A Conceptual Framework for Mentoring in a Learning Organization

Adult Learning and Development

Adult learning principles are the foundation of a learning organization (Senge, 1990). Historically, Knowles (1995) identified six core adult learning principles of andragogy incorporating adult learning theories and scientific observations on how adults learn: the learner’s need to know, self-concept, experiences, readiness to learn, orientation to learning, and motivation. Building on these principles, Senge (1990) identified five disciplines in a learning organization: systems thinking, personal mastery, shared vision, team learning, and mental models. I recommend adding mentoring as a sixth learning organization component, because mentoring relationships have the potential to play key roles in creating and sustaining a learning organization (Buck, 2004). Using Bloom’s (c1956/1974) Taxonomy (i.e., knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) as a framework, we anticipate adult learners in the context of a learning organization gain new knowledge, which they comprehend and then apply to work, analyze their work, synthesize new answers to address problems, and evaluate different strategies and solutions to benefit the organization and themselves.

According to Merriam (1983), mentoring facilitates adult development for both mentee and mentor. With careful thought and judgment, reflective mentoring—for example, by sharing journal writings of feeling and thoughts—addresses psychological development of both mentoring partners (Bartell, 2005). In addition, mentoring addresses the psychological and adult developmental task for older mentors to share their knowledge and skills with younger people and realize the significance of their lives and professional contribution (Bova & Phillips, 1984). In accordance with adult learning principles, collaborative knowledge transfer and creation in a mentoring relationship requires trust. The quality of such trust is critical to the mentoring relationship’s success (Fouché & Lunt, 2010).

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge there is tension between adult learning and performance principles in an organization. For example, an organization requires certain system outcomes and needs to train employees to meet certain performance standards. Thus, rather than completely driven by what employees want to know (the adult learning principle of an individual controlling his or her learning), the organization seeks to use process improvement strategies that embrace self-directed learning to cover rules and requirements of the organization. Mentoring is an essential tool at this intersection of human resource development and adult learning (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005).

While a learning organization sounds like an ideal place to work—empowering people, incorporating adult learning theories, experimenting, and systematically solving problems—success requires employee commitment. Flourishing learning organizations require strategies to empower employees and assist them in assimilating new knowledge and applying problem solving abilities. Critically, employees may need to change their learning roles, for example, from passive to active participants (Henschke, 1997). This fundamental adult learning premise places highest value on experience (Brookfield, 1986), requiring individuals to critically reflect on their life and work experiences to support transformational learning.

According to Mezirow (1994), transformative learning is central to adult education. Grounded in the nature of human communication as seeking meaning, transformative learning derives meaning from experience, providing the basis for action. Learners engage in deep conversation or discourse, described as “a special kind of dialogue” focused on “content and an attempt to justify beliefs by giving and defending reasons and by examining the evidence for and against competing viewpoints” (p. 225). Contextual assumptions and cultural values are also important in transformative learning (Clark & Wilson, 1991). Specific to a learning organization, transformative learning frames assumptions and expectations to help employees be more inclusive, open, and able to change. In a collaborative, reciprocal, peer mentoring relationship, transformative learning may occur as mentor and mentee critically reflect, explore questions and problems, examine underlying assumptions and beliefs, and collaborate to find solutions that lead to change. Action in transformation theory means making a decision; hence, critical reflection by the mentoring pair should yield a decision about the resolution of the addressed problem.

According to Buck (2004) and Owenby (2002), it is critical to address the mentoring needs of people from marginalized groups and be aware of organizational power dynamics, including racism, classism, and sexism. Notably, these articles excluded heterosexism as an important issue in mentoring. Although gay men are more visible and accepted in the corporate setting, lesbian women’s invisibility in corporations is a double disadvantage for White women and a triple disadvantage for women of color (Gedro, 2006). Racism and racial group membership are powerful forces that can limit the success of marginalized individuals. At a minimum, cross-cultural mentoring relationships require trust between the mentor and mentee, acknowledgment of racism, and an understanding of power and paternalism (Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2004). For a learning organization to be successful, members must acknowledge, accept, value, and learn about cultural differences through diversity training and educational programs. Recommended strategies for successful cross-cultural mentoring relationships include mentee–mentor pairings with shared worldviews and life philosophies and ongoing and honest discussions about race and racism (Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2002).

