for the organisation (Hartley & Hinksman, 2003). At an operational
level, Bullough and Draper (2004) highlight a lack of understanding about how men-
toring relationships operate, and suggest that mentors can feel vulnerable, inexpert
and exposed, and without the necessary skills. Clutterbuck (2004) also outlines some
of the difficulties in mentoring leaders including selection of mentors, the demands of
working with high level issues and continuously having to reassess and refocus due
to complexity of role. Given there is a range of concerns, mentoring is still viewed as
a particularly significant approach to leadership development (Belasco, 2000; Hobson
& Sharp, 2005). Clutterbuck (2004) and Clutterbuck and Schneider (1998) offer a
number of reasons for the current popularity of mentoring leaders that have resonance
for this study. These include: increasing acceptance that development is a continuous
activity particularly at senior levels; the changing nature of executive roles having to
deal with increasing complexities and constant environmental change; and a move to
flatter organisational structures that results in a greater leap and transition to leader-
ship roles.
An understanding of mentoring
Mentoring can be seen as a holistic and fluid concept that attends to professional,
corporate and personal development (Clutterbuck, 2001; Kram, 1983; Parsloe & Wray
2000). Beech and Brockbank (1999) suggest two main strands to mentoring. The first
is that of career coach and professional helper, with a focus on understanding how the
organisation operates at a cultural and political level. The second is psychosocial and
includes role modelling, personal support, increasing confidence and self-awareness
in mentee’s ability, and professional identity. English and Sutton (2000) use the term
‘holistic mentor’ to describe someone who can help the mentee at technical and
personal levels but who would also have the knowledge and expertise to signpost
them to specialist technical or personal help if required. Clutterbuck and Megginson
(1999) describe mentoring as ‘off-line help’ where one individual helps another to
make ‘significant transitions in knowledge, work or thinking’. Clutterbuck (1998)
also describes mentoring as a multi-functional role that has four sub-roles of coach
(job-related knowledge and guidance), counsellor (emotional support and listener),
guardian (concerned for the mentee’s well-being and interests) and networker/
facilitator (providing access to networks and resources).
A holistic view of the mentor’s role attending to the corporate, professional and
personal can also be reflected in key characteristics defining the nature of the mentor-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
Mentoring: a model for leadership development?
173
ing relationship. For example, from a corporate perspective, Townley (1994) views the
mentoring relationship as a social relationship where the mentor is key in socialising
the mentee into the culture of an organisation. From a professional angle, mentoring
offers a private and protected relationship that enables mentees to test out new ideas
and look at issues from a fresh perspective in a safe and non-threatening environment
(McDougall & Beattie, 1997). Brockbank and Beech (1999) provide a personal dimen-
sion by raising similarities between mentoring and parenting and falling in love, in
that mentoring moves through a number of phases from establishing the relationship
through cultivating and nurturing it to separating and redefining it (Kram, 1983).
This holistic understanding of mentoring was indicative of the kind of approach the
partnership of HfMA and Lancaster University wanted to take to new and aspiring
DoFs. Combined with the espoused benefits of mentoring leaders, it seemed to offer
the opportunity for mentees to work with someone who had credibility and under-
standing in the professional role (the technical aspects of being a DoF), and in the
corporate role (the managerial and wider organisational aspects of being a DoF). It
also provided opportunity to address personal career development for DoFs. Finally
the partnership hoped that a mentoring initiative would provide two levels of devel-
opment: development for aspiring and new DoFs who would be the mentees, and
development for existing DoFs who would be recruited as mentors. This in turn would
enable the development of a pool of trained mentors that could be added to in
subsequent programmes.
The case study: Developing a mentoring initiative
The development of the mentoring initiative was in two phases: a mentoring scheme
and a development programme for mentors and mentees to support the scheme.
The mentoring scheme
The mentoring scheme took responsibility for promoting mentoring, recruiting men-
tors and mentees, managing a mentor database and matching service and monitoring
mentoring activities. The scheme was to be owned, run and managed by the
organisation (HfMA) with the University providing development support in its first
year.
The mentor scheme was established over a four-month period with a series of
partnership meetings to set up a database, and to develop procedures for operating
the scheme including targeting, matching and monitoring. Applicants were matched
according to a set of criteria including geographical location and their expressed needs
and expectations.
A suggested level of commitment for the mentoring relationships was set at a
minimum of six and a maximum of twelve months with meetings likely to occur every
four to six weeks.
The development programme
The second phase was to agree a mentoring programme that would support the
scheme and offer skills and knowledge development for mentors and mentees
recruited to the scheme. While the responsibility and management of the scheme
would lie with the HfMA, the programme would be developed, managed and run by
the University.
Programme design and process
The programme comprised two main strands of development as illustrated in Figure 1,
including a development programme for mentors leading to accreditation through a
University Certificate in Mentoring and a non-accredited development programme for
mentees. Each development strand had three core elements of mentoring, workshops
and Action Centred Learning (ACL) spanning over a period of nine months.
