-‘ 7,“!3 "1 , 'k Ii $1272.31.“ “1 a": 1“];u6": p""‘;‘,‘ w II 11‘ i. I III! 'I" Wm ' 1'm, m1“; 1fij”1llwfit1‘ . w? f' q .——'- _ A h ' . 1‘- ‘r '3‘ .. ~—~ a-5$__ “Fr )- I ~ : -‘A‘ I 37:? iv H” II I III WW I 'IIIII WM I '- a m I .I«I~ ..- "51¢ ‘M - WW I I .'.' .1; 1 [11$] ,7“ MI I IMJ l‘ 15311 1W”) “"m .;I I“ V M: '. I» ‘ “W ’II‘n I"“ II“ V“ 121101.“ H W: I 111101'1;1|.13{:..'r“1§°:3 “,1 ”I: I Ina}. [1 ‘21'I‘h‘11a —o fill] ',.‘;«l"" 1 ‘3 way-III u 77‘; 1’ : .- mmiiff""5§115 I. I‘mmm . V ‘1'. “"911; EL"; ’1‘1'1' ” II ‘1::?"' I 111‘;I..|"".'401¢‘ ‘5‘?! ’l‘II I} ”1'. 71:51" J. H151; “1..." 3.11:“: I I L ' 1' J O:O". {In MAW" Y :;. |':. J 5, u 1v. _ ' ‘I III.." .',.I a "I If" '- 7‘ :II““\ "€31. 1: i ,‘ . .. ' w I I? 1‘ [1: ‘7‘.'>‘I',1.': " ~.0||‘}.‘rt‘ 1' II'I': bV ‘11-'1'1'l'“ .lf'. ll‘1,.l! ”1'“ h ,, ”,1 . . I ‘1. ‘. 1:: I I ~ . :- :{é . . . > i. ‘ . :--- 4 1 '31-‘5‘ ' , 4— < ._. l‘.: l” _q C r. . ' .7. :— -; e523; 1?}: 4 _. - q _ —- - _ - 4 ‘ .._ . ' _ .- .' . : W ' “ -" ’. ‘ - h ' I‘.‘-' .«r M - V'1 V’ - ‘ . .. k {3' , _”(1‘;I 31;: 4 'HHLJII‘ i ' '3:-:|:WIJ '+,‘ .1!“ {I} 1“.“ wall 1"? 111' IVI ‘u '6' I 1'1I1I‘I‘ J. IN", . I. I ' ‘I.;1‘[.:§,r'n I '. 1": ,. "0wa 11W“ I’: idl" ._ ".II‘“ I ‘ ‘ a 1, I - mu. ., Inc-m 71.4.». I, ,I;.N$‘.;""‘~‘I’1I5IILI;;: ”f;e".;i‘ SEW ‘$’-~ '9: .‘gx'r‘ ‘ ..; ' '7- l‘ I";_ ‘N . '1‘ I :11: “'qu mi]! “N" .>I- "L truth.” {I . ' . ' ' t :31": ’I'JH hi‘Iu-I I'L . :w‘fillfl FIMVW‘I‘. 19.11911!”th Innate «MILL I If?! 1‘! NJ IIIliflllljjllllflflllflfllflll 7‘ ______W—w_._—_' _ LIBRARY e Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF ASSIGNED NON-STRUCTURED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS IN INDEPENDENT WORK SITES presented by Robert C. De Vries has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ‘ Ph . D . degree in Educationg Administration 1 . \u M ajor professor . Q Date November 3, 1987 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from .3— your record. ~FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date ~nl stamped below. ‘Aiiff'fi 33.033) 35? 0 2 ma - . h . . l I' 1... f .u‘ ‘ W ,‘ 1' “a a a :r. . s .3 0312 Wm «2 are «firm I Q -l 31% (1'; 1.991 ~ 'JW 3 3‘9?" ; L . '3. «(Wm/WV" 1 $519 ' I 4 .L. -~ ’4 or, FEB 1 21901. 1 ‘ :t kg. 23,: 2* . .-;..‘.I d ‘4 li7.. Aim {"‘ " A DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF ASSIGNED NON-STRUCTURED HENTORING RELATIONSHIPS IN INDEPENDENT WORK SITES By Robert C. De Vries A DISSERTATION Submitted to flichigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration Copyright by Robert C. De Vries 1987 DEDICATION TO CHAR Serendipity Personified She is always there in the store and afterwards. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS S. Joseph Levine, who served as chairman of my committee, performed a yeoman’s service in this project. His perceptive mind and forthright critique were greatly appreciated. The other eeebers of the coeeittee, Jack_9ain, Norman Qell and Kenneth Harding, were always supportive and constructive in their coeeents. Their varied expertise provided breadth to my program and my professional devel opeent . Hy sincere appreciation is extended to those pastors who allowed me into their einistry and their heart. Each one was congenial, cooperative and candid as we examined their relationships together. lords cannot express adequately ey appreciation to my family for their support, encouragement, and sacrifice. fly wife, Char, was an unfailing inspiration. I trust that my children, Brian, Christy and Carrie, will soon forget the hours that Dad was not at hoee. But may God bless them with a love for knowledge and an appetite for the truth. iii ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF ASSIGNED NON-STRUCTURED HENTORING RELATIONSHIPS IN INDEPENDENT HORK SITES By Robert C. De Vries The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. The participants were £13!er Dreainfiainijtrrsin- $99.51.eigenagtomqupnsrsb. who had been assigned to mentoring relationships. The data were collected in two discreet phases. Phase one produced an inclusive categorization system for analyzing mentor/mentee relationships. The second phase continued the study by focusing on the characteristics of an effective mentor, and effective eentee, and an effective relationship. A"_EIIPEE§XS.QSQEQC possessed the characteristics of a willingness to invest_in the relationship, an advanced career status relative to the mentee, self- confidence, and a willingness to reciprocate within the relationship. An effective eentee was characterized as one who was willing to invest in the relationship, recognized his novice position relative to the mentor, and was a critical learner. The relationship was characterized by coeeitment, intensity and structure. Four conclusions were suggested by the study. First, the relationship was one which would lead to a decreasing focus on career and un— .. w...