Mentoring in the Context of a Learning Organization

Senge’s (1990) learning organization model uses five disciplines to change how people think and act, so learning becomes a fundamental way of life. Each discipline—systems thinking, personal mastery, shared vision, team learning, and mental models—is a component of mentoring relationships. Workplace mentoring provides career and psychosocial functions (Allen & Eby, 2007). For example, mentoring involves goal setting and engages mentoring partners in “double-loop learning” (Argyris, 2002, p. 206), both components of systems thinking. Personal mastery promotes ongoing skill development, goal setting, and vision, fundamental tasks within mentoring relationships. Furthermore, mentoring facilitates learning in a social context, another adult learning principle, vital for building a sense of cohesion, responsibility, integrity, and creativity within a learning organization addressing shared vision, team learning, and mental models.

Before a corporation can become a learning organization, change in corporate culture must start at the top to ensure non-defensive behaviors, for example, behaviors that indicate the need for unilateral control, to maximize winning and avoid losing, and to avoid embarrassment or threat (Argyris, 1991). A successful learning organization requires cooperation and collaboration, rather than competition between individual performers. This radical humanist perspective of a partnership of coequals encompasses openness, vulnerability, and the ability of both persons in the mentoring relationship to take risks (Darwin, 2000). Mentoring and supportive feedback replace criticism, and mentoring relationships generate new insights, shared with others, to benefit the whole organization. According to Owenby (2002), mentoring programs with peer-to-peer mentoring, in a horizontal learning approach of shared experience and knowledge, are considered superior to a manager–employee mentoring program driven by central administration task-specific learning objectives, which address the learning organization disciplines of shared vision and mental models. Overall, mentoring facilitates greater communication and openness to learning throughout the organization.

Learning organizations require a leadership style less hierarchical than many corporations. As employee needs and interests are prime concerns of adult education theory, if corporate learning organizations ignore these needs and interests, a competitive advantage built on collective employee learning may be considered “a new form of worker exploitation” (Owenby, 2002, p. 53). Situational leadership theory shifts the perspective from leadership as performance to leadership as interaction (Candis Best, 2011). In situational leadership theory, performance outcomes are the direct result of the interpersonal interaction between leader and follower. When the leader/mentor is a responsive caregiver, learning is shared. Leaders must inspire trust and competence in others by their own practice. They must commit to empowering learning and creating meaning together in the mentoring program, reflecting the principles of a learning organization and not merely using mentoring as a competitive advantage. The next section reviews ways to incorporate successful mentoring strategies and avoid pitfalls in a learning organization.

Facilitation Strategies and Pitfalls

Figure 1 provides a summary of steps in implementing a facilitated mentoring plan in a learning organization. Senge’s learning organization model first recognizes where we are (Robinson, 1996), addressing where an organization is now and its vision for where it wants to be. The mentoring process includes steps for the mentoring coordinator (shaded boxes) and the mentoring pair (open boxes) As a first step in facilitating mentoring in a learning organization, the mentoring coordinator performs an analysis to identify the types of learners, subject matter, and situation in which the adult learning is to be used. The mentoring program design must address adult learners’ needs and readiness to learn in the andragogy process model (Knowles, 1995). Following discovery of what learners need to know, the mentoring coordinator can design a guided experiential learning opportunity, situated in the context of active learning where the new knowledge will be directly used in the job. This supports the andragogy process model’s first step that adult learners need to know why, what, and how new knowledge will be used to their benefit as well as the principle that knowledge must be life-related and problem centered (Knowles, 1995). Adult learners come with prior knowledge, and adult learning is problem centered (Bass, 2012). Thus, learners are tasked with identifying what problem(s) they seek to address for reflective discussion, thus ensuring readiness to learn and identifying individuals seeking mentors and what type of mentoring they seek.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The process of implementing a facilitated mentoring plan.

Identifying individuals to serve as mentors is the next process step for the mentoring coordinator. Successful mentoring programs rely on volunteer mentors, typically senior employees with a passion for people (Crawford, 2010). Identifying and nurturing mentors relies on a mentoring coordinator to provide specific guidance for mentors, match mentor–mentee pairs, develop mentoring goals and a general plan to guide the mentor as an initial starting point for discussion with the mentee, solicit feedback from the mentor–mentee pair about the fit, and host an initial event (perhaps a lunch) to explain the program to mentees and mentors. The mentoring coordinator facilitates discussion at the initial mentor–mentee meeting and helps establish expectations and timelines. A potentially overlooked aspect is mentors serving as role models and advocates for underrepresented minorities. For example, pairing a new, out, lesbian employee with a successful, out, lesbian, senior employee can foster success in the corporate setting (Gedro, 2006).

