Content uploaded by Peter De Cuyper
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter De Cuyper on Aug 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
Academic Paper
Matching mentors and recent immigrants:
matching criteria in social mentoring
programmes for newcomers
Peter De Cuyper ✉ (University of Leuven)
Michelle Crijns (Wilde Ganzen Foundation)
Abstract
To improve the social participation of newcomer immigrants, social mentoring programs for
newcomers have gained in popularity. This paper attempts to bring some clarity to the practice
of social mentoring for newcomers by focusing on an important step in the mentoring process:
matching. Through insights from practice, this research provides an overview of the most
common matching criteria in social mentoring programs for newcomers. Criteria include,
participants’ needs, goals, skills, expectations, interests, language, age and gender. The
findings provide important insights for policy and practice and offer a solid starting point for
further empirical research into matching migrant newcomers.
Keywords
matching, mentoring, immigrants, integration, criteria
Article history
Accepted for publication: 11 July 2023
Published online: 01 August 2023
© the Author(s)
Published by Oxford Brookes University
Introduction
Social participation is considered a key dimension of successful migrant integration. Yet, host
countries often prioritise the labour market integration of newcomers. To address the need for
social participation initiatives, social mentoring programs for newcomers have proliferated in many
migrant-receiving countries in recent years, especially in response to the refugee crisis, and are
known by a multitude of names including ‘buddy programs’, ‘parrainage’, and ‘patenschaften.’
While initially driven by civil society, this intervention has become increasingly institutionalised in
some European countries as exemplified by its prominent role in Flemish integration policy which
will go into effect in September 2022 and seeks to strengthen newcomers’ social network and
participation with the help of, among other options, social mentoring. In this respect social
mentoring will become a formal part of integration policies (Reidsma & De Cuyper, 2021).
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
With the proliferation of social mentoring programs for newcomers, there is a need to delineate the
concept and to gain a better understanding of best practices. Extant literature on mentoring tends
to focus on more established forms of mentoring such as youth mentoring (Lester et al., 2019;
Martin & Sifers, 2012), workplace mentoring (Hieker & Rushby, 2020; Parise & Forret, 2008; Allen
et al., 2006; Eby & Lockwood, 2005), student mentoring (Skaniakos & Piirainen, 2019) and more
recently, mentoring to work (De Cuyper et al., 2019; Weiss & Tulin, 2019; Månsson & Delander,
2017). While social mentoring for newcomers shares similarities with other forms of mentoring, its
unique objectives and challenges necessitate a deeper exploration of its particularities and existing
practices to establish a common ground and better inform future policy, practice and research.
One key dimension of social mentoring for newcomers that is crucially important yet hardly studied
is the process by which newcomers are matched with volunteers from the host society. Research
has found that matching has a significant impact on the outcome of formal mentoring programs
(Hale, 2000), and the quality of the match, or the lack thereof, can significantly impact both mentor
and mentee (Cox, 2005). According to Menges (2016), formal mentoring programs should try to
approximate the natural attraction present in informal mentoring relationships. While it is difficult if
not impossible to account for all factors that create a connection or attraction between two people,
programs can match participants in a manner that resembles or at least facilitates natural attraction
and, in doing so, contribute to a more successful mentoring relationship.
In general, studies on matching are limited and often focus on other types of mentoring such as
student mentoring (Menges, 2016; Kanchewa et al., 2014; Blake-Beard et al., 2011; Campbell &
Campbell, 2007), youth mentoring (Raposa et al., 2019; Spencer et al., 2019), and mentoring to
work (Neuwirth & Wahl, 2017; Cox, 2005). They tend to offer different and at times contradictory
results on the impact of specific matching criteria on the mentoring relationship and do not offer a
comprehensive overview of the matching criteria commonly used in practice. Since matching is
informed by the objectives, needs and context of the mentoring relationship and its participants, it
does not suffice to use extant research to inform matching in social mentoring programs for
newcomers. Instead, we set out to explore the perspectives of organisations that offer such
programs and identify which matching criteria are most used in social mentoring programs for
newcomers. Such knowledge could provide researchers with a better understanding of a relatively
new and minimally studied form of mentoring and inform both policy and practice with relevant
insights and best practices.
Social mentoring for newcomers: defining a new concept
As a new and emerging field of mentoring, there is a need to define and demarcate the concept of
social mentoring for newcomers. While general definitions of mentoring offer a starting point, the
unique challenges, objectives, and context of social mentoring for newcomers demand a definition
that distinguishes it from other types of mentoring and bring together under one umbrella those
initiatives that seek to facilitate the social integration of newcomer immigrants.
Even though there is no single definition of mentoring, one of the more traditional and generally
applicable definitions defines mentoring as “a transformative relationship in which an experienced
person helps a less experienced person realize their personal and professional goals” (Kram, 1985;
Levinson, 1978, in Yip & Kram, 2017, p. 88).
Many researchers have built and expanded on this definition though some defining characteristics
remain similar across the diverse range of definitions. De Cuyper et al. (2019) identified seven
‘building blocks’ for migrant mentoring to work, which also provide useful insights for our research.
