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’’.
Heterogeneous Mentoring Relationships
A heterogeneous mentoring relationship is characterised by the mentor and prote´ge´ differing in terms of their gender. Ragins (1989, p. 12)explain the challenges of this particular variation of mentoring:
In sum, the empirical studies in this area indicate that female prote´ge´es may be less likely than their male counterparts to be selected by either male or female mentors. Male mentors may not perceive females as potential prote´ge´es, and may be reluctant to mentor them because of fear of sexual involvement and innuendos. Female mentors are scarce, and may not be able to afford the time or the risks associated with mentoring a male prote´ge´e. Although a comparative empirical analysis of the benefits of male and female mentors needs to be conducted, extrapolation from existing data indicates that male mentors may provide more power for female prote´ge´es, while female mentors may provide more support and role-modeling functions.
Cross-Cultural Mentoring Relationships
A cross-cultural mentoring relationship is characterised by the mentor and prote´ge´ differing in terms of the cultural group to which they belong. The literature on cross-cultural mentoring relationships is characterised by op- posing perspectives on the effective use of cross-cultural relationships.
Nankivell and Shoolbred (1997, p. 103)explain that cross-cultural mento- ring relationships are exposed to the same challenges as heterogeneous mentoring relationships. However, Shea (1992, p. 85), Teke (1996, p. 16) andTsukudu (1996, p. 16)are of the opinion that cross-cultural mentoring relationships are of exceptional value to organisations. Shea explains (1992, p. 85):
As we move from a society focused on things to one focused on human values, mento- ring offers a powerful tool for benefiting from cultural diversity. By carefully listening, by respecting our differences and by practicing the art of inclusion, we can build a stronger, more rewarding organization and society.
Group Mentoring
The typical one-to-one mentoring relationship between the mentor and the prote´ge´ can be extended to include a ‘‘one mentor to many prote´ge´s’’ type of mentoring relationship. The Business Management Institute (1997, p. 91) explains that the group should ideally consist of four to six prote´ge´s. This particular variation in the nature of the mentoring relationship is beneficial
due to the level of interaction, which is established between the prote´ge´s within the context of the so-called learning group. A few additional benefits of the group in this type of mentoring is:
‘‘yless chance of falling into dependencies’’;
‘‘ydiffuse issues of personal-chemistry mismatch’’;
‘‘ygroup bond emphasizes interrelationships among all group members’’;
and
‘‘spreads responsibility for learning and leading’’ (Business Management Institute, 1997, p. 91).
However,Norry (1997, p. 544)is of the opinion that group mentoring is characterised by a lesser degree of closeness in the relationship between the individual prote´ge´s and the mentor.
Telephonic and Electronic Mentoring Relationships
Although mentoring relationships are primarily characterised by face-to- face interaction between the mentor and prote´ge´, they can be conducted effectively by means of telephonic or electronic (e-mail and list servers) interaction according to Pantry (1995, p. 12), Nankivell and Shoolbred (1997, p. 104)as well asWoodd (1999, p. 140).
Apart from the above-mentioned variations mentoring relationships also differ in terms of the nature and extent of the role of the mentor as well as his/her position in the organisation.
External or Co-Mentors
Mentoring relationships can be characterised by a mentor and prote´ge´
differing in terms of the organisation by which they are employed or the profession which they represent. The terms and conditions of this type of mentoring relationship are to a lesser extent dictated and influenced by organisational requirements. However,Lewis (1996, p. 62)is of the opinion that the mentor might lack the necessary insight into the culture and nature of the organisation and, more importantly, might not have the ability to promote the career of the prote´ge´. The appointment of co-mentors entails that the prote´ge´ is paired with two mentors with a similar level of seniority or, as Nankivell and Shoolbred (1997, p. 103)explain ‘‘using peers, unre- lated work colleagues and external mentors to create alliances –
developmental alliances’’.Nankivell and Shoolbred (1997, p. 103) are also of the opinion that co-mentors alleviate the shortage of effective mentors and:
ybecause anyone can be a mentor, developmental alliances do not have some of the difficulties associated with traditional mentoring (i.e., pressures on managers and gender issues) and suit multi-cultural societies.
Peer Mentors
Although a mentoring relationship is traditionally characterised by a senior or more experienced mentor being responsible for the development of the professional and personal skills of a more junior or less experienced prote´ge´, some mentoring relationships entail the mentor and prote´ge´ being of equal seniority or level of experience. This type of mentoring relationship is re- ferred to as buddy mentoring or peer mentoring, according toMoerdyk and Louw (1989, p. 24).
Position of the Mentor
Mentoring relationships often vary in terms of the position of the mentor in relation to the prote´ge´ in terms of the organisational structure. Effective mentoring relationships do not necessarily require that the prote´ge´ be di- rectly in line to the mentor in terms of the organisational structure.
In conclusion to the above-mentioned discussion on the manifestations and variations of mentoring it is important to explain that a structured mentoring process is not always conducted in a formal style and an un- structured mentoring process is not necessarily characterised by an informal mentoring style. This implies that the level of formality maintained during the mentoring relationship is determined by the mentor. However, mentors should take cognizance of the impact of the mentoring style on the effec- tiveness of the relationship.Nankivell and Shoolbred (1997, p. 101)explain:
In the US, over-formalising has sometimes stifled the mentoring relationship while in the UK it is the reverse and some schemes have suffered from lack of structure.