“ u— - vocationalmissues with an increasing focus on the psychosocial —-._...-____,.-.__,..—.n—..—~ developeent offlthewgsntge. (Second, the eentoring style of the senior partner must be adapted to and grow with the changing needs of the eentee. :Third, the process of learning~that occurred within the relationship was best described by the experiential taxonomic terms of internalization and dissemination. (fourth, the effects of th',§§3£99939t- of eentors to eentees was generally positive and should be encouraged. Ieplications of the study were identified in the areas of defining .._... c“ the training and support_of the program, and the development of process guidelines for the administration of the prograe. _,.=.=s_o gt: TABLE OF CONTENTS L I ST OF TABLES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L I ST 0F F I BURES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER I. II. III. IWMTIDN I I I I I I I I I I I Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . Research Focus . . . . . . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Remainder of the LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . Adult Developmental Factors in the Relationship Career Induction and Development . Structured Mentoring Programs . . Mentoring in the Religious Context Qualitative Research . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . mmmmv I I I I I I I I I I I Specific Steps of the Methodology Research Focus . . . . . . . . . . The General Population . . . . . Selection of Study Participants Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . Interview Protocol . . . . . . . Guidelines . . . . . . . . Format Adjustments for Phase Two . . iv vii viii PAGE he HH OO~OIDCDUINH pa N 12 22 28 32 34 37 38 39 41 41 43 44 45 4e 46 so Management of the Data . . . . . . Post Interview Protocol . Management of the Audio Tapes Phase One Data Management Phase Two Data Management Memo Writing . . . . . . Validity of the Data . . . . . Reliability of the Data . . . IV. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION . . General Characteristics of the Study Participants . . . . . . Presentation and Discussion of Phase of the Study . . . . . . Characteristics of the Mentor The Person of the Mentor The Duties of the Mentor Characteristics of the Mentee The Person of the Mentee The Duties of the Mentee Characteristics of the Relationship . . Commitment . . . . . Intensity of Involvement . . . . . Structure . . . . . Effects of the Relationship on the Ment Effects of the Relationship on the Mentee Summary of Phase One . . . . . . . . . Presentation and Discussion of Phase Two of the Study . . . . . . . . Description of Two Sample Mentoring Relationships . . . . . . . . Ike and Isaac . . . . . Harold and Henry . . . . Characteristics of the Mentor The Person of the Mentor Willingness to Invest Relationship . . . . . . . . Advanced Career Status in the Self-Confidence . . . . . . . Reciprocity . . . . The Duties of the Mentor Characteristics of the Mentee The Person of the Mentee willingness to Invest Relationship . . . A Career Novice . A Critical Learner in the The Duties of the Mentee . . . . . V 52 52 53 54 57 59 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 72 74 74 75 77 77 7B 79 81 82 83 B4 B4 87 89 92 92 102 105 109 110 110 112 114 118 APPENDIX A APPENDIX 8 APPENDIX C Characteristics of the Relationship . . . . Effects of the Relationship on the Mentor . A Developing Friendship . . . . . . . A Stimulant for Ministry . . . . . . . Generativity . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal and Spiritual Growth . . . Effects of the Relationship on the Mentee Consultant/Resources Services . . . Broadening Perspective . . The Safety Net . . . . . . Stimulation and Motivation Personal Development . . . Theological Growth . . . . . . . . . . Effects of the Relationship on Others . . . Summary of the Nature and Quality of An Assigned Mentoring Relationship . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion ’1: Becoming Friends . . . . . . . . Conclusion a2: Psychosocial vs. Career Needs . . Conclusion ’3: Teaching and Learning . . . . . . Conclusion .4: Implications of the Study for Structured Mentoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . Implication ti: Define The Roles . . . . Implication I2: Selection of Mentors . . . Implication #3: Training and Support . . . Implication l4: Guidelines . . . . . . . . Areas of Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INVITATION LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS . . . . PARTICIPATION CONSENT CARD . . . . . . . . PHASE ONE AUDIO TAPE HORKSHEET . . . . . . APPENDIX D PHASE THO AUDIO TAPE HORKSHEET . . . . . . APPENDIX E APPENDIX F VIGNETTES OF RELATIONSHIPS OF PHASE ONE . VIGNETTES OF RELATIONSHIPS OF PHASE THO . BI‘IMW I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vi Assigning a Mentoring Relationship. 