The seven key attributes are:
1. The mentor has more knowledge and experience about a set objective than the mentee
2. The mentoring relationship facilitates the growth of the mentee
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
3. The mentoring relationship has an objective that is clear to both parties
4. The relationship between the mentor and mentee is the active ingredient of mentoring and while
not a goal itself, it is a pre-condition necessary to work towards other objectives
5. The mentor and mentee voluntarily commit to the mentoring relationship
6. While asymmetrical, the mentoring relationship is reciprocal in nature
7. A third actor (organisation) facilitates and supervises the mentoring relationship
Using the seven building blocks, De Cuyper et al. (2019, p. 117) arrive at the following definition of
migrant mentoring to work:
A person with more localised experience (mentor) provides guidance to a person with less
experience (mentee), the objective of which is to support the mentee in making sustainable
progress in his or her journey into the labour market. Both mentor and mentee voluntarily
commit to this and establish contact on a regular basis. The relationship is initiated, facilitated,
and supported by a third actor (organisation). While asymmetrical, the mentoring relationship is
of a reciprocal nature.
Through our research into social mentoring programs for newcomers, we find that all seven
attributes are supported by practitioners. Another interesting definition is the one used by Prieto-
Flores & Feu Gelis (2018) who define social mentoring programs as “those programs that
encourage new peer or group relationships with the aim of influencing the social inclusion of people
who are at risk of social exclusion” (p. 151).
Taking these definitions which are applicable to a similar target group (De Cuyper et al., 2019) and
type of mentoring (Prieto-Flores & Feu Gelis, 2018), we can begin to formulate a definition for
social mentoring for migrant newcomers. To distinguish the definition of social mentoring for
newcomers from other forms of mentoring, we further specify its target groups (members of the
host society and migrant newcomers) as well as its overarching goal (to support the social
participation and integration of the mentee). In doing so, we arrive at the following definition for
social mentoring for newcomers:
A person from the host society (mentor) provides guidance to a migrant newcomer (mentee),
the objective of which is to support the social participation and integration of the mentee. Both
mentor and mentee voluntarily commit to this and establish contact on a regular basis. The
relationship is initiated, facilitated, and supported by a third actor (organisation). While
asymmetrical, the mentoring relationship is of a reciprocal nature.
The matching process
Research has found that the matching process has a significant impact on the success of formal
mentoring programs (Allen et al., 2009; Hale, 2000). While a good match can result in a successful
mentoring relationship and positive outcomes, a mismatch can significantly lessen the benefits of
mentoring or even do harm with participants reporting stress and intentions to terminate the
mentoring relationship (Eby & Allen, 2002). To avoid such negative outcomes, “it is of critical
importance to match mentors and protégés in ways that resemble or at least facilitate some of the
natural attraction that drives informal mentoring relationships” (Menges, 2016, p. 100). One of the
most important questions for mentoring programs is thus which matching criteria contribute to a
successful mentoring relationship.
Extant literature offers some insights into the best matching criteria though results are mostly
limited to youth mentoring, student mentoring, and mentoring at work. Matching criteria that have
been discussed extensively are sociodemographic characteristics such as gender, age, race, and
ethnicity. Yet, conclusions on their effectiveness as matching criteria differ. While some research
has shown that sociodemographic similarities such as ethnicity, race, and gender contribute to
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
longer and more successful mentoring relationships (Ensher & Murphy, 1997; McKeen & Bujaki,
2007; Raposa et al., 2019), other research finds no correlation (Eby et al., 2013) or only for some
sociodemographic characteristics and mentoring outcomes (Blake-Beard et al., 2011; Campbell &
Campbell, 2007; Lankau et al., 2005; Neuwirth & Wahl, 2017).
In addition to sociodemographic characteristics, research on matching criteria has also focused on
so-called ‘deep-level’ characteristics such as personality, interests, attitudes, beliefs, and values
(Eby et al., 2013; Madia & Lutz, 2004; Menges, 2016). In comparison with more surface-level
characteristics such as gender and race, deep-level similarities demonstrate stronger positive
effects on the mentoring relationship. Deep-level similarities (or perceptions thereof) have been
found to positively influence perceptions of support and the relationship quality (Eby et al., 2013;
Menges, 2016), satisfaction and effectiveness of the program (Neuwirth & Wahl, 2017), and
mentor’s intention to remain in the mentoring relationship (Madia & Lutz, 2004).
Some research has also tried to determine the importance of practical considerations such as
geographical location and time availability to the mentoring relationship. According to Eby et al.
(2013), interaction frequency strongly correlates with mentees’ perceptions of relationship quality,
especially in terms of psychosocial support. Other studies have further confirmed the importance of
considering geographical location and time availability during the matching process (Eby &
Lockwood, 2005) with Cox (2005) even arguing that, through the careful selection and training of
mentors, matching is only necessary in terms of participants’ geographical location and time
availability.
A final recurring topic in the literature on matching pertains to the involvement of mentors and
mentees in the matching process. Programs that allow some input from mentors and mentees
report greater commitment to the relationship, more willingness to spend time together, greater
ability to work through conflict, and increased interest in maintaining the relationship after the
conclusion of the mentoring program (Blake-Beard et al, 2007). Input has further been shown to
positively influence perceptions of program effectiveness, mentor commitment, and program
understanding (Allen et al., 2006). The importance of soliciting input from participants has been
further underscored by Drew et al. (2020), Menges (2016), and Wanberg et al. (2003).
