Mentoring, as previously indicated, is primarily characterised in terms of the manner in which it manifests within organisations, namely in a structured or unstructured form by two approaches. Structured, formal or institutional- ised mentoring (Nasser, 1987, p. 12) entails that the needs of the prote´ge´ are addressed in a purposeful manner according to a detailed and specific de- velopment plan which forms part of a formal mentorship process, while unstructured or natural mentoring involves an informal relationship or in some instances even a friendship which develops between two individuals.
Although these manifestations of mentoring chiefly vary in terms of the level of formality according to which the mentoring process are managed and maintained, they also vary in terms of the duration thereof and are either short term or long term in nature.Hunt (1991b, p. 31)andShea (1992, p. 8)
describe the various occurrences of structured and unstructured mentoring in the following manner:
1. Highly structured, short-term mentoring is formally established for an introductory or short period, often to meet clearly defined and specific organisational objectives. This type of mentoring is also referred to as planned project mentoring.
2. Highly structured, long-term mentoring is often used for succession planning, and the relationship frequently involves grooming an individ- ual to take over a specific position or to master a craft. This type of mentoring is also referred to as planned career mentoring.
3. Unstructured, short-term mentoring ranges from ad hoc or spontaneous to occasional or as-needed counselling. There may be no ongoing rela- tionship between the mentor and prote´ge´. This type of mentoring is also referred to as informal career mentoring.
4. Unstructured, long-term mentoring or ‘‘friendship’’ mentoring consists of being available as needed. This type of mentoring is also referred to as informal life mentoring.
Structured Mentoring
The extremely formal nature of structured mentoring or institutionalised mentoring is a result of the following typical characteristics of a structured mentoring process:
1. A clearly defined and formally agreed upon objective that has to be achieved by the mentor and prote´ge´ through their participation in the mentorship process.
2. A particular timeframe within which the objectives should be achieved and on conclusion of which the formal relationship between the mentor and prote´ge´ officially ends.
3. The involvement of a variety of stakeholders (mentor, prote´ge´, coordi- nator of the mentorship process, manager of the prote´ge´, management) in the mentorship process.
4. A structured mentoring programme which consists of successive phases.
Although a variety of terms are found in the literature to refer to the various phases which constitute a typical mentoring programme, it seem as though most programmes consist of four phases, as indicated inTable 1.
Table 1. Phases of a Structured Mentoring Programme (adapted fromHunt & Michael, 1983;Kram, 1985;
Nasser, 1987; Healy, 1977;Fourie, 1991; Hunt, 1991).
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Publication date of model
Initiation Prote´ge´ Breakup Friendship 1983
Initiation Cultivation Breakup Redefining 1985
Need Seeking Establishing/optimising Maturity Decline 1987
Initiation Sparkling Developing Disillusionment Breakup Changing 1977
Initiation Cultivation Breakup Redefining 1991
Selection and initiation Prote´ge´ Breakup Friendship 1991
Duration: 6–12 months Duration: 2–5 years Duration: 6 months–2 years
Revisited161
Phase 1: Awareness Phase
The first phase of the mentoring programme is chiefly characterised by the prote´ge´ developing an awareness of a particular need in terms of his pro- fessional skills. However, in some cases the organisation can become aware of the need for the development of a particular individual or groups of individuals for a particular organisational purpose. Interaction is estab- lished between the mentor and prote´ge´ and their roles and responsibilities in terms of the mentoring programme are determined. However, during this phase the mentor is acknowledged as the more skilled and knowledgeable party involved in the mentoring relationship.
Phase 2: Developmental Phase
The second phase of the mentoring programme is primarily characterised by an intense involvement that develops between the mentor and prote´ge´. This phase is regarded as the most important phase of the mentoring programme since both the mentor and prote´ge´ should experience it as rewarding in terms of their roles and responsibilities as identified during the awareness phase (Dreyer, 1995, p. 56). The mentor and prote´ge´ should have frequent interaction and their involvement should be characterised by mutual trust.
