Content uploaded by Sherry Finney
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sherry Finney on Feb 11, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A rapid matrix mentoring pilot
A contribution to creating competent and
engaged healthcare leaders
Sherry Finney
Cape Breton University, Sydney, Canada, and
Judy MacDougall and Mary Lou O’Neill
Cape Breton District Health Authority, Sydney, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – This case study aims to report on the effectiveness of a matrix mentoring pilot project in a
healthcare setting and its ability to build managerial competencies and enhance levels of employee
engagement.
Design/methodology/approach – The study used a mixed-method design with pre and post pilot
evaluation phases. Focus groups were held with both mentee and mentor groups. Mentees also
completed questionnaires that assessed their levels of managerial competency and engagement.
Findings – Mentees who engaged in a matrix mentoring pilot reported increased levels of managerial
and leadership competencies, and employee engagement. Additionally, mentees realized greater
exposure to managerial roles and responsibilities and experienced personal development and growth
as a result of individual project assignments.
Research limitations/implications – The small sample size is the main limitation of this project.
However, it was a pilot within a case study organization and one of the objectives was to learn from the
experience.
Practical implications – Mentors and mentees reported positive feedback. Mentors were able to
assess the capacity and interest of future potential leaders and mentees gained exposure to managerial
competencies.
Originality/value – The originality of this research is found in the application of a matrix mentoring
approach. Typically, mentoring programs match one mentor with one mentee. A team of mentors
worked with each of the mentees and engaged in exposing the participants to a range of competencies.
The literature suggests that managerial competencies in a complex setting, like healthcare, need to be
diverse. This research presents one possibility for building such a range of abilities.
Keywords Mentoring, Employee engagement, Formal mentoring, Succession planning,
Managerial competencies, Mixed-methodologies, Employees involvement, Employees participation,
Health care
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
Mentoring has long been recognized as a successful tool to help generate the leaders of
tomorrow. When one considers mentoring programs, though, it is often assumed the
matching involves one mentor and one mentee. This assumption is not unsupported. In
fact, most mentoring relationships have occurred in this manner. But, tomorrow’s
leaders will require diverse and complex skills and is it not possible that one mentor
might not be equipped to provide all the guidance and direction that is needed?
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1879.htm
The authors thank Veronica Grosset for her valuable contribution to the background research
conducted for this study.
LHS
25,3
170
Leadership in Health Services
Vol. 25 No. 3, 2012
pp. 170-185
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1751-1879
DOI 10.1108/17511871211247624
In particular, the healthcare sector represents a sophisticated network of
accountability (Dancer and Smith, 2003), and to further complicate this complex
setting (Rubens and Halperin, 1996), boundaries of responsibility are not often
specified. Therefore, it is particularly important for leaders to encompass a range of
skills and knowledge in administrative processes. A limited degree of this competency
can be obtained through one’s work experience and can be enhanced through a
mentoring relationship in the individual’s particular clinical field (Perrone, 2003).
However, for someone aspiring to a senior administrative position, a higher level of
capability is required. This begs the question of whether or not such individual might
be better prepared through relationships with multiple mentors. A “matrix mentoring”
model is defined by the authors as a formal mentoring program, whereby selected
mentees spend time with a variety of mentors, each responsible for imparting specific
managerial competencies.
The purpose of this article is to examine the effectiveness of a matrix-mentoring
pilot project in a healthcare setting and its ability to build managerial competencies
and enhance levels of employee engagement. The project is described in-depth and the
paper concludes with a synthesis of lessons learned.
Recruitment and retention challenges in healthcare administration
The graying of the nation is upon Canadian employers and has presented important
human resource challenges. In 2007, Statistics Canada (2007) noted that baby boomers
encompassed one half of the Canadian workforce. When this phenomenon is
considered in the context of the Canadian health care system, the situation is
potentially as dire. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (2010) reported that
over one million persons worked in health professions and were slightly older than the
average working Canadian reporting an average age of 41.9 years. So, while an aging
workforce represents its own challenges, there is a secondary issue of worker shortages
in the clinical and health administration fields.
Research conducted near the beginning of the millennium noted a “significant
depletion of health service leaders over the past five to seven years” (as cited in The
Canadian College of Health Service Executives, 2010). Similarly, Statistics Canada
reported that this issue was expected to continue and that the health care field would
be particularly impacted by baby-boomer retirements. Some of the reasons cited for
these recruitment and retention issues included poor succession planning, a lack of
knowledge of required competencies, workload pressures, and low compensation (as
cited in The Canadian College of Health Service Executives, 2010). The same research,
however, noted the gap in currently available information, specifically uncertainty of
labor supply. This problem is not unique to Canada, however. Recruitment in US
hospitals is extremely competitive, particularly for executive positions. For instance, a
2003 report by HFMA suggested significantly high turnover rates among US hospital
CFOs (Dye, 2005), and “every year, one in seven hospital CEOs will transition out of his
or her role” (Garman and Tyler, 2006). Similarly, the UK is also faced with the problem
of an aging population and increasing delivery costs, placing added stress on their
system. Particularly, in the nursing sector, the UK has failed for decades to produce a
sufficient number of effective leaders. Better succession planning and mentoring
opportunities likely will not resolve the issue entirely, but could be a step in the right
direction for hospitals in any geography faced with staffing issues. There is a belief
A rapid matrix
mentoring pilot
171
that because of the nature of hospitals, there is an advantage to be realized by
developing talent from within.