174
International Journal of Training and Development
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
The core activity within the programme was the individual mentoring relationship.
Two residential workshops of two days for mentors aimed to introduce knowledge,
skills and processes of mentoring and to foster networks amongst participants. Men-
tees attended a separate introductory workshop. Mentors and mentees attended sep-
arate final workshops to review the scheme and pilot programme.
ACL aimed to offer a platform for collective dissemination of knowledge and prac-
tice throughout the wider organisation. Mentors had three half-day ACL sessions held
in two separate locations and mentees had two separate ACL sessions. These sessions
borrowed from Action Learning principles (Revans, 1983) such as peer questioning,
and also sought to harness more directly ideas from group members in working
through mentoring issues they had encountered.
Activities for mentors and mentees were timed so that information from one could
feed into and inform the other. For example, the introductory session with mentees
Figure 1: Development programme for mentors and mentees.
Mentor Development Mentee Development
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
Mentoring: a model for leadership development?
175
was held before the introductory session with mentors, so that expectations could be
flagged up for mentors to consider in planning their first mentoring meeting.
Programme content
Content was developed around two key themes that aimed to embrace the identified
needs of DoFs: understanding and defining mentoring, and development of critical
and reflective thinking skills and processes. Understanding and defining mentoring
aimed to address the mentoring relationship with relevance to local context, culture
and politics, and to other forms of organisational development provision. A focus on
critical and reflective thinking skills and processes, as illustrated in Reynolds (1997),
aimed to encourage mentors and thereby mentees to reflect on courses of action they
might take. This reflection would involve identifying, challenging and questioning
underlying assumptions that values and actions may be based upon, in particular
within the social and institutional context. Process and learning method were also seen
to be key components of the content that would enable a critical and reflective stance,
for example developing skills of challenging in ACL sessions.
A review of the scheme and the programme outcomes
Development of the scheme led to the recruitment of 20 mentors and 20 mentees from
across the UK. Mentors included established DoFs, and DoFs who had moved into
other senior positions within the NHS. Mentees included new, acting and Deputy DoFs
and two aspiring DoFs in other financial positions. The scheme was established three
months before the first (pilot) programme which ran for nine months. Mentors carried
out three pieces of assessed work to gain accreditation including an individual report,
a group presentation and a reflective learning journal of the mentoring relationship
and the programme.
Outcomes from the initiative include: examples of practice and evidence from
assessed work by mentors; information drawn from the programme’s final reviews
with mentors and mentees; and tutors’ observations and records of delivery and
management of the scheme and the programme. These outcomes are used to explore
the main values and challenges (see Figure 2) and to identify some cross-cutting
tensions posed by this initiative as a model for leadership development. This explo-
ration has been developed by considering the extent to which the design, content and
processes of the initiative address the leadership needs identified earlier. Design issues
are those concerned with the fundamental principles of design upon which the scheme
and programme are based. Content issues are those concerned with the content of the
workshops, of the mentoring relationships and of the ACL groups. Process issues
include the ongoing processes within the scheme such as recruitment, and within the
programme, for example ACL.
Values and challenges of the initiative as a model for leadership development
Design
The most significant value of the design appears to be in the mix of workshops, peer
support, individual mentoring and assessed work. Outcomes suggest, similar to
Clutterbuck’s (2004) assertion, that offering mentoring as a sole activity would not be
sufficient on its own to meet leadership requirements, and that the sum of the mix is
of greater value than the individual components. The design mix offered flexibility
through mentoring at individually managed times and with some local provision of
ACL sessions. However, flexibility was also resource intensive with the different pro-
gramme elements being costly to manage and requiring significant commitment.
By offering a collective forum for peer support, ACL was helpful in working with
relationship dependency and developing strategies for moving forward, for example
a relationship moving from mentoring to friendship. In accordance with a range of
research that shows mentoring is beneficial in leadership development (Browne-
Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Hobson & Sharp, 2005), leadership needs such as networking
176
International Journal of Training and Development
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
and cultural awareness were addressed at a range of levels. At workshops, mentors
discussed issues at a wider institutional level; at ACL sessions, mentors and mentees
shared information and experiences at organisational levels, and individual mentoring
sessions focused on interplay between particular organisations.
The design mix enabled individual learning, with routine problem solving and
challenging assumptions (Senge, 1990) evident from practice examples in mentors’
learning journals, for instance analysing organisational constraints in driving through
a change. Caine and Caine (2002) note that groups are a productive context in which
to support leadership and here ACL supported leaders and enabled collective learning,
as defined by Preskill and Torres (1999), by embedding individual learning through
peer discussion of issues.