123 123 125 126 126 127 128 128 130 131 131 132 132 133 135 138 139 143 152 155 156 .157 158 159 160 161 164 166 168 169 170 173 185 198 LIST OF TABLES TABLE "‘55 1. An Inclusive Categorization System of the Mentor/Mentee Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 2. Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants . . . 64 3. An Inclusive Categorization System of the Mentor/Mentee Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 4. Frequency of Citation of Mentor Characteristics: Phi“ m. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 73 5. Frequency of Citation of Mentee Characteristics: flag. m. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 76 6. Summary of Relationship Characteristics of Mentoring Pairs: Phase One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 7. Mentor Characteristics of Phase Two . . . . . . . . . . 92 8. Inter-relationships of Characteristics and Duties of the Mentor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 9. lndicants of Mentor Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 10. Mentee Characteristics of Phase Two . . . . . . . . . . 112 11. Degree of Fulfillment of the Duties of the Mentee . . . 120 12. Summary of Relationship Characteristics of Mentoring P.1r’: Phi" Tm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 124 13. Importance of Benefits for Mentors . . . . . . . . . . 129 14. Importance of Benefits for Mentees . . . . . . . . . . 134 vii LIST OF FIGURES name PAGE 1. Continuum Toward Peer Relationship . . . . . . . . . . 141 2. Shawchuck’s Figure of Concern for People vs. Concern for Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 3. Maturity Scales of Shawchuck . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 4. Mentor Orientation Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 5. Description of Mentorship Style . . . . . . . . . . . 149 6. Mentor Leadership Styles Over Time . . . . . . . . . . 150 viii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION During the past two decades, researchers in the fields of education and psychology have begun to focus on a relationship between two adults described as a mentoring relationship. Young adults often identify an older mentor as a person who will assist them in meeting the challenges and obstacles involved in entering the adult world. The mentor, from a rich resource of experience and seasoned maturity, is potentially able to _guide the younger mentee as he/she embarks on this journey. In an effort to enhance the process of induction into a career, or advancement along a career path, organizations have also begun to facilitate mentoring relationships between the career novice and an established professional. 15g PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. The participants in this study were ordained ministers in the Christian Reformed Church, a denomination of 876 congregations in the United States and Canada. Since 1982 young men ordained to its ministry had been assigned to an experienced pastor who would function as mentor. The discovery and presentation of a paradigm appropriate to that relationship would assist in understanding the mentoring relationship in several related contexts. between a young adult and a person at least one or more decades older 2 than the one being mentored. Such a relationship would assist the younger partner in his/her psychosocial development (Levinson 1978) and/or in the entry to and advancement along one’s career path (Kram 1985). Recent research has focused onmcareer mentoring and emphasized the_gglf7assigned nature of this reciprocal relationship (Bolton 1980; woodlands Group 1980). Other studies have focused on the psychosocial aspect of mentoring (Levinson 1978; Burton 1979). Still others have education (Bova and Phillips 1982). Research should now shift from surveying the various forms of mentoring to studying “the dynamics of the relationship itself, the gotivation behind the formation of such relationships, the positive and negative outcomes, the reciprocity of the relationship, and so on” (Merriam 19832171). This study has moved the discussion in that direction through an examination of a mentoring relationship that had been arranged between young pastors who were within the_first five years of ordained ministry and older, more experienced, pastors. a; moatgn Research on the phenomenon of mentoring has increased rapidly within the last decade. A majority of the research has focused on the identification of mentoring relationships in a number of different career and educational contexts. Relying primarily on field research techniques, these studies have uncovered mentoring