During this phase the prote´ge´ develops from merely an ‘‘apprentice’’ or learner, who demonstrates a particular potential to acquire an identified skill or set of skills, to a fully fledged prote´ge´, who should accept and take responsibility for the development of his/her professional skills. Hunt and Michael (1983, p. 483)refer to the second or the developmental phase of the mentoring programme as the prote´ge´ phase due to the significant increase in the skills of the prote´ge´ during this stage. The second phase is concluded when the prote´ge´ can perform independently and without the guidance of the mentor.
Phase 3: Parting Phase
The third phase of the mentoring relationship is mainly characterised by a significant decrease in the intensity and frequency of the interaction between the mentor and prote´ge´. During the third or parting phase of the mentoring programme the role and responsibilities of the mentor is more of a partic- ipatory than a leading nature. The prote´ge´ becomes aware of his ability to act independently and values the active involvement of the mentor in terms of the development of his/her skills to a lesser degree. Although the prote´ge´
prefers to act independently from the mentor, he/she acknowledges the contribution of the mentor in terms of the development of his/her skills and might in some instances even experience a feeling of loss due to the decrease
in the involvement of the mentor. This emotion can also be experienced by the mentor, asKram (1985, p. 57) indicates:
The senior manager (mentor) loses direct influence over the young manager’s (prote´ge´’s) career and personal development as well as the technical and psychological support of someone valued for high performance and potential. The young manager loses the security of having someone looking out for his career by providing developmental functions that enhance one’s self-image and ability to navigate in the organization.
Hunt and Michael (1983, p. 483)explain that the parting between the men- tor and prote´ge´ is important since it prevents the relationship that exists between the mentor and prote´ge´ to become stagnated and superfluous. The official relationship that has developed between the mentor and prote´ge´ is now terminated, since the objectives were achieved and the prote´ge´ has developed the ability to act independently from the mentor.
Phase 4: Redefining Phase
The final phase of the mentoring programme is chiefly characterised by redefining the official nature of the relationship that developed between the mentor and prote´ge´. A mutual awareness and understanding exist between the mentor and prote´ge´, which give rise to them acknowledging each other as peers (Fourie, 1991, p. 38;Hunt, 1991a, p. 16;Dreyer, 1995, p. 58).
The mentoring programme is developed within the larger contextual frame- work of a structured mentoring process or rather the mentoring process serve as the blueprint for the development of the mentoring programme. This type of mentoring process typically consists of ten generic steps. However, these steps should be customized according to the requirements of the specific organisation in which the process will be implemented. These ten generic steps are:
1. Ensuring senior management commitment as well as their visible sup- port for the process.
2. Defining the aims and objectives of the mentoring process.
3. Appointing a mentoring coordinator or champion for the process.
4. Creating organisational readiness by means of information sessions.
5. Identifying the criteria for the inclusion of mentors and prote´ge´s.
6. Selection of mentors and prote´ge´s.
7. Training of mentors and prote´ge´s, the mentoring coordinator as well as the managers of the prote´ge´s.
8. Matching of mentors and prote´ge´s based on a set of predetermined criteria, including skills, experience, gender or location.
9. Initiating introductory meetings between the mentors and prote´ge´s and setting up of mentoring agreements.
10. Monitoring and evaluation of the programme.
Unstructured Mentoring
In contrast to the formal nature of structured mentoring, the informal manifestation of mentoring is characterised by:
1. The absence of an organisationally defined objective that has to be achieved by the mentor and prote´ge´ through their participation in the mentorship programme.
2. The nature of the relationship between the mentor and prote´ge´ is not dictated by the organisation and is therefore unstructured.
3. The involvement of stakeholders is limited to the mentor and the prote´ge´.
The informal and spontaneous nature of unstructured mentoring is best described by the following statement by Golian and Galbraith (1996, p.
103): ‘‘However, it is very difficult to explain how the mentoring relationship began, developed, and sustained itself’’.