The pilot confirmed the need for clear roles in managing the scheme and offered
key learning around the design of matching and recruitment protocol, in particular
recognition of the political context of the relationship, and the potentially high level
of influence that the relationship might yield.
Content
The content introduced on workshops focused on understanding and defining men-
toring and the development of critical and reflective thinking skills and processes.
Feedback from mentors and mentees shows that mentoring content was useful in
structuring the relationship, and broader management theories and models were help-
ful in working with problems from different perspectives. Some mentors described
themselves as learning brokers, passing on models to mentees to resolve and deal with
issues independently.
Mentors felt that the assessment side of the programme had significance in setting
a level of rigour that was central to the scheme’s sustainability, and in enabling values
and actions at organisational and institutional (the wider NHS) levels to be challenged,
for example the political implications of continuing this scheme.
Although the initiative’s approach aimed to be holistic, mentors’ learning journals
illustrated that immediate problems were always given priority. Therefore while the
Figure 2: Values, challenges and tensions of mentoring as a model for leadership development.
Value Tensions Challenges
Design
Content
Process
Design Mix
• Flexible
• Local
• Peer support
• Makes learning explicit
• Addresses leadership needs
Managing the scheme
• Clear roles
Mentee driven
• Immediacy
• Context relevant
• Deep and senior issues
surfaced
• Provides structure
• Sets standards
• Peer support/ACL
• Independent learning
• Mentee as resourceful
• Supported learning within
change
• Bonding
• Captures learning
LEVEL OF ISSUES
EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY
RELIANCE
CONTROL
EMOTIONAL INTENSITY
POWER AND INFLUENCE
TRUST
COMMITMENT
Resource intensive
Organisational support
Sustainability
Recruitment and
matching protocols
Exclusivity
Mentee dependent
Emotional masking
Narrow focus
Exposing high-level issues
Reinforcing traditional patterns
Organisational climate
and infrastructures
Capturing learning
Trustworthiness
Continued peer support
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
Mentoring: a model for leadership development?
177
content was always context relevant and responsive, and popular in helping indi-
viduals manage personal change (see also Clutterbuck, 2004), it varied from one
relationship to another.
Mentors and mentees indicated that the intimacy of the mentoring relationship
enabled them to raise and disclose deep issues that they would not have done in a
group setting. This was particularly so where the mentor demonstrated a willingness
to commit time and listen, characteristics deemed as effective in other studies concern-
ing mentoring leaders (Stott & Walker, 1992; Holloway, 2004). Some of these issues
were highly sensitive, for example restructuring, and as such had organisational and
legal implications beyond the individual relationship. Discussions at ACL sessions
had resonance with mentoring research (Beech & Brockbank, 1999; Bullough &
Draper, 2004), in that they showed that exposure to high level issues can render both
mentors and mentees vulnerable. Mentors in particular noted the pressure and stress
of being exposed to difficult problems. Additional support outside the mentoring
relationship was regarded as important, and establishing trust to deal with senior
complex issues was viewed as particularly significant from individual and organisa-
tional perspectives.
As found in Day’s (2001) work with Chief Executives, the mentoring relation-
ships as part of this initiative were notably successful as enabling relationships.
Building networks is viewed by some as a critical competency for leaders (Bening-
ton, 2001; Brass & Krackhardt, 1999) and this study found that mentoring com-
bined with peer support fostered a learning environment (also noted by Beattie,
2002).
Process
The programme and the scheme review showed that there are significant process
issues to consider for the continuation of this scheme, in particular the development
of organisational infrastructures to ensure its sustainability. The support and the
monitoring of relationships for mentors and mentees finished at the programme’s
completion. This left a support gap and ongoing issues of managing the database and
matching for further relationships.
Similar to findings by Blackler and Kennedy (2004) who found the use of talk and
reflection important in developing senior leaders, the process of ACL was highly
valued by mentors, mentees and tutors in terms of encouraging reflective and critical
thinking, and making connections between theory and practice. Furthermore the ACL
seemed to foster a bonding in that mentors and mentees felt a tie and commitment to
each other through the emotional experience of mentoring, and by being selected to
be part of this pilot.
According to the mentors in this study (Blue, 2003) the workshops and the process
of ACL encouraged the adoption of two key principles. The first is that the mentee is
resourceful, in that they have the resources to deal with and resolve their own prob-
lems and issues. The second is that the mentor’s role is to act as enabler and release
the mentee’s resourcefulness, with the understanding that only the mentee can ulti-
mately make the choice of what to do. This can assume a reliance on the mentor, a
characteristic difficulty of mentoring according to Day (2001), and their ability to
release the mentee’s resourcefulness. However, it also has resonance with the scheme
and programme’s initial aim of enabling participants to be responsible for learning
(Senge, 1994).