relationships which serve the psychosocial needs, the career needs, and the educgtional needs of the participants. These projects have advanced research in this area to the point where a substantive look at the mentoring relationship itself is 3 now appropriate. Research in the area of mentoring should move toward a uniform definition of mentoring which can be accepted within the disciplines of psychology, sociology and education. Clear distinctions should be made between the concept of mentoring and other adult career and/or developmental relationships such as 'protege,” “apprentice,” I'sponsor," I‘role model,“ "guide,” “exemplar," “alter ego,“ “consultant,“ and “supervisor.” A continuum of such relationships was given by Shapiro, Haseltine, and Rowe (1978). Merriam (1983) advanced the study through her appraisal of this area of research. She stressed not only the need to arrive at a commonly accepted definition for mentoring, but that the field should be sub-divided in order to separately examine mentoring as an gdult development phenomenon, as avcareer entry and 3939th mode, and as anveducational enterprise. Merriam highlighted four criticisms of mentoring research to date: ”(1) The phenomenon of mentoring is not clearly conceptualized” (1983:169) resulting in confusion and ambiguity among terms and concepts. ”(2) From a research design perspective, the literature is relatively unsophisticated“ (1983:169) because many of the studies rely on methods of questionable reliability. (3) Only occasionally do researchers examine "the potential drawbacks or dangers of a mentoring relationship“ (1983:170). (4) Formal structured programs in both business and education ”need to be evaluated more extensively before conclusions can be reached as to their value” (19833170). The fundamental question is how mentoring “relates to adult_ _development and adult learningf (1983:171). Several common factors emerged in reviewing the current research which gave promise to further investigations. First, regardless of the name given to this relationship, there was ample evidence to indicate 4 that the mentoring relationship had been employed for centuries. The title “mentor“ was derived from Homer’s nggggx in which Athene assumed the role of Mentor and was given responsibility for nurturing Telemachus while his father Ulysses went off to fight the Trojan war (Homer 1911). Second, whether or not it was a universal or a limited phenomenon, _pentoring appeared to be a special relationship having salutary effects Eon adult development for both participants. The younger partner, in a search for his/her entrance into the adult world was aided by the wisdom of the forerunner. Similarly, the elder partner was often able to satisfy his need for generativity (Erikson 1950) as he transferred the wisdom and experience accumulated in his journey. Mentoring as a phenomenon of career entry and advancement has received considerable attention in recent years. Some efforts to combine the insights from the psychosocial domain with the career domain (Kram 1985) hold promise for guiding future research. Several intentional and imposed mentoring programs needed careful review to determine if such a structured approach violated the essence of the mentor relationship. This research was an attempt to address several of these key issues. This research was designed to examine the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. In each of the three research areas mentioned above (adult development, career entry and advancement, and educational enterprise), a uniform theme emerged which focused on the educational .value of the relationship. The connection between mentoring and adult learning is immediately suggested in the light of the basic principles of andragogy (Knowles 1978). Mentoring holds potential as a viable and effective means through which an adult, functioning either as the mentor or the mentee, is able to attend to his/her learning needs. QEEINITIONS Researchers working in the area of the mentoring relationship have yet to develop a clear and unambiguous definition of terms. Definitions of mentoring are often circuitous descriptions of the very phenomenon the researcher was studying. ”Mentoring appears to mean one thing to developmental psychologists, another thing to business people, and a third thing to those in academic settings“ (Merriam 1983:169). Bova and Phillips (1984:17) list no less than ten examples of definitions of mentoring from current literature. These definitions ranged from ones which emphasized mentoring as a personal role model for one pursuing one’s life "Dream” (Hoodlands Group 1976:151), to the protege (Bolton 1980:198), to the one who ran interference for a young person climbing the corporate ladder (Thompson 1976:30). Levinson described a mentor relationship as an informal relationship in which the mentor’s “primary function is to be a transitional figure, one who fosters the younger person’s development, a mixture of parent and peer“ (1978:98). As with other words coined for special use by the social scientist, the term “mentor” can be used either as a noun or a verb. This research elected to use the term “mentor” as a verb in order to emphasize the dynamic and developmental aspects of the relationship. In this research the term “MENTORING: was used to denote a ‘reciprocal syndetic process through which an older person guided, eonitored and modeled the learning and developmental processes of a younger adult who was seeking his/her place in the adult world. 