Mentoring for succession planning
The issues plaguing our healthcare system have motivated administrators to identify
new methods to recruit and retain healthcare professionals. Mentoring has attracted
the attention of hospital administrators and several researchers have examined how it
can be instrumental in effective succession planning.
In 2009, Carriere, Muise, Cummings and Newburn-Cook looked more generally at
the succession planning literature and conducted a review of best practices in
healthcare. Their findings revealed that the best models for succession planning were
synonymous in using activities that clarified future expectations with current system
needs and identifying budding successors as future healthcare leaders. The various
succession planning strategies reported support investing time and effort in
determining resources to develop potential successors. Empirical work by Blouin
and McDonagh (2006) support Carrier et al.’s findings. Their case study of a Texas
health system reported that coaching and mentoring is an effective strategy for
succession planning and that an assessment of an employee’s potential must be done
early and continually revisited.
Carriere et al. (2009) also suggest mentoring as a method to build camaraderie
within organizational hierarchies. Because the focus in mentoring is relationship
building between the mentee and mentor, often similarities in skills and strengths
between these groups are emphasized over the limitations or differences that may
exist. While succession activities unleash change in the organization, mentoring
appears to facilitate harmony and accord among the agents of change. The benefit is
even greater when potential candidates receive mentoring from multiple senior leaders.
Work by Redman (2006) emphasized the positive impact of senior leaders in
mentoring for succession planning needs. Not only does it enhance the trainee’s “...
visibility in the organization and help them become known for their talents and
potential” (p. 294), it also equips the trainee with a broader and deeper understanding
of the organization as a whole. Redman states that organizations must consider the
workload of the senior level staff. Facilitating their availability to mentor is, “an
investment in the future of the organization, ensuring that sufficient numbers of
clinical and managerial leaders will be in the pipeline in the future” (p. 295). Clearly
there is support for mentoring as a viable succession planning tool. However,
mentoring has also been recognized as a vehicle to influence corporate culture.
According to McDowall-Long (2004) mentoring directly influences positive
organizational outcomes because of its ability to both “maintain a skilled labor
force” (p. 523) as well as fortify an internal culture that promotes constructive fit
between people and positions in the organization. Mentors enable the transmission of
values and standards that drive high performance and process knowledge between
generations. Without formal facilitation of this information sharing, the organization is
at risk of important business practices being forgotten or lost. Similarly, mentoring
creates a learning focused environment (Haynes and Ghosh, 2008). In order to ready an
organization to meet its future needs, a learning based culture must exist. If succession
planning uses mentoring as a component, then Cadmus (2006) suggests mentoring
must become a workplace experience at all levels of the organization. “You cannot have
LHS
25,3
172
one group moving and another group staying in place” (p. 299). Activities such as
multilevel mentoring and coaching are significant components in meeting this
readiness. How mentoring should occur is less clear, however.
2. Mentoring programs: a brief overview
Mentoring in the business world has generally be described as a professional
development exercise with an aim to “bring together colleagues with different levels of
experience within a company, industry or specialty to work together to improve their
job performance and prospects for advancement” (Reisz, 2004). The literature reveals
resounding support for the mentoring model. Mentored individuals were found to be
more committed to their professions and more likely to be promoted (Chao et al., 1992);
they also were more satisfied and better compensated (Allen et al., 2004). Mentees were
not the only ones who benefited, however. Mentors were found to feel good about
passing on their “intellectual capital” and the organization was perceived to be more
attractive from a recruiting standpoint and realized reduced training time and costs
(Reisz, 2004). Much of the literature has attempted to understand why mentoring
programs/relationships fail or succeed. However, outside the realm of success factors
and mentoring outcomes, a couple of areas that have received limited attention are the
relationship between mentoring and employee engagement (McDowall-Long, 2004)
and the configuration of the mentor/mentee arrangement, hereinafter coined, “matrix
mentoring”.