Despite the existing research on matching, little is known about the matching process and criteria
in social mentoring initiatives and the matching of volunteers with adult newcomer immigrants. In
fact, even though social mentoring initiatives for newcomers are an increasingly popular approach
to support migrant integration, no research has so far been conducted into the matching in such
initiatives. While research on matching in other types of mentoring can offer insights for social
mentoring, the unique challenges, objectives, context, and target group of social mentoring for
newcomers necessitate more targeted research. This article therefore aims to offer a first overview
of the most common and relevant matching criteria for social mentoring for newcomers, as
identified by practitioners.
Methodology
To explore the most common matching criteria for mentoring for newcomers, this article builds on
qualitative data collected as part of the two-year EU-funded ORIENT8 project which aims to
develop smart social mentoring programs in three municipalities in Belgium, Greece, and Sweden.
[1] During the first phase of the project, the authors conducted a literature review and a scan of
existing programs in Flanders to inform the development of the ORIENT8 mentoring programs.
Data gathered during this initial phase provide the basis for this article.
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
Data sampling
For the purpose of our research, we adopted a maximum variation purposive sampling method.
Our aim was to include a diverse range of social mentoring programs targeted at newcomers to
gain a broad and comprehensive understanding of matching practices. Data was collected in
Flanders, Belgium, one of the pioneering regions in the field of social mentoring for newcomers. In
selecting our cases, we specifically sought to include established programs to ensure that their
input was based on considerable prior experience. Further factors that were considered to ensure
sufficient variation include the size of the municipality the program was operating in were: the
governance of the project (NGO, local government, network of actors); target group (newcomers in
general, families, asylum seekers in reception centres) and type of mentoring (focused on cultural
activities, learning language, sports, emotional support, practical and administrative assistance
etc). While all programs identify as social mentoring programs and specifically target newcomers,
they vary significantly.
Data collection
For each of our 10 cases, we interviewed the project coordinator and, when applicable, other staff.
Due to the small size and limited funds of most social mentoring programs, the coordinator was
often the only (paid) staff member. Consequently, we interviewed a total of 17 members of staff for
our 10 cases. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted between April and August 2021.
Specifically, we asked about their own matching approach and asked more targeted questions to
gather their insights on common matching criteria found in the scientific literature on matching. In
addition to the 17 interviews, we also received documents from each of the 10 programs. Such
documents include intake forms, recruitment materials, information brochures and leaflets,
newsletters, grant applications, and materials for information dissemination and training sessions,
some of which the authors also attended online.
Data collection and analysis proceeded simultaneously. We continued collecting data about
matching criteria until no new criteria emerged. We then coded the data and conducted a thematic
analysis in order to identify common themes and patterns.
In addition to our main data sources, we cross checked our findings with data from a ‘learning
network’ of social mentoring projects (19) and other participation initiatives in Belgium (Briones
Alonso et al., 2023). The network supported pilot projects and gathered experiences and
knowledge to help municipalities and other actors prepare for and implement a new Belgian policy
in 2022 which seeks to strengthen newcomers’ social network and increase their participation in
society through mentoring, internships, volunteering, and other similar initiatives. We consulted
notes from three learning network meetings as well as experiences, insights, and documents
shared with the researchers and on the network’s digital sharing platform. This data helped us to
check for additional or diverging information. No additional matching criteria were found based on
these data.
Finding the right match: matching criteria for
social mentoring for newcomers
In this section, we present the most important matching criteria for social mentoring for newcomers
as identified by practitioners. While most of the literature on matching criteria focuses on mentoring
at work, mentoring to work, youth mentoring or student mentoring, social mentoring programs for
newcomers can and often do adopt similar criteria. They use a variety of matching criteria, of which
some are supported by the research literature and are common across different types of mentoring.
Other criteria have either produced conflicting results in terms of the mentoring relationship and
program’s success or have until now not been discussed in the academic literature.
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
It should be noted that while the mentoring programs all mentioned at least some of the matching
criteria below, the extent to which such criteria are used in practice depends on the availability of
mentors and mentees at any given time. Most of the programs are relatively small (ranging from
~20 to 140 participants, though consider that the number of candidates available for matching at
any given time will be much less) and are not able to take a multitude of criteria into account due to
their limited ‘supply’ of candidates. Staff usually consider the most relevant criteria, for example if a
candidate has a non-negotiable preference e.g., for a same gender-match, this criterion might be
prioritized.
The matching criteria are split into three categories: mentee-specific criteria, mentor-specific
criteria, and general criteria, the last of which are used for both mentor and mentee candidates. An
overview of the different criteria can be found in table 1.
Table 1: Matching Criteria
Mentee specific criteria
The mentee’s request: needs and goals
Mentor specific criteria
The mentor’s offer: knowledge skills and professional background
General criteria
Expectations
Interests and hobbies
Language skills
Practical considerations
Preferences: age, gender and family
Personality
Mentee-specific criteria
The mentee’s request: needs and goals
The main, overarching objective of social mentoring programs for newcomers is to support the
integration and social participation of newcomers in their host society. While the mentoring
relationship is reciprocal, the mentee’s integration is the ultimate goal of the mentoring programs,
and their needs and goals thus take priority. Coordinators stressed the importance of spending
adequate time mapping out a mentee’s needs and goals to ensure the best possible match.
