Mentoring is a powerful way of facilitating a developmental dialogue with a role model for individuals who normally would not have that type of access. Working with an inspirational, experienced mentor can develop the aspirations, confidence and wisdom of a mentee and really support them in believing in their own abilities. Using a role model mentor is most effective when it is done deliberately and proactively.

So how does it work? Consciously and unconsciously, we learn from observing and listening to other people.  Sometimes we learn not to be like them, but mostly we tend to absorb their ways of thinking and their behaviours. This happens whenever someone joins an established group or team and in learning relationships, such as in coaching and mentoring. The greater the disparity in authority or in experience between the two people, the more role modelling is likely to occur. Role modelling is very powerful, because it is an instinctive form of learning. The mirror neurons that lie at the heart of the process are core to our ability to socialise, to understand other people, and to work in groups.

Role modelling usually happens at a subconscious level – it is a largely passive process. However, in mentoring, making role modelling a considered, proactive process is important, because:

• It helps people absorb behaviours that are positive and beneficial, while rejecting those that aren’t
  
• It strengthens good behaviour (when someone sees their behaviours being emulated by another person, it stimulates their mirror neurons, too!)
  
• It helps people think about how they adapt other people’s perspectives and behaviours to fit their circumstances and their personality – so they use what they learn in a more authentic way
  
• It helps align individual behaviours and thinking patterns with corporate values.
  

So mentors can be more proactive role models by:

• Gaining a clear understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses – what someone else can usefully copy from you and what they shouldn’t!
  
• Recognising when their strengths become weaknesses from being over-used or used in the wrong places and being humble enough to share this with people you may influence
  
• Helping people, who may use them as a role model, to understand the context and impact, of using behaviours they might copy from them (for example, learning to be more assertive can be beneficial, but the behaviour needs to be modified in some situations to avoid being seen as aggressive.)
  
• Having conversations with people about how they can be selective and use judgement in what they use them as a role model for
  

Mentors can also support mentees to manage their own learning processes. People typically go through a five stage process of using someone else as a role model:

1. Acceptive awareness: Identifying, sometimes from a distance, someone who appears to have qualities you would like to have
2. Admiration: Getting to know this person better and comparing yourself to them; wanting to be like them
3. Adaptation:  Consciously or unconsciously adopting their perspectives, values and behaviours
4. Advancement: Exerting your critical faculties to integrate their mental models with your own, rather than accepting them wholesale
5. Astute awareness: Seeing the role model as a whole person, with frailties as well as strengths; becoming clear about what to accept from the role model and what to reject.

It’s common for children and young teenagers to move rapidly through a succession of role models, unconsciously repeating this cycle. As adults, we have greater capacity to exercise judgment all through this cycle, bringing ourselves to astute awareness much more quickly. Having open conversations about role modelling reinforces this.

Why would successful coaches want to join the growing ranks of professional mentors?

One of the big distinctions historically between coaching and mentoring has been that coaching is generally paid for, while mentoring is a voluntary activity. As a consequence, professional coaches are expected to have invested in some form of professional accreditation requiring a course of study; while mentoring has been seen as “amateur” – a relationship rather than an activity.

These distinctions have been blurring for some time. There have been paid mentors since the late 1990s – typically retired business leaders, who find a role guiding younger entrepreneurs. The boundaries of what they do are often vague – a mixture of soft consultancy, advice based on their lengthy experience and sounding board. With few exceptions, they have very little training in the role.

In recent years, however, there has been a trend in several countries for these retiring “elder statesmen” to want to offer a more professional service, with a level of qualification at least equal to that of executive coaches. They want to make use of their experience and expertise in a non-directive, client-centred style. Mentoring Academies have arisen to meet this demand.

At the same time, experienced coaches frequently find that the boundaries between coaching and mentoring are often less clear than “textbook” coaching demands. To be fully responsive to clients, they often need to act as a sounding board, provide contextual information, make suggestions and offer narratives from their own experience, where it will help the client with their thinking. Some feel guilty about moving into this territory; others recognise that they cannot fully service the client without doing so.

At one level, it can be argued that common models of coaching, such as GROW, are inherently directive, because they require the client and the client’s issue to fit into the coach’s process. At the same time, the non-directive, questioning approach of developmental mentoring was one of the sources, from which developmental coaching derived. So it makes sense for coaches, who want to be able to offer a broad range of responses to clients, should add mentoring competence to their skill set.

An advantage of doing so is that they now have an outlet for using their experience – of business, work and life – more coherently in service of their clients.