'Syndetic' denotes that the relationship was a complex interconnection of H...._._,_,4----.'-I three essential aspects. First, each participant contributed to and/or 6 received from the relationship those elements appropriate to his _psychosocial development. As one passed through certain ”stages” of adult development, involvement in a mentoring relationship was particularly appropriate. Second, each participant contributed to and/or received from the relationship those elements appropriate to the career \or vocational advancement of the younger party. For the younger participant this involved receiving the training, nurture and guidance necessary for inclusion in the career or vocation. The older participant received the satisfaction of being able to pass on accumulated experience and wisdom as well as memorializing his contributions in a living legacy. Third, each participant had to be able to develop a level of intimacy with the other so that a valid, trusting relationship could be maintained for a sustained period of time. The term “mentoring” denoted, therefore, an inclusive dynamic relationship in contrast to other terms, such as "sponsorship,” which focus primarily on induction processes to a career and are more limited in scope than the term “mentoring.” A sponsor might have direct influence on job promotion, pay raises, etc., but a mentor, while having such influence, did not have to exercise that influence in order for the mentoring relationship to be effective. The word fMENTEE" was coined by Levinson (1978) as a way to refer to the person who was the recipient of the mentoring process. The adjective “ASSIGNED“ was used to denote a relationship which was created and structured primarily by forces external to the participants. This term was meant to contrast with that form of mentoring which is more commonly addressed in the literature, viz., a self-selected relationship in which two persons are attracted to one another. A self-selected relationship is often created in a manner similar to a friendship, 7 although each party is frequently conscious of the benefits that accrue from their involvement in that relationship. Theoretically, the assignment of a mentoring relationship could occur on at least two levels. The relationship could be arranged; the two parties could be "matched” by a third party or institution. The arrangement would be imposed in so far as the pairing function was designed by someone else to bring two people into a meaningful relationship. The term "assigned“ could also refer to a specific program of action which might be placed on that relationship. A third party could dictate certain activities or processes through which the mentoring pair would pass within a specified period of time. Hhile some researchers are hesitant about the viability of an assigned mmntorship because of the potential lack of a “chemistry“ between the participants (Fagan and Halters 1982), a number of formal programs both in business and in education have been attempted. The terms "NATURE AND QUALITY” in the mentoring relationship referred to those benefits, insights, informations, or changes in attitudes, values and beliefs which resulted from a person’s investment in such a relationship. Some of the outcomes were intentional, the result of specific objectives that had been pursued. Other outcomes were unanticipated, serendipitous discoveries which occurred through the process. The term ”PASTORS' was used to refer specifically to those men who were officially ordained to the ministry of the Word in the Christian Reformed Church. mass This study focused on the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. The research identified the characteristics of an effective mentor, the characteristics of an effective mentee, and the characteristics of the_relationship between the two participants. In the process of defining these various characteristics, a classification of attributes for mentoring relationships was developed which will aid in further exploration of this area. ATI During the past decade several research projects have