The mentoring relationship was also seen to be of value in responding to complex
issues as they were being encountered. This was evident from examples at ACL
meetings where mentees changed agendas to work on something that had just
occurred. This also raised the issue of distance versus proximity. It was felt that there
was much to be gained from having a mentor more distant from the mentee’s role to
enable more open challenging and questioning.
Mentors and mentees suggested the need for an ongoing process that captures
learning if the initiative is to continue and be seen to have organisational significance.
178
International Journal of Training and Development
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
Cross-cutting tensions
The review of values and challenges of this mentor scheme and development pro-
gramme reveals eight cross-cutting tensions connected to mentoring senior leaders.
These tensions, illustrated in Figure 2, offer some considerations for employing men-
toring as a model for leadership development and have two primary foci: mentoring
issues brought to or managed within a relationship, and the nature of the mentoring
relationship.
Tensions connected to mentoring issues
•
Level of issues.
The initiative studied here showed that issues raised in mentoring
sessions reflect the seniority of the mentees, and with senior leaders these issues are
therefore significant and complex. Clutterbuck (2004) recognises that the value of
mentoring is that mentors and mentees have the opportunity to deal with real, com-
plex and current issues at the level at which they operate. However, work with
headteachers in the UK by Bolam
et al.
(1993) suggests that mentees may prefer to gain
specific advice rather than support from mentors and that this may lead to tensions.
As well as the difficulties this may raise in establishing the type of mentoring relation-
ship that is appropriate, there is also the potential for traditional approaches to issues
being reinforced (Southworth, 1995), and overreliance on the mentor. Furthermore, the
high level of the issues raised means they are more likely to have implications that
reach beyond the mentee and their role. This also raises dilemmas for the recruitment
of mentors, for example exposing problems to a potentially competitive peer and
insider, versus exposing high-level problems to someone external to the organisation
(Clutterbuck, 2004).
•
Exposure and vulnerability.
In this study mentors and mentees recognised that
exposing issues and problems can render them vulnerable, and in a leadership role
which is isolated this may be more pronounced. The mentor’s ability to respond and
deal with difficult issues is exposed and tested (Bullough & Draper, 2004), and the
mentee exposes the elements of their work and career that they are finding problem-
atic. Gabriel (2003) and Hamilton and Bean (2003), see this kind of live experience as
valuable in enabling leaders to develop their ability to deal with exposure and vulner-
ability and to reflect in action. Beech and Brockbank (1999), however, raise the possi-
bility that the mentee can feel so exposed that the relationship is viewed as panoptic
and their strengths and weaknesses are perceived to be made visible to management.
This could be the case for mentors, too, who may perceive that their leadership abilities
might be made visible to others for better or worse. This adds weight to formalising
mentoring as leadership development, supported by experience gained from other
mentoring studies (Monsour, 1998; Bolam
et al.
, 1993). Alleman
et al.
(1984) and Stott
and Walker (1992) acknowledge that this is best delivered as an ongoing process to
support mentors as much as mentees.
•
Reliance.
Working through high-level issues in a one-to-one relationship can
develop dependency and overreliance on the mentor (Day, 2001), and particularly
when mentees are encountering very sensitive or difficult situations. In this study
mentors saw initial reliance in working through issues largely as a starting point from
which to develop self-reliance. Here mentees can think through what is happening
and devise particular ways to cope with it (Burgoyne, 1999), thereby encouraging the
concept of the mentee as resourceful (Blue, 2003). Research by Bush and Coleman
(1995) into mentoring with headteachers cites the danger of overreliance on the mentor
as a prime factor that could undermine the mentoring process. This has implications
for developing additional support mechanisms for mentors and mentees beyond the
scope of the individual mentoring relationship to discuss and redefine relationship
boundaries.
•
Control.
A key learning point from this study was the extent to which the relation-
ship was controlled by the issues raised. As a model for leadership development
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
Mentoring: a model for leadership development?
179
mentoring has value in that it is mentee driven and retains a clear focus on their needs.
This focus enables mentors to gain insight into how an organisation works in practice
and the major challenges it encounters. On the other hand, the relationship has the
potential to become so narrowly focused that broader leadership needs are not
addressed. This raises some questions for consideration. To what extent is it important
that development is consistently similar for each leader? To what extent are or should
agendas be controlled in advance outside the mentoring relationship? To what extent
are or should issues and problems be monitored within and outside the relationship?
To what extent is this relationship a private and confidential one? In addition Hartley
and Hinksman (2003) suggest that mentoring as a form of leadership development is
selective and can be elitist in that it targets particular individuals and therefore does
not seek to build collective leadership capacity within the organisation. The continu-
ation of this initiative across the NHS may help to counter this concern locally but
does open debate on the use of mentoring as a means of excluding some while
favouring others.
Tensions connected to the nature of relationship
•
Emotional intensity.