Mentoring and employee engagement
The kind of perceptions generated in an organization because of mentoring is the basis
for Baranik et al.’s (2010) work on perceived organizational support. Beginning with
the belief that “a mentor may be a lens through which the prote
´ge
´develops beliefs
about his or her organization” (p. 366), the authors hypothesized that when a nurturing
and supportive mentor is seen as a representative of the organization, “they (the
protege) feel obligated to be committed to the organization” (p. 367). Similarly, Triple
Creek Associates (2006) suggest, “Engaged employees believe that senior leaders care
about their personal and professional development, and one of the most desirable and
appreciated developmental opportunities is a mentoring relationship” (p. 7). Other
researchers, notably Egan and Song (2008) looked specifically at the impact of
mentoring on new prote
´ge
´s. The authors compared groups of staff receiving high level
facilitated mentoring, low level facilitated mentoring and no mentoring at all to see
what impact mentoring had on new prote
´ge
´s. Findings suggest, “Employees who
participated in the high level facilitated mentoring program reported greater levels of
job satisfaction, organizational commitment and manager performance ratings than
the low level facilitation group” (p. 358).
Further, Satter and Russ (2007) interviewed 31 successful senior American
executives and found agreement among them that their mentors had played a
significant role in their own professional development and positively impacted their
job productivity. Supporting this is a study conducted by the Corporate Leadership
Council in 2004 identifying, “having an effective mentor is the single most effective
lever for employee engagement and results in an average 25.5 percent increase in
productivity” (p. 387). Participants receiving mentoring are not the only ones reporting
a higher level enthusiasm and motivations in their career. Bolman Pullins and Fine
A rapid matrix
mentoring pilot
173
(2003) report the experience of providing exposure for the mentee often rejuvenates the
mentor by earning recognition in the organization as a mentor. Similarly, Woolnough
et al. (2006) suggest the mentor’s experience of exposure to organizational issues often
results in an increased desire on the part of the mentor to influence change in the
organization. These outcomes are all indicators of increased levels of engagement.
Multiple mentors in a matrix format
It has been recognized in the literature that formal mentoring has assumed a dyadic
relationship. Egan and Song (2008) refer to mentoring as “deliberately pair(ing)
employees or managers with moderate to high levels of experience with employees
who have less experience” (p. 352). Eby and Allen (2009) similarly state that
“relationships develop ... between two individuals”; Reisz (2004) and McLaughlin
(2010) refer to the relationship as being “one-on-one”. However, when one considers the
diverse roles of a mentor (Ragins and Cotton, 1999; Dancer, 2003), the question is raised
of whether or not this function could be achieved more effectively with more than one
person. Research by Finley et al. (2007) has revealed that it is not uncommon for people
to have more than one mentor during their career. Their study surveyed healthcare
professionals and found that approximately 64 percent of respondents had two or more
mentors. Pegg (1999) has stated that mentoring is “part of everyday life through,
friends, relatives, acquaintances and strangers”. In the same vein, other researchers
(Olson et al., 2004) examining formal mentoring programs recommend providing
people with multiple mentors. There is a belief that an initial network model will make
it possible to introduce mentees to a more natural advisor. Further, it is believed that
mentees can benefit through exposure to more diverse perspectives. Warren et al.
(2008) speculate whether mentees might gain from what they call “multi-professional”
learning or learning alongside people from other professional backgrounds. This may
enable understanding of others’ perspectives and a “breakdown (of) professional silos”.
In a hospital setting it appears that this model might be particularly applicable because
of the complex and dynamic nature of the field (de Janasz and Sullivan, 2004).
3. Pilot study: design, purpose and methodology
The study used a mixed-method design with pre and post pilot evaluation phases
involving both qualitative and quantitative data collection. Focus groups were held
separately with both mentee and mentor groups. In addition, mentees completed
questionnaires that assessed their levels of managerial competency and engagement.
This study was guided by the following research questions:
RQ1. To determine if exposing mentees to managerial competencies assists them
with development of managerial competencies.
RQ2. To determine if a mentoring system enhances mentee employee
engagement.
RQ3. Do determine if matrix mentoring causes mentees to gain a broader insight
to divisional managerial responsibilities, different management styles, and
broader experiences.
RQ4. To determine if mentee projects allow for managerial growth opportunities
for the mentee.
LHS
25,3
174
Project description and participant selection
The case study organization was the Cape Breton District Health Authority (CBDHA)
located in Nova Scotia, Canada. CBDHA has a workforce of 3900 staff and over 250
physicians, possessing a mean age of 45.4 years. Since 2007, 50 percent of the senior
team has retired, while 13 percent of the Hospital Management group (199 Directors,
Managers and Supervisors) has retired. In 2005, the organization began a leadership
development program for front line staff interested in such training. A matrix
mentoring project pilot was introduced in 2009/2010 as another way to address staff
development.
Using a matrix approach, Mentees (staff) were assigned Mentors (Directors) from
other departments. The project had two facets: mentoring days and mentee projects.