As indicated in Figure 1, once paired, the mentor–mentee pair designs an individual development plan. Both partners in the mentoring relationship require knowledge of the organization and its problems, in addition to critical reflection and collaborative skills. As needed, the mentoring coordinator can facilitate learning of these skills. The mentoring pair negotiates how often and where they will meet and otherwise communicate. Meetings do not need to be face-to-face but can use texting, Twitter, and email. The mentoring coordinator solicits feedback to build continuous improvement into the program. As an example of learning partnerships, mentor–mentee pairs from different departments allow exposure and learning about another part of the organization (Buck, 2004). As part of the mentoring process, the mentor–mentee pair develop a plan and goals for a new employee that may involve focusing on learning company knowledge, culture, and personnel or a particular skill to help the mentee and enhance his or her productivity. Another example of a learning partnership using action learning principles is to engage a mentoring pair to work together on a project or problem (O’Neil & Marsick, 2009). The shared knowledge and skills based on this experiential learning process can immediately be applied in the job setting, fulfilling Lindeman’s (1989) adult learning principles and addressing the needs of a learning organization. Overall, the mentoring program seeks to capture learning at the organizational level.

One example of successful mentoring program within a learning organization is a continuing professional education program (Buck, 2004). An example of a guided experiential learning format for a continuing professional education program is a journal club, led by mentoring partners to discuss relevant literature with peers. Mentoring pairs can work together to create an adult learning activity based on a relevant journal article(s) and present a summary for a broader group. In the group and as mentoring pairs, employees can reflectively discuss and evaluate the new knowledge and design ways to use information in their work. The session can be digitally recorded for the use of others at off-site locations. Keys to a successful approach include internal process ownership, ongoing mentoring pair support, linkage to organizational initiatives, and measurable outcomes, including learning success, enthusiasm, and new initiative creation.

There are alternatives to person-to-person mentoring as discussed above. For example, online mentoring among people at different locations within a corporation offers an alternative model for knowledge transfer across geographical location. Online mentoring programs fit Owenby’s (2002) model of horizontal learning organizations composed of interactive and inter-participatory complexes of smaller learning communities or networks. Mentoring programs in different locations can also address the need for sensitivity toward different cultural views (Buck, 2004).

Not all mentoring relationships are successful. There are a number of potential concerns for the mentor and mentee that must be acknowledged and avoided (Murray, 2001). In some cases, the mentee plays the mentor against a supervisor, does not keep confidences, or is too possessive of the mentor. Although usually inspired by altruism, mentors have taken credit for mentee work. Dysfunctional mentoring relationships most commonly result from mismatched mentors and mentees, distancing behavior, manipulative behavior, and lack of mentor expertise (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005). Therefore, the mentoring coordinator must screen and train the mentor and mentees and continuously evaluate the process to prevent unwanted outcomes, including bias against people in marginalized groups. Mentoring pairs need to set mutual parameters to address small problems and prevent them from becoming large ones (Shea, 1997). Critical reflection by the mentoring pair can clarify conflicts, address negative behaviors, and ensure viable effectiveness of the mentoring relationship. The mentoring coordinator serves as a resource person to address conflict or specific issues for cross gender or cross-cultural mentoring concerns.

Implications for Readers

Mentoring relationships have the potential to play key roles in creating and sustaining a learning organization (Buck, 2004). Adult learning theories are the foundation of such relationships, and theory application can engage employees in assimilating and applying new knowledge in their current jobs. Mentoring partnerships provide meaning to the individuals engaged in collaborative learning through reflection and rational discourse. Using Bloom’s (c1956/1974) Taxonomy, anticipated mentoring program outcomes for a learning organization include individuals acquiring, comprehending, and applying new knowledge in daily tasks; individually and collaboratively analyzing problems and proposing solutions; evaluating new technologies or strategies and determining their utility; and creating new business plans to improve the organization performance.