So what’s involved? Firstly, a deep reflection on one’s own experiences – the basis of wisdom. Mentoring can be defined as using one’s own wisdom to help another person develop their own wisdom. Secondly, the skills of using personal experience to stimulate and support the client’s thinking. Thirdly, understanding of a range of psychological and behavioural issues rarely emphasised in coach training – for example, the conscious and unconscious exercise of power, and the skills of being an effective role model. Fourthly, an appreciation and acquisition of relevant knowledge and expertise in specific applications of mentoring, such as ethical mentoring (requiring an understanding of the psychology of ethicality) or diversity.

Along the way, there may be some unlearning and questioning of assumptions about coaching itself. Coaches, who have made the transition to coach-mentor, typically find that the process enriches the quality and eclecticism of their coaching and their confidence in being able to “depart from the script”.

David Clutterbuck, 2014

The three-way conversation between coach, client and the client’s boss, is commonplace in coaching. Sometimes also involving HR, it provides a valuable opportunity to clarify agendas, establish the support needed from the boss, and improve the direct report-boss relationship.

Yet in the context of mentoring, this conversation is typically seen as one to be avoided — not least because it encourages the reintroduction of the power dynamic in the mentoring relationship and anecdotal evidence provides ample examples of it going drastically wrong. In the context of professional mentoring, however, or when executive coaches find themselves drawn into a mentoring role as well, it is a real issue. So it’s important to understand the dynamics of the three-way conversation and how it may influence the mentoring relationship positively or negatively.

In the absence of any empirical evidence, we can hypothesise several potential contributory factors. One is that the mentor will typically be seen as less of a neutral player than a coach. The mentoring relationship encourages intimacy and, as Coral Gardiner’s research indicates, is a form of “professional friendship”. So, while a coach is employed by the organisation to work with a client, a mentor’s role in this kind of conversation implies some level of advocacy — especially in sponsorship mentoring and at a more subtle level in developmental mentoring. Given that developmental mentoring aims to support the mentee in developing their skills of self-advocacy, mentors are understandably wary of undermining that independence. Rather, they help the mentee think through and rehearse the conversations they need to have with their boss.

Another factor is that, when the mentor and mentee are both employed by the same organization, there is often an existing relationship between the mentor and the mentee’s boss. Positive or negative, that relationship complicates the three-way dynamic, potentially making all three players less open, or less willing to challenge. Any of all of them may feel an increased sense of risk. The threat to confidentiality and the existence of a “safe space” that a mentee often feels within the mentoring relationship is particularly vulnerable.

A further dimension is that involving the power dynamic between mentor and mentee.  In developmental mentoring, the power differentiation between mentor and mentee is put to one side.  The involvement of the mentor with the line manager in a three-way meeting could seek to remind or reinforce with the mentee this dimension exists, as these two players may feel far more comfortable together in this discussion and the mentee feel a little “ganged up” on. Equally, if the mentor adopts the role of advocate for the mentee, this may harm the mentee’s relationship with their boss.

In coaching, the triangular conversation involves coaching both boss and direct report together. There is a shared agenda that boils down to how deeper insight, clearer objectives and collaboration between boss and coachee can contribute to the coachee’s performance, and hence to that of the team. In mentoring, with its stronger focus on career issues, the boss has much less of a personal stake in the outcomes of the relationship. Or more simply, the mentoring agenda is typically 100 per cent the mentee’s, while the coaching agenda may incorporate both coachee and organizational priorities.

These differentiating factors raise significant questions for coaches, who move into the mentoring space and for mentors, who move into coaching mode, in response to mentee need. How much danger of creating unwelcome dependency lies in the three-way conversation on behalf of a mentee? What is the relationship between the coach/mentor and the boss and how might this be influenced by context? How does the contract with coachee/mentee and boss differ between mentoring and coaching?

If circumstances arise, where the three-way conversation is essential (or imposed) then very clear groundrules will be needed to avoid the power issues.  Key questions are:

• What prevents the mentee from having the same conversation with their boss (and /or HR) on their own?
• What will be the impact in terms of the mentee taking responsibility for his or her own issues?
• How might this impact the relationship between the mentee and their boss?

The likely default position for mentors and mentoring programmes is therefore to avoid the three-way conversation wherever possible.

This is a fruitful area for future research!

© David Clutterbuck, 2014

On a recent visit to Taiwan, I was introduced to the thinking of the Chinese philosopher, Wang Yang-Ming (1472-1529).  One of the elements that I particularly liked was that he placed equal emphasis on tranquility and activity, on thinking and doing. He believed that knowledge is incomplete until it becomes conduct, and conduct is not complete until it becomes knowledge at work.