The Mentoring days were set at a pre-scheduled cycle each month. Mentees rotated to
all Mentors in the project and by the end of the six month pilot, spent one day with each
mentor. Mentees were also assigned one mentor who was not their current
Departmental Director. This mentor gave the mentee experience in an area different
from his or her current work assignment through completion of a mini-project
achievable in a six-month timeframe. The project was guided by the Mentor/Mentee
relationship. It should also be acknowledged that the form of mentoring undertaken in
this project was closely related to “speed mentoring”. At the extreme, speed mentoring
has mentees rotate musical-chair style in a group setting, spending a limited amount of
time with senior level executives. It is a better way to “get workers (both men and
women) familiar with mentoring options and to get them in front of more execs outside
their departments” (Fest, 2010) Matrix mentoring in this project was not delivered
quite so rapidly, it did not mirror traditional mentoring formats.
Mentors were the Directors and Vice President in one of the hospital’s divisions and
they represented such areas as physiotherapy; respiratory therapy; quality, education
and legal services; palliative care; cancer treatment; pharmacy, and rehabilitative
services. Mentees or study participants were chosen through an open call promoted
throughout the organization. Seven mentee participants were selected based on criteria
outlined on the application form. Specifically, the selection criteria assessed whether
participants had completed or were enrolled in the hospital’s Leadership Development
Program, had identified expanding their managerial competencies in a recent
performance evaluation, had participated in a hospital committee, had previously been
interviewed for a managerial position, had demonstrated commitment to life long
learning and had an exemplary attendance record. Of the selected participants, one was
an industrial engineer, three were from nursing backgrounds, one was a respiratory
therapist and two were physiotherapists. With regard to seniority, one had been with
the employer for less than five years, three were employed between ten and 15 years,
two between 15 and 20 years and one more than 20 years. Because the mentoring
program was a pilot, the sample size of seven each of mentors/mentees was kept to a
manageable number. These demographics adequately represent the clinical/non
clinical ratio of staff within the District. Prior to the pilot start, both groups
participated together in a three-hour orientation which included topics such as giving
and receiving feedback, and clarifying expectations and responsibilities of both the
mentor and mentee roles.
A rapid matrix
mentoring pilot
175
4. Results
Mentee and mentor focus groups
A content analysis of the focus group results revealed the following themes:
(1) an increased level of mentee visibility;
(2) enhanced relationship building;
(3) heightened focus on decision making and communication;
(4) provoked perceptual change; and
(5) realized organizational transformation.
See Table I for a summary of focus group results.
The majority of both the mentee and mentor groups reported a direct benefit in the
enhanced mentee/mentor visibility across the organization. One mentor commented,
“I think it’s been really helpful for me ... I just think it kind of raises that awareness
of different roles.” Another stated, “It’s good to see different avenues ... it certainly
was an advantage to meet people that I haven’t met before.” The mentees expressed
similar levels of agreement and made comments such as, “just making those
connections is a big benefit.” This increased visibility worked both ways: mentees
became more aware of the roles of senior managers and mentors became acquainted
with emerging talent.
This enhanced level of visibility was also closely tied to the benefit of greater
relationship building reported by both groups. One mentor said, “I thought it was great
because ...I got to know people in other departments.” The mentees were perhaps a bit
more influenced by the networking benefits. One said, “networking has been
instrumental for my new job.” A second believed, “the networking was amazing,” and
another agreed, “(it was amazing for) me too, a lot times you see people’s names but
you don’t know who they are.”
Another important observation by the majority of mentors was the need to give
more conscious effort to how they communicate decisions. In the post-pilot focus group
with mentors, the following comment was made: “I think it’s caused me to reflect on
how I make decisions and how I communicate those decisions.” Another stated, “The
decision was not off the cuff...and I thought it was important to at least let the mentee
know that so ...” The mentors said that through the process of explaining things to
their mentees, they began to reflect on the rationale behind decisions. Mentees believed
the experience helped them to facilitate open style communication because they were
able to pass on the knowledge they had gained to others in their own department.
There was potentially a direct and immediate positive impact because of this aspect of
the project. This conclusion was supported by the following statements: “I mean
anything you learn differently, you took back to work and shared with the others. You
know the manager always asked the next day, how things went ...”, and “to me, it was
like communication and education ... they took the time to explain why they were
doing it and it made sense.”
Both groups also reported learning from the experience. Mentors engaged in deeper
self reflection about their role and the organization itself. One mentor said, “Sometimes
I think you just internalize the things you do and so I think it does make you reflect. It
makes you kind of question is that the best way to be doing it?” Another stated, “It
made you look at your scope of work ... things that you take for granted, you do as
LHS
25,3
176
Focus group themes Mentees Mentors
Increased mentee visibility
across the division
“Just making those connections is a big benefit”
“Especially for me coming from the rurals”
“Getting to know us and who’s available in the
District”
“I think it’s been really helpful for me ... I just think
it kind of raises that awareness of different roles”
“Getting to talk to people from the rural sites and
hearing, um, what is happening there and other
departments”
“It’s good to see different avenues ...it certainly was
an advantage to meet people that I haven’t met
before”
Enhanced relationship
building across the division
“Networking has been instrumental for my new job”
“The networking was amazing”
“Me too, a lot times you see people’s names but you
don’t know who they are”
“I think it’s really a good thing ... it’s amazing some
of the ones I thought I have never seen before, I meet
on a weekly basis”
“I think that kind of networking ... relationships
really brought this project to completion. It’s a win as
far as I’m concerned”
“I thought it was great because ... I got to know
people in other departments”
Heightened focus on decision-
making and communication
processes
“I mean anything you learned differently, you took
back to work and shared with the others. You know
the manager always asked the next day, how things
went ...”