Mentors and mentees in this study found that this type of
relationship encourages close bonding and therefore the ability to get beyond
superficial concerns, particularly in relationships that are seen to be successful
(Phillips-Jones cited in Beech & Brockbank 1999). However the emotional intensity can
bring dependence on the mentor (Bolam
et al.
, 1993). This has implications in consid-
ering mentor recruitment and the relative distance both geographically and corpo-
rately of the mentor. Bullough and Draper (2004) recognise that the demands of the
mentoring relationship may lead mentors to engage in emotional masking (see Hoch-
schild, 1983), where they strive to hide their own emotions in order to deal with the
pressures of a particular situation. With a recognised difficulty in the literature of
pinning down exactly what the role and responsibilities of a mentor might be (Clut-
terbuck, 2001), and with the increased intensity of addressing high-level problems,
there are considerations for supporting the mentor and mentee during the relationship.
•
Power and influence.
If power is afforded through control of resources (Dawson,
1996) and is manifested through decision or non-decision-making in problematic or
conflict situations (Jackson & Carter, 2000) then this must have implications for men-
toring. This has particular relevance for senior leaders due to the level of decisions
they make and their access to resources. Two senior leaders working together may
bring significant benefits: insight into strategic and high-level decisions of another
organisation can provide a new perspective on one’s own organisation, and mentors
and mentees can provide access to each other’s networks. Clutterbuck (2004) also
highlights potential conflicts with managerial and other supervisory relationships and
warns that mentoring may engender exclusive and therefore excluding networks.
However, this kind of strategic alliance may also be threatening in that detailed
organisational information is made transparent. Issues of power and influence also
raise concerns of overreliance (Day, 2001), in that the mentee may feel obliged to
comply with the mentor. This highlights considerations for recruitment and matching,
and monitoring of the relationship.
•
Trust.
Hobson and Sharp (2005) stress the importance of a mentoring relationship
being based on trust. Mutual trust and a relationship characterised by intimacy and
interpersonal bond are cited as key elements in effective mentoring relationships in a
study of CEOs (Rosser & Egan, 2005). This was also recognised as significant in our
study. Trust is required from the organisation to enable and support the relationship
and from the individuals to enter into it. Mentoring as a model for leadership devel-
opment can be motivational. Mentors are entrusted with the development of senior
staff and so are judged as credible and trustworthy mentors. Mentees are trusted to
engage in a private learning relationship and to shape their own learning within its
180
International Journal of Training and Development
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
boundaries. However the organisation also has to trust that this relationship works
for the good of the organisation’s objectives. This raises considerations for selection
and recruitment of ‘trustworthy’ mentors and mentees. Dukess (2001) and Lovell
(2004) suggest that successful recruitment may be best achieved with input from
mentor, mentee and the organisation.
•
Commitment.
Perhaps one of the greatest strengths and conversely one of the major
limitations is that this form of leadership development calls for significant commit-
ment, a key issue also identified by a review of mentoring studies (Hobson & Sharp,
2005). From the organisation this includes ensuring structures and infrastructures are
in place to support the development if it is to be sustainable. This includes: organisa-
tional recognition that mentoring is a legitimate and senior development activity;
space to devote to the relationship and supporting programme; and ongoing commit-
ment in the form of developing networks and infrastructures to sustain the scheme.
A commitment to mentoring illustrates the organisation’s intention to develop senior
leaders. Our study showed, however, that this commitment places a heavy demand
on time, support and resources to manage and maintain the scheme.
Considerations and conclusions
This paper has sought to present a case study of a pilot mentoring initiative and to
explore its value in terms of addressing the leadership needs of the target audience.
It has also aimed to explore its potential as a model for leadership development.
The review of the values and challenges discussed previously in this paper illus-
trates that this model has been of value in working with many of the identified
leadership needs of DoFs, and in developing established DoFs as well as new and
aspiring DoFs. The review also identified eight cross-cutting tensions for consideration
in employing mentoring as a model for leadership development. The review and the
identified tensions suggest broader learning that is applicable for this ongoing initia-
tive and that aims to offer insight for mentoring leaders beyond the scope of this study.
This broader learning can be summarised within four questions:
• What are the considerations for managing mentoring for senior leaders?
• What appears to be distinctive about mentoring for senior leaders?
• What may or may not be achieved by mentoring senior leaders?
• What aspects of mentoring senior leaders might be associated with most success?
What are the considerations for managing mentoring for senior leaders?
This study raised fundamental questions concerning embedding and sustaining a
mentoring scheme.
•
Where is the scheme’s home?
Developing a mentoring scheme has long-term impli-
cations in that the host organisation takes on responsibility for recruitment, match-
ing, managing and sustaining the scheme. Within this study it became clear that
a mentoring scheme is a long-term investment separate from mentor development
and therefore requires a dedicated resource.
•
How will the scheme recruit and match mentors and mentees?