Coordinators identify mentees’ needs and goals during an intake interview (n=8) and/or via an
intake form (n=10), most of the programs use both. The interview includes questions such as ‘what
do you need help with?’ and ‘what do you hope to achieve during the mentoring program?’ Some
program coordinators and staff also talk with other professionals such as a mentee’s social work
and/or referrer to ascertain what the mentee’s needs are. Having a clear understanding of such
needs also helps coordinators in the assistance they offer to the mentor, who can thus be informed
of the mentee’s needs before the relationship commences and can, if necessary, be given concrete
tools and training sessions.
Common needs and goals in social mentoring programs include practicing the local language,
getting to know the city, expanding their social network, receiving administrative and practical
assistance (e.g., help with documents, access to services, finding housing etc.), or simply spending
leisure time together and engaging in social activities.
It should be noted that while mentee candidates are able to formulate their own needs and goals,
they of course need to fall within the boundaries of social mentoring in general and the individual
programs. The needs and goals considered during the matching phase are thus circumscribed by
the formal objectives of each mentoring program.
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
Mentor-specific criteria
The mentor’s offer: knowledge, skills, and professional background
To match a mentee to a mentor based on their needs and goals, program coordinators also have to
consider what the mentor brings to the table. While social mentoring does not require mentors to
have professional experience to participate, a specific background or skillset can prove useful
depending on the needs of the mentee. One mentor argued that their professional background in
special needs education made it easier for them to communicate with newcomers without a
common language as they were able to fall back on certain ‘tools’ and ‘strategies’ used in special
needs education to communicate non-verbally with their mentees.
While a mentor’s professional background may thus be relevant, everyday knowledge actually has
particular relevance to social mentoring. Some mentor candidates are, for example, very familiar
with the local housing market, the school system and children’s services, or local sports facilities
and social clubs. Project coordinators try to match this knowhow to the needs and goals of a
mentee and have thus matched mentors with children who know a lot about regional schools and
services for families with mentees who need assistance with childcare, finding their way to relevant
services and facilities, homework, accessing the right schools, etcetera. While a mentor’s
professional background may be relevant, it is thus particularly the everyday knowledge of mentors
that proves useful in social mentoring.
General criteria
Expectations
For a match to be successful, the expectations of the mentor and mentee need to align.
Incompatible expectations set a relationship up for failure and lead to frustration or, in the worst
case, early termination. Common utterances on the part of mentors and, in exceptional
circumstances, reasons for premature termination of some mentoring relationships, were ‘the
mentee asks too much of me’ or ‘the mentee asks something I do not want to or cannot help with’.
To illustrate, one of the coordinators offers the following example:
There are a number of mentees whose main concern was housing and then you match
someone with them who is less interested in that, and you notice that the mentor just doesn’t
really like it anymore. That can also be because when you did the intake and the matching, the
housing element wasn’t really a concern yet but suddenly it is, you know? And then there is just
not really a match.
To avoid this, program coordinators stress the importance of gaining a good understanding of the
expectations of participants. Most programs use intake interviews and forms to figure out what the
mentee candidate requires, and the mentor candidate is willing and able to help with. One of the
mentoring programs even differentiates between different types of mentors: welcome mentor,
housing mentor, general mentor, language mentor, leisure mentor, and ‘other’. Mentees can
indicate what type of mentor they are looking for and mentors can choose the type of mentor they
would like to be. Based on their answers, the coordinator then makes a first selection of possible
matches.
Programs that do not make such a clear distinction between different types of mentoring still try to
take candidates’ expectations into consideration though the importance of this criterion also
depends on how clearly defined the needs of the mentee and offer of the mentor are. If a mentee’s
needs are very specific and targeted, for example if they only need assistance with finding housing,
ensuring a good fit between the needs of the mentee and the offer of the mentor is necessary to
avoid conflict, loss of interest, and dissatisfaction with the mentoring program. If a mentee’s needs
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
are more general, other matching criteria become more important. The importance of this matching
criteria is thus dependent on the specificity with which participants define their expectations.
Interests and hobbies
In the coordinator’s pursuit of a good match, deep-level factors such as interests and hobbies can
often be decisive. In the context of social mentoring, interests and hobbies are more relevant to
consider than in many other forms of mentoring such as mentoring at work or school, where the
relationship between mentor and mentee takes place in a more professional setting (Eby &
Lockwood, 2005; Hieker & Rushby, 2020; Skaniakos & Piirainen, 2019). The informal nature of the
social interaction between mentor and mentee is in fact one of the ways in which social mentoring
sets itself apart from other, more traditional forms of mentoring.
Mentors and mentees with similar interests and hobbies are expected to connect more easily than
those who do not share common interests. While it may not guarantee a connection or mutual
chemistry, it can be a good place to start as explained by one coordinator who argues that
matching “based on hobbies seems easier, the easiest, because then they immediately have
something in common to start off with.” Sharing an interest in sports, arts, reading or nature
immediately provides candidates with activities and places to explore. One coordinator was able to
match two newcomers who both paint with a local artist who signed up as a mentor. Their common
interest created an easy connection, and the mentor was even able to offer practical assistance
and helped the newcomers to exhibit their work locally, thereby also facilitating deeper connections
between the newcomers and the local community. Another mentor found a connection with their
mentee through their shared interest in art:
The first activity that we did together […] was go to the museum of fine arts. And that was really
cool, I actually didn’t expect it at all, but they were able to tell me a lot about what was on
display, and they had never seen those paintings before. They knew a lot of those Biblical
figures in paintings. I thought that was incredible. I didn’t know that at all, that there was such a
connection between the Islamic world and the Christian world, dating back hundreds of years.