“To me, it was like communication and education ...
they took the time to explain why they were doing it
and it made sense”
“I’d like to think some of the questions we asked
might have stimulated some thoughts”
“I think it’s caused me to reflect on how I make
decisions and how I communicate those decisions”
“The decision was not off the cuff ...and I thought it
was important to at least let the mentee know that
so ...”
“Saying ‘okay this is what I know, this is why I said
this, this is why I did that’ so that they could see a
significant rationale”
(continued)
Table I.
Mentor and mentee focus
group themes
A rapid matrix
mentoring pilot
177
Focus group themes Mentees Mentors
Provoked change Perceptual change of management Reflective learning
“It certainly opened my eyes to what their role is”
“Just being shown what management does ... it’s not
just back and white”
“As a clinician, you are always looking at things from
the clinical side but now you sort have a broader
perspective”
“You know we’re really lucky to have them here in our
District ...I really wasn’t expecting that. You know
you think management ... you think stifling ...”
“Sometimes I think you just internalize the things
you do, and so I think it does make you reflect. It
makes you kind of question ‘is that the best way to
be doing it?’”
“It made you look at your scope of work ... things
that you take for granted, you do as second nature”
“So I think you are affected by the ‘teaching others’
for sure”
Competency enhancement
“We’re given the tools ...”
“I guess it (mentoring) introduces you to some of the
skills actually in that position”
“Being exposed to these individuals allowed us to see
all those skills that we’re learning ... being
implemented which I found very valuable”
Personal transformation
“More confidence”
“A little more assertive”
“Before this, you weren’t examining your career
choices closely. Now I find I’m asking ... could I do
that? Do I want to do that? And if I do, what’s the
next step?”
Mentoring as a conduit for
organizational
transformation
“You can almost field things and make things a little
easier so it doesn’t flow up into this big thing ...
because you have somebody there who says, “you
know what, there’s more to it than that. It’s not that
easy”
“Makes you think ‘what can I do now to maybe make
it easier for them.’ You realize that they are strapped”
No comments in this regard by Mentors
Table I.
LHS
25,3
178
second nature.” The mentees experienced a changed view of management, a sense of
competency development, and in some cases even personal transformation. The
mentees said “It certainly opened my eyes to what their role is” and “just shown for
what management does ... it’s not just back and white.” Another collective view is
expressed in the statement, “As a clinician, you are always looking at things on the
clinical side but now you sort of have a broader perspective.” Aside from the perceptual
change, mentees agree they gained competencies as expressed by the following quotes:
“We’re given the tools ...”; “I guess it (mentoring) introduces you to some of the skills
actually in that position.” and “being exposed to these individuals allowed us to see all
those skills that we’re learning ... being implemented, which I found very valuable.”
Finally, on a personal level mentees believed they had changed. They believed they
were more confident, and “a little more assertive”.
Finally, several of the mentees identified opportunities to facilitate more harmony
and teamwork since exposure to this broader perspective. They regarded themselves
as direct agents of change. One stated, “You can almost field things and make things a
little easier so it doesn’t blow up into this big thing ...”. So, mentees believed they
could potentially avert misconceptions surrounding decisions or events. They also
believed they could possibly do things or come up with ideas to make it “easier for
them (management)”.
Mentee self-assessment of managerial and leadership competencies
On a five-point Likert scale mentees conducted pre and post pilot self-assessments of
their management and leadership competencies. The five point scale ranged from
1¼no experience to 5 ¼experienced, can mentor. Tables II and III summarize the
mean scores reported by the mentee group.
For every scale item except one (participation, which is a competency still under
construction and promotion within the case agency), mentees believed their
competency level had improved.
Management competencies Pre-pilot mean Post-pilot mean Difference
Client services 2.57 3.14 0.57
Salary administration 1.29 2.29 1.00
Recruitment and selection 1.29 2.43 1.14
Financial management 1.57 2.14 0.57
Attendance and disability management 1.43 2.14 0.71
Occupational health and safety 1.71 2.71 1.00
Labor relations 1.71 2.00 0.29
Quality management 2.14 2.57 0.43
Change management 1.86 2.43 0.57
Process engineering 1.86 2.29 0.43
Risk management 2.14 2.43 0.29
Confidentiality and privacy 2.86 3.86 1.00
Healthy workplace 2.29 3.57 1.29
Materials management 1.57 2.14 0.57
Patient safety 2.57 3.86 1.29
Table II.