There’s a lot of modern literature about the relationship between action and reflection, but the concept that these have to be in balance and that neither is complete without the other is both intellectually and emotionally appealing. It gives rise in my mind to a number of questions for the mentor:

• Does the mentee have a suitable balance of action and reflection in their day-to-day activity? (Are they learning from what they experience and using their learning to structure new experiences?)
• Does the mentee have a suitable balance of action and reflection in their preparation for the mentoring session?
• Do our mentoring conversations encompass a constructive cycle of action and reflection?
• What does a good balance of doing and reflecting look like for the mentor?
  

Somewhere in between doing and reflection lie thought-experiments. Here, the mentor encourages the mentee to envision themselves carrying out an action and imagine what happens under different circumstances. In essence, this allows the mentee to undertake some reflection before action. Developing the habit of thought-experiments also helps the mentee prepare for difficult conversations or activities.

Early on in the mentoring relationship, it can be helpful to review with the mentee their reflective practice. Helpful questions include:

• When do you take time to reflect?
  - How much time do you allocate?
  - As a regular habit?
  - Before and after important actions/ events?
  

• How do you create an external environment conducive to reflection?
  - Do you reflect best in your office, taking a walk, or elsewhere?
  - How do you prevent interruptions?
  

• How do you create an internal environment conducive to reflection?
  - What techniques do you use to relax and be creative?
  - How do you focus on what you want to reflect on?
  

• How do you balance purposeful reflection and emergent (intuitive) reflection?
• How do you capture your reflections?
• How do you apply your reflections?
• How do you link your reflections to your personal philosophy and identity?

One of the benefits of this early conversation is that it emphasizes the importance of reflection and creates an expectation that the mentee will come to sessions with some of the thinking already done and ready to share. Reviewing reflective practice every few meetings – or when the mentee seems to be stuck on an issue and not making progress between sessions – helps reinforce the habit.

© David Clutterbuck, 2013

Ethical mentoring is a fairly new term, but it’s likely to be one we are going to hear a lot more of. The concept comes from a recognition that unethical and illegal behaviour in organizations rarely happens because an individual or group of people set out to do wrong. Rather, it starts with small breaches and gradually grows in scope and scale. So, for example, a group of employees, who see that they are going to miss an important target, with adverse affects to their bonuses, may be tempted to cheat “just a little bit”.  The group effect gradually takes over – if “everyone is doing it” or if “my boss knows and turns a blind eye”, the misbehaviour is increasingly seen as the norm and therefore acceptable. Most of the illegal behaviours within banks in recent years can be traced to this effect.

Similarly, over-stretched staff in health care may find that the only way to keep up with the paperwork is to cut back on the attention they give to patients. Gradually, patients become seen as a nuisance, because they “take me away from the important work, on which I’m judged”. Staff become desensitised to the human impacts of their behaviour – and patient neglect or abuse become a real possibility.

Other factors that make unethical or illegal behaviour more likely include:

Group loyalty – for example, when health professionals cover up the failings of a colleague, whose incompetence is killing patients. Especially when services are under pressure, group solidarity tends to take precedence over patient care.

Self-delusion - Most people think they are above averagely ethical. They also think they are above average as a driver. Our need to think well of ourselves leads us to rationalise away behaviours that dent our positive self-image. Recent research indicates, for example, that creative people are more likely to self-delude, because they are better at making up narratives to explain away behaviour that doesn’t fit with their espoused values.

Modern mentoring is largely about helping people with the quality of their thinking about issues important to them – in particular to their career and to their personal identity. Ethical mentors focus on helping people think through situations, where they have recognised the potential for conflict of values, or ethical lapses. They also help people develop their ethical awareness, so that they are better able to foresee and avoid ethical dilemmas, and provide a resource, through which business leaders, who are concerned about ethicality, can shape more ethically aware cultures in their organizations.

Ethical mentors also help potential whistle-blowers to consider their actions and the potential consequences. Whistle-blowing processes in large organizations suffer from both reluctance of some people to use them, for fear that matters will escalate out of their control; and conversely from malicious usage, for example by staff who have been justifiably fired, or precipitate use, where the whistle-blower’s actions undermine due procedure with regard to an issue already being investigated. The ethical mentor helps people think through when and how to ensure that their concerns are being addressed in an open and appropriate manner, and how to mitigate any negative personal consequences.