And they understood a lot of the figures on there, they could tell me things about them that I
didn’t know. I’m very interested in art myself so that was coincidentally something where we
thought: here is a link, and a link you don’t expect either. And that’s happened quite often.
Coordinators note that a common interest or hobby can also help with the language constraints that
are common in mentor-mentee duos in mentoring for newcomers. In case the mentor and mentee
do not have a language in common or the mentee has only a limited understanding of the local
language, having a hobby such as biking or painting in common can facilitate the mentor-mentee
relationship and allow for informal and more intuitive language learning.
Language skills
Social mentoring for newcomers is unique among mentoring initiatives in that it brings together two
or more people who do not necessarily speak the same language. In other types of mentoring such
as student mentoring or mentoring at work, where the goal is not integration but, among others,
professional advancement, mentors and mentees need to speak the same language to achieve
their goals. In such programs, language skills might more often be used as a selection criterion
rather than a matching criterion (see for example: Neuwirth & Wahl, 2017). As new immigrants,
mentees in social mentoring programs for newcomers usually do not speak the local language and
if they do, they are most commonly at a beginner level. This brings with it unique challenges and a
need to consider language skills when matching mentors and mentees.
While coordinators of social mentoring programs for newcomers request and record candidates’
language skills, their relevance as a matching criteria differs from program to program. Due to the
objective of social mentoring for newcomers i.e., supporting the social participation and integration
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
of newcomers, some programs choose to match mentors and mentees who lack a common
language to stimulate the mentee’s process of learning the local language, though this does come
with its own challenges as language barriers often lead to miscommunication and will typically
hinder the development of a deeper connection and long-lasting relationship.
Some programs choose to prioritise other objectives over language learning and thus allow
matches between candidates who share a common language, as explained by one coordinator:
I have now paired two people, someone from Angola so they speak Portuguese and a bit of
Spanish and French, and I have a mentor who also speaks Spanish and French. So, we said
‘ok the Dutch will come later but we’ll start with French and Spanish, and it will slowly grow from
there.
While this does not prevent the mentee from learning the local language, it does often delay or
hamper this process as the ease of communicating reduces the need to learn the local language
quickly. Whether language is considered as a matching criterion thus depends on the objectives of
both the mentoring program and the participants.
Practical considerations
For a mentoring relationship to be successful, mentors and mentees need to meet regularly.
Programs thus take practical consideration such as availability (do the timetables of mentor and
mentee align so they can meet regularly?) and geographical location (do mentor and mentee live
near each other?) into account when matching mentors and mentees. While such factors are
relevant in any mentoring program, as shown in previous research (Eby et al., 2013; Eby &
Lockwood, 2005; Cox, 2005), the particularities of social mentoring for newcomers further
emphasise the importance of taking such practical considerations into account.
Since social mentoring for newcomers seeks to support the integration of newcomers, coordinators
prefer to match mentees with mentors who live in the same municipality to ensure they have a
good understanding of the local culture, customs, services, and other location-specific knowledge
that they can then pass on to their mentee. Geographical distance also comes with more practical
hurdles as mentors and mentees must travel longer to see each other, requiring more time in their
timetables and thus potentially reducing the number of times duos will be able to meet in person.
Knowing the availability and time commitment of mentors and mentees also helps coordinators to
match duos based on the mentee’s needs. Some newcomers require more assistance than others.
As remarked by a coordinator, this should be considered, so you are not matching a mentee with
extensive needs with a mentor who only has two hours to spare each month. Doing so will most
likely lead (and often has) to frustrations on both sides. As a solution, some coordinators choose to
match newcomers who require significant support with retirees or people with part-time jobs who
have more time to spare than most other mentors.
Preferences: age, gender, and family
Research has found that perceived input into the matching process increases the effectiveness of
the mentoring relationship (Allen et al., 2006). One way in which social mentoring programs for
newcomers involve candidates in the matching process is by asking their preferences prior to
matching. Coordinators repeatedly stressed the importance of taking such preferences into
account:
If people mention that [a preference] explicitly, I want to take that into account. That often goes
along with: how safe do you feel? How comfortable do you feel? I don’t think you should ignore
such signals.
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
The most common preference ‘categories’ relate to age, gender, and family structure. It should be
noted that programs did not necessarily consider such factors decisive for a good match and were
unable to conclude anything meaningful about the impact of mentor-mentee similarity vs. difference
on the outcomes of mentoring. However, all coordinators agreed with the statement above and
emphasised the importance of at least considering candidates’ preferences.
In some programs, such preferences could even be decisive and take priority during the matching
process. Preferences in terms of gender were considered especially important though programs’
ability to respect such preferences depends in large part on their available pool of mentors and
mentees, as explained by one coordinator:
It also often depends on the available mentors you have. Some really ask: ‘I want such and
such a person’ but often that is not possible if you only have certain mentors at a given time.