Similar to findings by
other authors (Clutterbuck, 2004; Lovell, 2004), this study suggests that recruit-
ment and matching are crucial to the sustainability of mentoring relationships and
therefore to the sustainability of any scheme. Key concerns to address include
pragmatic issues of geography and timing, as well as more sophisticated consid-
erations including the politics and power of relationships.
•
How will relationships be monitored and learning captured?
There is a recognised lack
of documented evidence of the benefits and effectiveness of mentoring relation-
ships (Hobson & Sharp, 2005). This study found that, as an important issue in
gaining and sustaining commitment, capturing learning needs to be addressed
beyond any development programme as part of an ongoing scheme.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
Mentoring: a model for leadership development?
181
•
How will mentors and mentees involved in active mentoring relationships continue to
learn and be supported?
Research (Bogenrieder 2002; Stead 2004) illustrates the need
for organisations to provide underlying social networks, and to develop infra-
structures to foster learning. In this study much of the value of the pilot rested on
the design mix of individual and peer learning and support, and found that
continued support and learning is an ongoing issue beyond any development
programme for active mentors and mentees.
What appears to be distinctive about mentoring for senior leaders?
What appears to be distinctive from this study is that mentoring senior leaders
involves recognising and working with a range of contradictory tensions that offer the
following insights:
• Mentoring senior leaders fosters a potentially powerful and influential relation-
ship that is as much a relationship with the organisation and the individuals as
between individuals. This requires a bond of trust and commitment from all
parties, as also demonstrated in existing research with headteachers in the UK and
CEOs in the USA (Bolam
et al.
, 1993; Rosser & Egan, 2005).
• The seniority of the issues presented has as much significance in terms of politics
and power as the position or status of the individuals within the relationship.
Therefore their exposure and disclosure has potential high-level leverage within
the organisation for better or worse.
• The potential of mentors and mentees to feel exposed and vulnerable is well
documented (Beech & Brockbank, 1999; Bullough & Draper, 2004). This study
suggests that the high level and complexity of issues when mentoring leaders may
intensify such feelings for mentors and lead to greater emotional masking.
• This study, similar to Clutterbuck and Schneider’s (1998) experiences of mentoring
executives, found that the fluid nature of mentoring enables an immediacy and
responsiveness to leaders working within rapidly changing environments. The
fluid nature also enables the development of key leadership skills, an acknowl-
edged benefit of mentoring leaders (Day, 2001), such as reflection in action.
What may or may not be achieved by mentoring senior leaders?
An important lesson from this study, and acknowledged elsewhere (Clutterbuck,
2004), is that mentoring senior leaders does not seem to be sufficient on its own to
meet leadership requirements. Rather, it needs to be part of a wider package of support
and learning opportunities that works at different levels from individual and peer to
organisation. In addition, this experience has also shown that there is a significant cost
and commitment by the organisation and individuals in achieving this kind of lead-
ership development, that involves planning, managing and sustaining a scheme and
development programme.
As indicated by current research (Heifetz, 1996; Burgoyne, 1999) and within this
initiative, the needs of leaders are many and complex. This study revealed, along with
others (for example studies reviewed by Hobson & Sharp, 2005), that mentoring
enables leaders to bond closely and to work quickly with current, complex issues.
However, the achievement of close working relationships may have a cost of depen-
dency and fail to encourage different ways of doing things. The concern that mentor-
ing takes a human capital approach and is selective, elitist and therefore can develop
excluding and exclusive networks (Clutterbuck, 2004; Day, 2001) is an issue for organ-
isations aiming to achieve a critical and consistent mass in leadership development.
What aspects of mentoring leaders might be associated with the most success?
Finally, this experience and existing literature can help us to hypothesise about some
specific aspects of mentoring leaders that might be associated with the most success.
182
International Journal of Training and Development
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
In terms of designing an intervention and in common with other mentoring studies
(Dukess, 2001; Lovell, 2004), this study found that having a clear process and estab-
lished responsibility for mentor and mentee recruitment and matching helped the
success of the scheme. Some writers (e.g. Alleman
et al.
, 1984; Stott & Walker, 1992)
acknowledge that mentoring is unlikely to be successful if mentors are not developed,
and our experience showed that this, alongside group support in the form of ACL,
was crucial to the success and sustainability of the mentoring relationships.
With regard to the mentoring experience, and similar to other research (Rosser &
Egan, 2005), trust between the organisation and the individuals as well as within the
relationship emerged as being of key importance to the success of mentoring leaders,
and ensuring credibility within the host organisation. The mentoring relationships that
were successful also confirmed effective attributes and characteristics identified by
other writers (Stott & Walker, 1992; Holloway, 2004), including mentors’ willingness
to share experience and commit time.
This study has revealed that the responsive nature of the mentoring relationship,
with additional peer support, is successful in responding to leadership needs and
fostering leadership skills, in particular developing reflective skills and nurturing
strong networks.