Mentee pre and post
self-assessment of
management
competencies
A rapid matrix
mentoring pilot
179
Mentee self-assessment of employee engagement
According to Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) work engagement is the assumed opposite of
burnout. Contrary to those who suffer from burnout, engaged employees have a sense
of energetic and effective connection with their work activities and they see themselves
as able to deal well with the demands of their job. The Utrecht Engagement Scale
(Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003) is based on three aspects of work engagement: vigor,
dedication and absorption. The scale assesses how often you feel a certain way when at
work. The seven items range from 0 ¼never, 1 ¼almost never, 2 ¼rarely,
3¼sometimes, 4 ¼often, 5 ¼very often and 6 ¼every day. In every instance,
mentees reported increased levels of engagement. See Table IV.
Lessons learned
Several recommendations were made for future mentoring programs. One conclusion
was that dedicated facilitation of the mentoring process would enhance the program
effectiveness. A possible strategy would be for future programs to include established
facilitation mechanisms. An example would be to incorporate group processes for
competency development. Another avenue would be for the human resource
department to provide facilitation support. Egan and Song (2008) drew a similar
conclusion. “A formal mentoring relationship is not developed naturally; instead it is a
facilitated process” (p. 359). The facilitator can support orientation, ongoing
monitoring of the process and help with mentee/mentor pairing. “Results of the
current study suggest that a fast-paced minimalist approach to formal mentoring may
not be most effective. Programs with ongoing facilitation can be significantly more
effective, while requiring a relatively small additional investment of time and effort” (p.
359) Additionally, there must be careful participant selection with succession planning
requirements in mind.
It was also concluded that sufficient opportunity needs to exist for relationship
building between mentees and mentors. All participants were very positive about the
matrix “rotational” approach but believed they were attempting to cover too much in
Leadership competencies Pre-pilot mean Post-pilot mean Difference
Problem solving 3.29 3.71 0.43
Time management 3.86 4.14 0.29
Planning and organizing 3.71 3.86 0.14
Setting goals and objectives 3.00 3.71 0.71
Performance leadership 2.71 3.14 0.43
Team development 2.86 3.00 0.14
Participation 4.00 3.86 -0.14
Providing feedback 2.71 3.43 0.71
Stress management 3.00 3.57 0.57
Maintaining integrity 3.71 4.14 0.43
Commitment to organization 3.86 4.29 0.43
Communicating effectively 3.14 4.00 0.86
Delegating 2.29 3.71 1.43
Coaching and counseling 2.14 3.29 1.14
Integrating differences 2.29 3.57 1.29
Table III.
Mentee pre and post
self-assessment of
leadership competencies
LHS
25,3
180
the timeframe. Most mentees would have liked to get to better know their mentors.
Mentors also believed there were confidentiality challenges. This same sentiment has
been expressed by Waters et al. (2003, p. 525), “... both parties seek on-going
relationships in mentoring, and that time is necessary for the founding of
confidentiality and trust”.
Participants also believed that there needs to be clarity surrounding program
structure, goals, guidelines, and expectations. Mentees need to understand the
boundaries of their mentor-mentee relationship and initiate contact when needed. As
well, there needs to be an in-depth review of performance development tools available
for mentors. “A well designed orientation session can help participants understand the
objectives of the program and the guidelines in building constructive mentoring
relationships” (Egan and Song, 2008, p. 359).
Finally, the mini-projects were considered to be a positive aspect of the pilot and
beneficial to the District. For example, the construction and dissemination of an end
user survey helped to identify needed improvements in a patient safety reporting
system while another project assessing high risk respiratory therapy delivery has
helped identify efficiencies for the respiratory team to support these sensitive cases.
However, the mentee group agree that the scope and scale of the projects were too
extensive. Mentees did not believe they possessed the range of resources required and
felt they could benefit from a multi-disciplinary supervisory committee. The
recommendation is to continue with the project, but give careful consideration to the
objectives and the timeframe. It was unfortunate that some mentees experienced a
degree of stress from the mini-project assignment. However, most mentees believed the
project facilitated the development of managerial and leadership competencies.
Engagement scale items Pre-pilot mean Post-pilot mean Difference
At my work, I feel bursting with energy 4.86 5.00 0.14
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose 5.14 5.29 0.15
Time flies when I am working 5.29 5.71 0.42
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous 4.86 5.29 0.43
I am enthusiastic about my job 5.14 5.43 0.29
When I am working, I forget everything else around
me 4.00 5.00 1.00
My job inspires me 4.86 5.14 0.28
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to
work 4.14 5.14 1.00
I feel happy when I am working intensely 5.43 5.71 0.28
I am proud of the work that I do 5.29 5.57 0.28
I am immersed in my work 4.86 5.43 0.57
I can continue working for very long periods at a
time 4.57 5.57 1.00
To me, my job is challenging 4.29 4.86 0.57
I get carried away when I am working 3.86 5.00 1.14
At my job, I am resilient, mentally 5.00 5.14 0.14
It is difficult to detach myself from my job 3.29 4.86 1.57
At my work I always persevere, even when things do
not go well 5.14 5.29 0.15
Table IV.