Let’s say someone asks specifically for a man and you have 10 female mentors, well, you have
to look for a solution in that and try to match as well as possible.
A criterion which has hardly been discussed in previous research, but which was repeatedly
mentioned by social mentoring programs for newcomers is candidates’ family structure. Due to the
informal, leisure focus of social mentoring, mentors and mentees are often involved in each other’s
personal lives so that mentoring comes to include not just the duo but family members on either or
both sides. Some social mentoring programs for newcomers even include the option to match with
a family rather than an individual in their intake and most receive regular requests from and for
families from both candidate mentors and mentees. A coordinator explains their approach and
reasoning as follows:
I always ask, ‘do you prefer someone individually or a family, and if so, a family with children or
not?’ Because, often, when mentors do choose that, they also become a mentor to the family.
Often, those are younger families who also have young children and who find it very important
that their children come into contact with diversity. And usually, a match with a family with young
children is a really good match because they can go to the playground together, which is a lot
easier and more accessible together.
While the playground is just one example, coordinators argue that matching mentors and mentees
with children of a similar age also benefits the integration of newcomer children and allows mentors
to share their knowledge on schools, child- and family services, homework, and other information
relevant to recently arrived immigrant parents.
Personality
While research has shown that personality similarities between mentors and mentees improve the
(perceived) quality of the mentoring relationship (Eby et al, 2013; Menges, 2016), coordinators of
social mentoring programs for newcomers seem conflicted about its use as a matching criterion.
Some do not consider it at all while those that do, do so based on their own intuition rather than
through a standardized and systematic manner such as a personality test. A coordinator explains
her approach as follows:
Once you’ve seen them at the intake, you have some idea of what kind of person they are. Are
they a more private or more open person? So often during the intake you can say ‘ok I am
already thinking of someone I would like to match with you’.
When personality is included as a matching criterion, it is usually as traits of extraversion and
introversion. Coordinators then usually match quiet, introverted people with more open, extroverted
people based on the assumption that this will help avoid a lack of communication and initiative.
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
Limitations of matching criteria: mutual chemistry and coordinator intuition
While the right matching criteria can improve mentoring relationships and outcomes, there will
always some mystery in human connection. Previous research has emphasised the importance of
mutual chemistry as a basis for a successful mentoring relationship (Rhodes, 2002), and many
coordinators stress that it is sometimes impossible to know why one match works, and another
fails.
In addition to their program’s matching criteria, coordinators often rely on what they call their ‘gut
feeling’ or ‘intuition.’ They all either explicitly mentioned these terms or said they sometimes simply
‘felt’ or ‘knew’ that two candidates would make a good match.
it’s also a bit of a gut feeling when it comes to matching. On the one hand, we look at mutual
expectations and interests and on the basis of that we try to match but on the other hand it is
also a gut feeling.
At times, coordinators would meet a candidate during their intake and immediately know who they
would want to match them with, without properly considering their program’s matching criteria.
While this ‘gut feeling’ may still be informed by their professional experience and the many
successful and unsuccessful matches they have made in the past, there is – and most likely will
always be - something intangible that both explains a connection between a mentor and mentee
and a coordinator’s ability to successfully predict that connection.
Discussion and Conclusion
In recent years, social mentoring for newcomers has gained in popularity in many migrant-receiving
countries, particularly in the EU. While the practice of social mentoring for newcomers has become
increasingly institutionalised, research on the topic is still lacking. To bring some clarity to the
practice of social mentoring for newcomers, this paper provides a first insight into a crucial aspect
of the mentoring process; matching. We set out to explore the perspective of organisations that
offer social mentoring for newcomers and identify which matching criteria are most common in such
programs. The findings show that program coordinators use a variety of matching criteria, which we
have divided into three categories: mentee-specific criteria (mentee’s needs and goals), mentor-
specific criteria (mentor’s knowledge, skills, and professional background), and general criteria
(expectations, interests and hobbies, language skills, practical considerations, preferences in terms
of age, gender and family structure, and personality).
While these criteria are used and considered important by practitioners, their actual use and
applicability depend in large part on programs’ objectives and their available pool of candidates.
The relatively small size of many social mentoring programs necessitates a prioritisation of criteria.
Social mentoring practitioners assigned various levels of importance to each criterion and while
there was no definitive consensus on the prioritisation and ranking of criteria, practitioners did
agree that program and participant objectives can help determine the relevance of other criteria on
a case-by-case basis.
Our results are, to an extent, supported by the literature but also provide new insights. In practice,
coordinators do not assign much importance to sociodemographic characteristics such as age,
gender, race, and ethnicity except when a candidate expresses a strong age or gender preference.
While race and ethnicity have been covered extensively in the literature (Blake-Beard et al., 2011;
Campbell & Campbell, 2007; Eby et al., 2013; Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Lankau et al., 2005),
practitioners in social mentoring programs refrain from using such criteria. This decision is based
on both ideological and practical considerations. While most practitioners do not consider
sociodemographic characteristics relevant to successful social mentoring, practical constraints
such as small candidate pools also prevent their systematic use as matching criteria.