In conclusion, and as indicated in other research (notably Hobson & Sharp, 2005),
the lessons from an experience within a particular sector and country are not neces-
sarily representative of or significant across other sectors or countries. While the
development of this study has aimed to draw on others’ experiences and contribute
to an understanding of mentoring as a model of leadership development, there is a
paucity of research around mentoring leaders and in particular the impact of particular
mentoring models within different contexts. The scope for further work in the com-
parison of mentoring provision for leaders and in the development of workable
models across a range of sectors and beyond the UK is therefore considerable.
References
Abra, J., Hunter, M., Smith, R. and Kempster S. (2003),
What leaders read 1; Key texts from the
business world. Summary report
. National College for School Leadership.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Lawler, J. (2001), Leadership development in UK companies at the
beginning of the twenty-first century: Lessons for the NHS?
Journal of Management in Medicine
,
15
, 387–404.
Alleman, E., Cochran J., Doverspike, J. and Newman, I. (1984), Enriching mentoring relation-
ships.
The Personnel and Guidance Journal
,
62
, 6, 329–32.
Beattie, M. (2002), Educational leadership: modeling, mentoring, making and re-making a
learning community.
European Journal of Teacher Education
,
25
, (2/3), 199–222.
Beech, N. and Brockbank, A. (1999), Power/knowledge and psychosocial dynamics in mentor-
ing.
Management Learning
,
30
, 1, 7–25.
Belasco, J. (2000), Foreword. In M. Goldsmith, L. Lyons and A. Freas (eds),
Coaching for Leadership:
How the world’s greatest coaches help leaders learn
. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Benington, J. (2001), Partnership as networked governance? Legitimation, innovation, problem
solving and coordination. In M. Geddes and J. Benington (eds),
Local Partnerships and Social
exclusion in the European Union
. London: Routledge.
Blackler, F. and Kennedy, A. (2004), The design and evaluation of a leadership programme for
experienced chief executives from the public sector.
Management Learning
,
35
, 2, 181–203.
Blue, L. (2003),
Mentoring Report
, submitted in part assessment for the Lancaster University
Certificate in Mentoring.
Bogenrieder, I. (2002), Social architecture as a prerequisite for organizational learning.
Manage-
ment Learning
,
33
, 2, 197–212.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Pocklington, K. and Weindling, D. (1993),
National Evaluation of the
Headteacher Mentoring Pilot Schemes
. London: DFE.
Boyatzis, R., Cowen, S. and Kolb, D. (1995), A learning perspective on executive education.
Selections
,
11
, 3, 47–56.
Brass, D. J. and Krackhardt, D. (1999), The social capital of the twenty first century leaders. In
J. G. Hunt, G. Dodge and L. Wong (eds),
Out of the Box Leadership: Transforming the twenty first
century army and other top-performing organizations
, pp. 179–94. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
Mentoring: a model for leadership development?
183
Brockbank, A. and Beech, N. (1999), Guiding blight.
Personnel Management
, 6 May, pp. 52–6.
Browne-Ferrigno, T. and Muth, R. (2004), Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role social-
ization, professional development and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly,
40, 4, 468–94.
Bryman, A. (1993), Charisma and Leadership in Organisations. London: Sage.
Bullough, Jr., R. V. and Draper, R. J. (2004), Mentoring and the emotions. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 30, 3, November.
Burgoyne, J. (1999), Developing Yourself, Your Career and Your Organisation. London: Lemos and
Crane.
Bush, T. and Coleman, M. (1995), Professional development for heads: the role of mentoring.
Journal of Educational Administration, 33, 5, 60–73.
Caine, G. and Caine, R. N. (2002), The learning community as a foundation for developing
teacher leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 616, 7–14.
Clutterbuck, D. (1998), Learning Alliances. London: IPD.
Clutterbuck, D. (2001), Everyone Needs a Mentor. Fostering Talent at Work, 3rd edn. London:
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Clutterbuck, D. (2004), Everyone Needs a Mentor: Fostering Talent in your Organisation, 4th edn.
London: CIPD.
Clutterbuck, D. and Megginson, D. (1999), Mentoring Executives and Directors. Oxford: Butter-
worth Heinemann.
Clutterbuck, D. and Schneider, S. (1998), Executive mentoring, Croner’s Executive Companion
Bulletin, Issue 29, October.
Dawson, S. (1996), Analysing Organisations. London: Macmillan.
Day, D. (2001), Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581–613.
Department of Health (1997), The New NHS: Modern, Dependable. London: DoH.
Department of Health (2000a), The NHS Plan. London: HMSO.
Department of Health (2000b), A Health Service of All the Talents: Developing the NHS Workforce.
Consultation Document on the Review of Workforce Planning. London: DoH.
Department of Health (2001), Working Together – Learning Together: A framework for lifelong learning
for the NHS. London: HMSO.