Mentee self-assessment of
employee engagement
A rapid matrix
mentoring pilot
181
Mentors agreed that projects were selected based on real need and felt projects were
completed to a satisfactory level.
5. Discussion
This project set out to answer four guiding research questions. The first was to
determine if exposing staff to a variety of mentors with managerial competencies
would assist them with development of managerial competencies. Mentees
self-reported increased levels of managerial and leadership competency. It was
believed that mentor/mentee days provided exposure, and that the development came
through work on mini-projects. Another objective was to determine if mentoring
enhances employee engagement. Results from the Utrecht Engagement Scale clearly
demonstrate positive findings. The majority of mentees believed the mini-project
produced feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment. A third objective was to
determine if a matrix mentoring approach provided greater managerial exposures and
broader experiences. Again, this finding was supported. Mentees agreed they saw
many different styles of management and gained a broader understanding of
managerial roles and responsibilities. The final research question sought to determine
if mentee projects allowed for mentee managerial growth. The general conclusion is
that the projects did support managerial growth, yet it was also determined that the
projects caused much frustration, sometimes at the expense of self-development. This
needs to be addressed in future mentoring programs.
Seven candidates were chosen for the mentoring project; one candidate left the
project for personal reasons. In the year after the project completion, all seven mentees
remain employed within the District. Two mentees have assumed management
positions, and another two have assumed coordinator roles. Upon reflection, the case
study organization has decided to pursue mentoring for another year and is
considering the use of an action learning methodology to further clarify the mentoring
model’s “procedures as the complexity of activities increases” (Stringer, 1999, p. 18).
Skill teaching modules will move to a team based setting, rather than individual
settings; and projects will be assigned to a team, rather than individuals. Research
results suggested more guidance for the projects, and the organization will attempt to
address this. As well, the next program will extend over nine months and introduce a
more comprehensive orientation. The matrix approach in participant assignment will
be maintained, as it was believed to help broaden network and competency
development.
References
Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L., Lentz, E. and Lima, L. (2004), “Career benefits associated with
mentoring for proteges: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 127-36.
Baranik, L.E., Roling, E.A. and Eby, L.T. (2010), “Why does mentoring work? The role of
perceived organizational support”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 366-73.
Blouin, A.S. and McDonagh, K.J. (2006), “Leading tomorrow’s healthcare organizations:
strategies and tactics for effective succession planning”, The Journal of Nursing
Administration, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 325-30.
Bolman Pullins, E. and Fine, L. (2003), “How the performance of mentoring activities affects the
mentor’s job outcomes”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 259-71.
LHS
25,3
182
Cadmus, E. (2006), “Succession planning; multilevel organizational strategies for the new
workforce”, The Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 298-303.
Canadian Institute for Health Information (2010), “Canada’s health care providers 2007”,
available at: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/disPage.jsp?cw_page¼media_03dec2007_e
(accessed June 23).
Carriere, B.K., Muise, M., Cummings, G. and Newburn-Cook, C. (2009), “Healthcare succession
planning: an integrative review”, The Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 39 No. 12,
pp. 548-55.
Chao, G., Walz, P. and Gardner, P. (1992), “Formal and informal mentorships: a comparison on
mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 45, pp. 619-36.
Dancer, J.M. (2003), “Mentoring in healthcare: theory in search of practice?”, Clinician in
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 21-31.
Dancer, J.M. and Smith, D. (2003), The Incubation and Escalation of Crisis, University of
Liverpool Science and Enterprise Centre, Liverpool.
de Janasz, S.C. and Sullivan, S.E. (2004), “Multiple mentoring in academe: developing the
professorial network”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 263-83.
Dye, C.F. (2005), “Is anyone next in line?”, Healthcare Financial Management, February, pp. 64-7.
Eby, L.T. and Allen, T.D. (2009), “Moving toward interdisciplinary dialogue in mentoring
scholarship: an introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 72
No. 2, pp. 159-67.
Egan, T.M. and Song, Z. (2008), “Are facilitated mentoring programs beneficial? A randomized
experimental field study”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 351-62.
Fest, G. (2010), “Top team: executive class”, US Banker, Vol. 120 No. 10, pp. 73-80.
Finley, F.R., Ivanitskaya, L.V. and Kennedy, M.H. (2007), “Mentoring junior healthcare
administrators: a description of mentoring practices in 127 US hospitals”, Journal of
Healthcare Management, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 260-70.
Garman, A.N. and Tyler, J.L. (2006), “Succession planning at the top”, Healthcare Executive,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 57-9.
Hayens, R.W. and Ghosh, R. (2008), “Mentoring and succession management: an evaluate
approach to the strategic collaboration model”, Review of Business, Vol. 28 No. 2.