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
Previous research has found that allowing some input from participants in the matching process
can have significant positive effects on (perceptions of) the mentoring relationship and program
(Allen et al., 2006; Blake-Beard et al., 2007). One way in which social mentoring programs for
newcomers create opportunities for input from mentors and mentees is by incorporating their
preferences in the matching decision. In addition to the previously mentioned preferences for age
and gender, social mentoring for newcomers also adopts a preference category that has, so far, not
been covered in the literature. Family structure is a particularly relevant criterion in social mentoring
as the informal nature of the mentoring relationship and the focus on leisure activities create
opportunities to involve family members of mentors and mentees.
While deep-level characteristics such as personality, values, beliefs, attitudes, and interests have
been shown to have a positive influence on (perceptions of) the mentoring relationship and
program (Eby et al., 2013; Madia & Lutz, 2004; Menges, 2016; Neuwirth & Wahl, 2017), social
mentoring programs do not systematically use these as matching criteria, except for interests and,
at times, personality. Interests are particularly relevant for social mentoring due to the more
informal relationship and focus on leisure activities, especially when compared to traditional forms
of mentoring that take place in more professional settings such as work and school. Even though
we have included personality as a matching criterion, the manner in which social mentoring
coordinators comprehend and apply this criterion is rudimentary compared to the more systematic,
multidimensional understanding and application of personality and other deep-level characteristics
as it has been covered in previous research.
Our findings on common matching criteria in social mentoring for newcomers furthermore show
that practitioners take practical considerations such as geographical location and time availability
into consideration as matching criteria. These criteria have also been shown to have positive
outcomes for mentoring in previous research (Cox, 2005; Eby et al., 2013; Eby & Lockwood, 2005).
A criterion which is somewhat unique to mentoring for newcomers is language skills. Compared to
other types of mentoring, mentoring for newcomers usually brings together two or more people who
do not necessarily speak the same language. This creates distinctive challenges and a need to
consider the language skills of mentors and mentees during the matching process.
While “there will always be some degree of mystery in determining what makes two people click”
(Rhodes, 2002, p. 104), using the right matching criteria can reduce the likelihood of a mismatch. In
this paper, we have attempted to provide an overview of common matching criteria in social
mentoring programs for newcomers. The findings provide important insights for policy and practice
and offer a starting point for further empirical research into the matching of volunteers and
newcomers.
Future research should expand on our findings by, for instance, assessing the effectiveness of the
matching criteria on the quality of the mentoring relationship itself and outcomes of social
mentoring for newcomers. Taking into consideration the overarching objective of social mentoring
for newcomers – to support the social participation and integration of newcomers – further research
should seek to determine the effect of matching criteria on various outcomes related to integration
such as mentees’ sense of belonging, social network, and language skills. In our research, we have
mostly focused on the perspectives of program coordinators and staff, thus offering avenues for
further research to delve deeper into the perspectives of mentors and mentees and their
perceptions on the matching process and mentoring relationship. Overall, we hope that our work
presented here can offer a solid starting point for more empirical research on the ever more
favoured social integration approach that is social mentoring for newcomers.
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
Endnotes
[1] ↩
ORIENT8 is a partnership between HIVA-KU Leuven, Beyond the Horizon IISG, and the
municipalities of Mechelen (Belgium), Nikaia-Agios Ioannis Rentis (Greece) and Sala (Sweden).
More information can be found on the project website https://orient8.eu
Funding
This research was funded by the European Union’s Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund (AMIF)
within the framework of the ORIENT8 project.
References
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T. & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring
programs: Closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 567-578. DOI:
10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.567.
Allen, T. D., Finkelstein, L. M. & Poteet, M. L. (2009). Designing workplace mentoring programs. An evidence-based
approach. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Blake-Beard, S. D., Bayne, M. L., Crosby, F. J. & Muller, C. B. (2011). Matching by race and gender in mentoring
relationships: Keeping our eyes on the prize. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 622-643. DOI: 10.1111/J.1540-
4560.2011.01717.X.
Blake-Beard, S. D., O’Neill, R. M. & McGowan, E. (2007). Blind dates? The importance of matching in successful formal
mentoring relationships. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work (pp. 617-632).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Briones Alonso, E, Van Ongevalle, J., De Cuyper, P. (2023), Het sociaal netwerk en participatietraject: lessen uit 26
proeftuinen, Leuven: HIVA-KULeuven.
Campbell, T. A. & Campbell, D. E. (2007). Outcomes of mentoring at-risk college students: Gender and ethnic matching
effects. Mentoring and Tutoring, 15, 135-148. DOI: 10.1080/13611260601086287.
Cox, E. (2005). For better, for worse: the matching process in formal mentoring schemes. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership
in Learning, 13(3), 403-414. DOI: 10.1080/13611260500177484.
De Cuyper, P., Vandermeerschen, H. & Purkayastha, D. (2019). Migrant mentoring to work: defining an old-but-innovative
instrument. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 17(2), pp. 108-121. DOI: 10.24384/cy2r-
jd97.
Drew, A. L., Keller, T. E., Spencer, R. & Herrera, C. (2020). Investigating mentor commitment in youth mentoring
relationships: The role of perceived program practices. Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 2264-2276. DOI:
10.1002/jcop.22409.
Eby, L. T. & Allen, T. D. (2002). Further investigation of protégés’ negative mentoring experiences. Patterns and outcomes.
Group & Organization Management, 27(4), 456-479. DOI: 10.1177/1059601102238357.