Department of Health (2002), Delivering the NHS Plan. London: HMSO.
Department of Health (2003), Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The Next Three Years, Priorities
and Planning Framework 2003–2006. London: DoH.
Dukess, L. (2001), Meeting the Leadership Challenge. Designing effective mentoring programs. New
York: New Visions for Public Schools.
Dyson, P. (2003), Leadership Development for the NHS Finance Function, paper presented at
Management Theory at Work conference, Lancaster University, April 2003.
English, P. and Sutton, E. (2000), Working with courage, fear and failure. Career Development
International Issue, 4/5, 211–15.
Fagan, M. and Walter, G. (1982), Mentoring among teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 76,
2, 113–17.
Finger, M. and Bürgin Brand, S. (1999), ‘The concept of the learning organization applied to the
transformation of the public sector: Conceptual contributions for theory development’. In M.
Easterby-Smith, J. Burgoyne and L. Araujo (eds), Organizational Learning and the Learning
Organization; Developments in Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
Gabriel, Y. (2003), MBA and the Education of Leaders – The New Playing Fields of Eton? Keynote
Speech Studying Leadership, 2nd International Conference, Lancaster University, December
2003.
Hamilton, F. E. and Bean, C. J. (2003), Front stage 24/7: Leadership Development in Post-Industrial
Organisations, paper presented at Studying Leadership, 2nd International Conference, Lan-
caster University, December 2003.
Hartley, J. and Hinksman, B. (2003), Leadership Development: A systematic review of the literature.
A report for the NHS Leadership Centre, Warwick Business School.
Heifetz, R. (1996), Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Hobson, A. and Sharp, C. (2005), Head to head: a systematic review of the research evidence on
mentoring new head teachers. School Leadership & Management, 25, 1, 25–43.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983), The Managed Heart: the commercialisation of human feeling. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Holloway, J. H. (2004), Mentoring new leaders. Educational Leadership, 61, 7, 87–9.
Jackson, N. and Carter, P. (2000), Rethinking Organisational Behaviour. New York and London:
Prentice-Hall.
Kram, K. E. (1983), Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608–25.
184 International Journal of Training and Development © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.
Leese, B. (2002), Impact on health authorities of the introduction of Primary Care Groups and
Trusts. Health Services Management Research, 15, 1, 40.
Lovell, J. (2004), Mentoring for new district office leaders. Leadership, 34, 1, 14–17.
McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S. and Van Velsor, E. (1998), Centre for Creative Leadership: Handbook
of Leadership Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
McDougall, M. and Beattie, R. S. (1997), Peer mentoring at work. Management Learning, 28, 4,
423–37.
Monsour, F. (1998), Twenty recommendations for an administrative mentoring program. NASSP
Bulletin, 82, 594, 96–100.
Parsloe, E. and Wray, M. (2000), Coaching and Mentoring. Practical Methods to Improve Learning.
London: Kogan Page.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1997), The Learning Company. London: McGraw-Hill.
Preskill, H. and Torres, R. T. (1999), Evaluative Inquiry for Learning in Organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Revans, R. (1983), The ABC of Action Learning. Bromley: Chartwell-Bratt.
Reynolds, M. (1997), Towards a critical management pedagogy. In J. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds
(eds), Management Learning; Integrating Perspectives in Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
Rosser, M. H. and Egan, T. M. (2005), The Experiences of CEOs in Mentoring Relationships: A
Qualitative Study, paper for the AHRD 2005 Conference 24–27 February, Estes Park, Colorado.
Scandura, T. A., Tejeda, M. J., Werther, W. B. and Lankau, M. J. (1996), Perspectives on mentoring.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 17, 3, 50–7.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: the art and practice of the Learning Organisation. London:
Century.
Senge, P. (1994), The leader’s new work: building learning organizations. In C. Mabey and P.
Iles (eds), Managing Learning. London: The Open University and Routledge.
Southworth, G. (1995), Reflections on mentoring for new school leaders. Journal of Educational
Administration, 33, 5, 17–28.
Stead, V. (2004), Business-focused evaluation: a case study of a collaborative model. HRDI, 7, 1,
39–56.
Stott, K. and Walker, A. (1992), Developing school leaders through mentoring: A Singapore
perspective. School Organization, 12, 2, 153–65.
Taylor, M., de Guerre, D., Gavin, J. and Kass, R. (2002), Graduate leadership education for
dynamic human systems. Management Learning, 33, 3, 349–69.
The Modernisation Agency (2003), The Modernisation Agency Leadership Centre. Website:
www.modernnhs.nhs.uk
Townley, B. (1994), Reframing Human Resource Management: Power, Ethics and the Subject at Work.
London: Sage.
Willcocks, S. and Conway, A. (2002), Managing the ‘seamless service’: Primary Care Groups in
the new NHS. Health Services Management Research, 15, 2, 106.