Both the finance sector and the National Health Service are currently experimenting with developing ethical mentors. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales is pioneering a customised training programme aimed at experienced finance professionals, who have a strong personal commitment to supporting ethical behaviour in their organizations. I and Celia Moore, Professor of Business Ethics at London Business School designed the Valuing Integrity Programme (VIP) for the ICAEW and we are also working together on a pilot of ethical mentoring for the NHS. Says Jonathan Levy of the ICAEW: “Professional conduct is at the heart of what we stand for. ICAEW research showed that integrity and ethical values are embedded in organizations through ethical leadership, addressing ethical weakness in organizational practices and have a pool of individual who can mentor colleagues to deal with ethical issues. VIP exists to help take forward the values based change programmes already adopted by many organizations so that they have a pool of dedicated individuals who have the ability and motivation to truly embed integrity, ethical behaviour, and openness into the very fabric of day-to-day decision making.“

So who makes a good ethical mentor? All mentoring requires some element of practical experience, so that mentors can contextualise the questions they ask and help clients step back from an issue to see the bigger picture. Ethical mentors don’t need to have been involved directly in major ethical dilemmas (though it helps). More important is the reflection they have undertaken around ethical dilemmas that have touched them, or which they have observed. The VIP programme aims to equip them with a deeper understanding of the theory and psychology of ethicality and unethicality, together with practical tools to help clients manage the ethical dimensions of their roles – for example, by equipping them with better tools to predict outcomes of decisions that may have an immediate positive effect on a small group, but a larger negative effect on a wider audience longer term.

Ethical mentors need to have a deep insight into their own thinking processes, in relation to their behaviour and their decision-making. They need strong skills in questioning and challenging – both of themselves and of others. They need to be able to help other people step back and critique their values, judgements and actions – yet the mentor cannot be judgemental themselves. So the outcome of the mentoring conversation is a solution or approach that fits the considered values of the mentee, not those of the mentor.

Ethical mentors need skills in disentangling intent and impact; in extracting appropriate lessons from complex and often highly emotion-soaked situations; and in helping people rediscover their belief in their own potential both to be ethical and to influence their environment (their colleagues, their organization and society) for good.

While they are not expected to substitute for formal processes of whistleblowing, ethical mentors can have a positive impact on the systems that organizations already have in place. Currently, there are two recurring problems with these systems. The first is that people don’t report problems, because they are afraid that the situation will escalate out of their control. The second is that, at the other extreme, people rush to report matters to the whistleblowing hotline, and end up undermining due process that is already tackling the problem in an appropriate and effective manner. The ethical mentor provides a practical and trustworthy intermediary, who can help the would-be whistle-blower work through their options and responsibilities. If they do then decide to go through the formal whistle-blowing process, they can do so with greater confidence that they are doing the right thing.

In addition to working with individuals, the role is expected to encompass being a sounding board for leadership teams. One of the most intractable issues for top teams is how to translate bland statements of values into heart and soul commitment amongst the wider workforce – especially when there is little difference between the values statements of one company and the next. Genuine engagement with shared values can only happen through conversations that allow people to reflect on experience, to build strong connections between their personal values and organizational values, and to explore with others how values work out in practice. In particular, people need frequent conversations that explore how values conflict and practice in how to reconcile values conflicts in ways that are self-honest and less influenced by self-interest than might be the norm.

Some of these conversations can take place within the context of ethical mentoring relationships. Even more powerful, however, is when the leaders are routinely able to have those conversations themselves, using ethical mentors to support them as necessary. Among the critical messages they can disseminate are that:

• Ethical problems arise when people close their ears to dissenting opinions. As leaders they can demonstrate that they are open to constructive dissent and value it as a safety check on decisions that might affect corporate reputation. (Another role for ethical mentors may be to assist leaders in seeking out contrary views, from people, who might not otherwise speak up!)
• Everyone has lapses in ethical judgement. What counts is not making ethical errors, but recognising, reflecting on and learning from them. If leaders are able to admit their own failings and what they have learned from them, this sets a positive example for the organization as a whole.
• Like individual people, organizations can have ethical lapses, too. Inappropriate responses are to either try to bury the issue, pretending it didn’t happen (“that isn’t like us!) or to descend into a frenzy of organizational self-flagellation. An appropriate response is to engage with everyone, who was involved with or touched by the failure, in extracting and applying critical lessons from the experience. The “edict from the top” approach taken by many organizations in the wake of moral failure is rarely effective and typically seen from below as a means of avoiding blame.
  

Everyone involved in ethical mentoring hopes it will be a pragmatic and effective way of changing the behaviours of leaders and organizations. In the NHS, the first batch of ethical mentors will be staff, who already have some training in the related discipline of coaching. In other organizations, the compliance department is providing the guinea-pigs. But there seems a general consensus that ethical mentors can be drawn from any function and from any level of management. The qualities they have in common are an ability to reflect, a measure of wisdom gained from making difficult choices across their career, and an appreciation of their own frailty and imperfection!

© David Clutterbuck 2013