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Hoffman, B. J., Baranik, L. E., Sauer, J. B., Baldwin, S., Morrison, M. A., Kinkade, K. M., Maher, C. P.,
Curtis, S., & Evans, S. C. (2013). An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 441-476. DOI: 10.1037/a0029279.
Eby, L. T. & Lockwood, A. (2005). Protégés’ and mentors’ reactions to participating in formal mentoring programs: A
qualitative investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 441-458. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.002.
Ensher, E. A. & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentoring relationships.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(3), 460-481. DOI: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.1547.
Hale, R. (2000). To match or mis-match? The dynamics of mentoring as a route to personal and organizational learning.
Career Development International, 5, 223-234. DOI: 10.1108/EUM0000000005360.
Hieker, C. & Rushby, M. (2020). Key success factors in implementing sustainable mentor programmes in large
organisations. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 18(2), 197-208. DOI: 10.24384/sx88-
eh86.
Kanchewa, S., Rhodes, J. E., Schwartz, S. E. O. & Olsho, L. (2014). An investigation of same- versus cross-gender
matching for boys in formal school-based mentoring programs. Applied Developmental Science, 18(1), 31-45. DOI:
10.1080/10888691.2014.876251.
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
2023, Vol. 21(2), pp.21-34. DOI: 10.24384/pyhr-y727
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Lankau, M. J., Riordan, C. M. & Thomas, C. H. (2005). The effects of similarity and liking in formal relationships between
mentors and protégés. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 252-265. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.012.
Lester, A. M., Goodloe, C. L., Johnson, H. E. & Deutsch, N. L. (2019). Understanding mutuality: Unpacking relational
processes in youth mentoring relationships. Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 147-162. DOI:
10.1002/jcop.22106.
Levinson, D. J. (with Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H. & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New
York: Knopf.
Madia, B. P. & Lutz, C. J. (2004). Perceived similarity, expectation-reality discrepancies, and mentors’ expressed intention to
remain in Big Brothers/Big Sisters programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(3), 598-623.
Månsson, J. & Delander, L. (2017). Mentoring as a way of integrating refugees into the labour market. Evidence from a
Swedish pilot scheme. Economic Analysis and Policy, 56, 51-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.eap.2017.08.002.
Martin, S. M. & Sifers, S. K. (2012). An evaluation of factors leading to mentor satisfaction with the mentoring relationship.
Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 940-945. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.025.
McKeen, C. & Bujaki, M. (2007). Gender and mentoring: Issues, effects, and opportunities. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram
(Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work (pp. 197-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Menges, C. (2016). Toward improving the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs: matching by personality matters.
Group & Organization Management, 41(1), 98-129. DOI: 10.1177/1059601115579567.
Neuwirth, E. & Wahl, I. (2017). Effects of the similarity between mentees and mentors on the evaluation of the ‘Mentoring for
Migrants Program’. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 15(2), 140-154. DOI:
10.24384/000255.
Parise, M. R. & Forret, M. L. (2008). Formal mentoring programs: The relationship of program design and support to
mentors’ perceptions of benefits and costs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 225-240.
Prieto-Flores, O. & Feu Gelis, J. (2018). What type of impact could social mentoring programs have? An exploration of the
existing assessments and a proposal of an analytical framework. Pedagogía Social, 31, 149-162.
Raposa, E. B., Ben-Eliyahu, A. & Olsho, L. E. W. (2019). Birds of a feather: Is matching based on shared interests and
characteristics associated with longer youth mentoring relationships? Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 385-397.
DOI: 10.1002/jcop.22127.
Reidsma, M. & De Cuyper, P. (2021). Buddyprogramma’s voor anderstalige nieuwkomers. Inspiratie uit de organisatie van
buddyprogramma’s in drie landen. Leuven: HIVA – KU Leuven.
Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand By Me. The Risks and Rewards of Mentoring Today’s Youth. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Skaniakos, T. & Piirainen, A. (2019). The meaning of peer group mentoring in the university context. International Journal of
Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 17(1), 19-33. DOI: 10.24384/EKNZ-S730.
Spencer, R., Gowdy, G., Drew, A. L. & Rhodes, J. E. (2019). “Who knows me the best and can encourage me the most?”:
Matching and early relationship development in youth-initiated mentoring relationships with system-involved youth.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 34(1), 3-29. DOI: 10.1177/0743558418755686.
Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T. & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. Research
in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 39-124. DOI: 10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22002-8.
Weiss, A. & Tulin, M. (2019). As iron sharpens iron: A mentoring approach to labour market integration for humanitarian
migrants. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 17(2), 122-137. DOI: 10.24384/3d5c-
w176.
Yip, J. & Kram, K. E. (2017). Development networks: enhancing the science and practice of mentoring. In D. Clutterbuck, F.
K. Kochan, L. G. Lunsford, et al. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of mentoring (pp. 88-104). Los Angeles: Sage.
About the authors
Peter De Cuyper is a research manager at HIVA, University of Leuven (Belgium). His research
focuses on migrant integration, labour market integration of migrants and mentoring schemes for
migrants.
Michelle Crijns is a former migration and integration researcher at HIVA, University of Leuven
(Belgium). She now works as a participatory grant maker at Wilde Ganzen Foundation (The
Netherlands).