McDowall-Long, K. (2004), “Mentoring relationships: implications for practitioners and
suggestions for future research”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 7
No. 4, pp. 519-34.
McLaughlin, C. (2010), “Mentoring: what is it? How do we do it and how do we get more of it?”,
Health Services Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 871-84.
Olson, D., Prybil, L. and Hilber, J. (2004), “Revisiting the role of mentoring in healthcare
management development”, The Journal of Health Administration Education, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 371-81.
Pegg, M. (1999), “The art of mentoring”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 136-41.
Perrone, J. (2003), “Creating a mentoring culture”, Healthcare Executive, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 84-5.
A rapid matrix
mentoring pilot
183
Ragins, B. and Cotton, J. (1999), “Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of men and
women in formal and informal mentoring relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 84, pp. 529-50.
Redman, R.W. (2006), “Leadership succession planning: an evidence-based approach for
managing the future”, The Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 292-7.
Reisz, S. (2004), “Mentoring: a cost-effective retention tool”, Catalyst, May/June No. 4.
Rubens, A.J. and Halperin, R.W. (1996), “Mentoring in health care organizations”, Hospital
Topics, Vol. 74 No. 4, p. 23.
Satter, A.M. and Russ, D.E. (2007), “Why don’t more senior leaders mentor? And how they are
mortgaging their company’s future in the process”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 382-90.
Schaufeli, W. and Bakker, A. (2003), Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, Occupational Health
Psychology Unit, Utrecht University, Utrecht, (accessed September 2009).
Statistics Canada (2007), “Study: participation of older workers”, available at: wwwstatcan.gc.ca/
daily-quotidien/070824/dq070824a_eng.htm (accessed June 23).
Stringer, E.T. (1999), Action Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
The Canadian College of Health Service Executives (2010), “Supply of health leaders and
managers – identifying the right numbers and competencies required”, available at: www.
cchse.org/printed.asp?active_page_id¼2148 (accessed June 23).
Triple Creek Associates (2006), “Mentoring & engagement: sustaining organizational success”,
available at: www.3creek.com/index.php?option¼com_moofaq&view¼category&id¼1&
Itemid¼75 (accessed June 2010).
Warren, O.J., Humphris, P. and Bicknell, C.D. (2008), “‘Prepare to lead’: reflections on the first
year of a leadership development mentoring programme for specialist and GP registrars in
London”, International Journal of Clinical Leadership, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 149-55.
Waters, D., Clarke, M., Harris Ingall, A. and Dean-Jones, M. (2003), “Evaluation of a pilot
mentoring programme for nurse managers”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 42 No. 5,
pp. 516-26.
Woolnough, H.M., Davidson, M.J. and Fieldon, S.L. (2006), “The experience of mentors on a career
development and mentoring programme for female mental health nurses in the UK
National Health Service”, Health Services Management Research, Vol. 19, pp. 186-96.
Further reading
Burt, T. (2005), “Leadership development as corporate strategy: using talent reviews to improve
senior management”, Healthcare Executive, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 14-18.
McAlearney, A.S. (2010), “Executive leadership development in US health systems”, Journal of
Healthcare Management, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 206-22.
Meehan, D. and Green, H. (2002), “Planning for success”, Nursing Management – UK, Vol. 9 No. 7,
p. 6.
Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University (2003), “Utrecht work engagement
scale”, available at: www.schaufeli.com/downloads/tests/Test%20manual%20UWES.pdf
(accessed September 2009).
Review of Business (2008), “Mentoring and succession management: an evaluative approach to
the strategic collaboration model”, available at: www.thefreelibrary.com (accessed June 30).
LHS
25,3
184
About the authors
Sherry Finney is an Associate Professor in the Department of Organizational Management at
Cape Breton University (CBU), Nova Scotia, Canada. She received a Bachelor of Business
Administration from CBU, a Master of Business Administration from Saint Mary’s University,
Canada and a PhD from the University of Warwick, UK. Her research interests include internal
marketing for change management, managerial competencies, and case research/writing. Sherry
Finney is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: sherry_finney@cbu.ca
Judy MacDougall is an Organizational Consultant at the Cape Breton District Health
Authority (CBDHA), Nova Scotia, Canada. She received a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology from
Cape Breton University and a Master of Arts in Leadership from Royal Roads University, British
Columbia, Canada. Her research interests include leadership development, organizational health
and wellness and team mastery.
Mary Lou O’Neill is the VP Clinical for the Cape Breton District Health Authority. She holds a
Master’s degree in Nursing from Dalhousie University, and Master of Business Administration
from Saint Mary’s University. She is also a certified health executive with the Canadian College
of Health Service Executives. Mary Lou has published in national nursing and health care
journals in such subject areas as managerial motivation, policy and procedure development,
regional accreditation, regional quality management, and e-business applications for health care,
among others.
A rapid matrix
mentoring pilot
185
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner.Furtherreproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.