been conducted among clergy who are members of a denominational affiliation of churches called NAPARC (National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches). Elmer (1980) discovered that a number of young pastors within these denominations left the ministry within a short period of time after their ordination. Elmer also noted that these denominations lacked a process by which the newly ordained pastors could be inducted into the profession of the ministry in such a way as to reduce the stress and trauma associated with that transition. within the Christian Reformed Church nearly sixty percent of those who left the ordained ministry for a non-ministerial vocation did so within the first six years after ordination. Church officials were concerned about this early dropf_ _9ut_phenomenon and created a program by which young pastors would be assigned mentors for the first five years of their ordained ministry. The program went into effect in 1982. When research for this study commenced in July, 1986, one hundred and twenty-two pairs of mentor/ mentees were functioning. The participants were all males because the 9 Christian Reformed Church does not ordain women into the official ministry of the church. The mentees were typically in their mid to late _twenties, although one was a person entering his second career in his early forties. The mentors, on the other hand, typically ranged from their late thirties_through those who anticipated retirement. This -uxs-_ W. population was distributed throughout the United States and Canada. THODOLOGY The methodology for this research was based on the grounded theory methodology of Glaser and Strauss (1965, 1966, 1967). Data for this study were collected from personal interviews and denographic information provided by the participants. .Sixteen.pairs,were interviewed. The interviews were conducted individually with each participant. Members of each pair were interviewed within four days of each other. The interviews were between forty-five to seventy-five minutes in length. The interviews were semi-structured, using planned questions of an open- (ended variety. The interviewer used standard probing questions, but offered the interviewee a high degree of freedom to adapt the interview to his needs. The interviews were tape recorded for later coding of the responses. Concerns about the~validity and reliability of the data were addressed through several means. The same interviewer conducted all the interviews and coded all of the audio tapes. The interviews followed a semi-structured pattern which, while insuring uniformity of information requested, still allowed for a wide variation of response by the interviewees. This variation of response was critical to the discovery of what was occurring in the mentor/mentee relationship. Careful 10 documentation and record keeping aided in reconstructing every aspect of the data collection process where necessary. LIMITATIONS Research which is designed primarily to discover theory and describe relationships has obvious limitations. .Oualitative methods by their very nature require a smaller population than quantitative methods. Therefore, a narrowly defined professional group was selected. The participants were all white males with a four year post-AB education. They were all functioning as ordained ministers in the Christian Reformed Church. The study was also limited to those mentoring relationships which had been assigned by a person external to the relationship. Previous research had raised questions about the nature of such an _assigned relationship. Prior research had also raised some question about the applicability of the insights gained from studies ofself- _selected relationships to such assigned relationships (Levinson 1978). WEEMEMM Chapter two of this report contains a review of pertinent literature which served as a background to the study. Literature was reviewed in the areas of adult developmental theory, mentoring as a career induction and advancement process, structured mentoring programs, and mentoring in a religious context. Literature dealing with the methodology employed in this study was also reviewed. Chapter Three focuses on the methodology itself. In this chapter the steps employed in the methodology are detailed. The population is defined and the selection of the participants is described. The data 11 sources are identified. The chapter also deals with the data collection process, the management of the data, and the issues of the validity and reliability of the data. Chapter Four contains a report and discussion of the data. The collection of data was divided into two distinct phases. This chapter describes and correlates the data of the two phases. Chapter Five contains the conclusions and implications of the study for assigned mentoring programs. The chapter also notes the limitations of the study and suggests areas for further research. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW The literature which related to this study is broad and diverse. The literature reviewed in this chapter deals with adult developmental ...-. A‘_.s'*|l" waged—r —— _.———---- u q theory, career induction and development, and structuged_mentgringh \pggggamssinebusiness, education and the ministry. Literature was also reviewed with a view to dofininga+validflgentoringflrelationship. Because the participants of this study were ordainggmclergy, a brief review of literature defining the religious and faith context of these clergy is also included. This chapter concludes with a review of the literature in grounded theory research. MWWMMMW Without a doubt, Levinson (1978) has been recognized as a key figure in articulating the phenomenon of mentoring among adult males. He was among the first to identify mentoring as a specific function of the adult development process. ”The mentor relationship is one of the most developmentally important relationships a person can have in early adulthood” (1978:97). Levinson associated the need for a mentor with that phase of adult development which he called “Entering the Adult World.“ In 'EnteringAthe Adult World:, a young man has to fashion and 12 13 test out an initial life structure that provides a viable link between the valued self and the adult society“ (1978:79). Levinson also commented that . the distinctive character of this developmental period lies in the coexistence of its two tasks: to explore, to expand one’s horizons and put off making firmer commitments until the options are clearer; and to create an initial adult structure, to have roots, stability and continuity. Work on one task may dominate, but the other is never totally absent. The balance of the two tasks varies tremendously (1978: 80) . ' Part of the process, according to Levinson, in "exploring one’s horizons“ was to fashion his Dream. ”Whatever the nature of his Dream, a young man .-......._..._._,‘ has the developmental task of giving it greater definition and finding -Wo—s. “I a... u.) .11.... H...— 4.....— vmflng—gr _.“"Y',SP..}_£!S,3£..99£L (19.288.90- Tho «numbing-laggqnfiigupjhaxggman .. .4-——.- important 'OI' i"_3223392rSQQHiQYEQPCPFiflgnthit~nfifiin- "Th9 true mentor fosters the young adult’s development by believing in him, sharing the youthful Dream and giving it his blessing, helping to define the newly emerging self in its newly discovered world, and creating a space in which the young man can work on a reasonably satisfactory life structure that contains the Dream“ (Levinson 1978:98-99). The relationship should be marked by the qualities of intimacy, freedom for growth and the presence of a nurturing structure. A balance must be maintained between the boundaries within which the pursuit of the Dream must take place and providing freedom to pursue the Dream without undue intrusion from the mentor. Levinson recognized that the term “mentor” lacked precise definition. He preferred to avoid a formal definition and to describe it “in terms of the character of the relationship and the function it serves” (1978:98). Among those functions he listed teacher, sponsor, host and guide, exemplar and one who provided counsel and moral support in time of stress. l W 14 The relationship is dynamic and active. "As the relationship evolves, he gains a fuller sense of his own authority and his capability for autonomous,_responsible action. The balance of giving/receiving becomes more equal“ (1978399). V The relationship may last from_twowto ten years. The termination "w.— may be smooth and quiet, or it may be accompanied with high levels of traumaflandwgnief: But as it ends, the benefits often become more evident. \/1 Following the separation, the younger man may take the-admired gualiti more fully into himself. He may become Ibetter able to 12252,1F°“ himself, to listen to the voices from within. His personality is enriched as he makes the mentor a more intrinsic part of himself. The internalization of significant figures is a major source of development in adulthood (1978:101). Clawson (1980) summarized an “eclectic profile of the Mentor-Protege Relationship." Those qualities which directly described the relationship (rather than qualities of the individual participants) were these: 1. Mentor-protege relationships grow out of personal willingness to enter the relationships and not necessarily out of formal assignments. Thus, MPR’s may not coincide with formal hierarchies (Levinson, 1968, 1969; Super, 1969; Freilich, 1964). 2. MPRs pass through a series of developmental stages (Gabarro, 1978; Strauss, 1973; Super, 1952; Super et al., 1963) characterized as formation, duration, and fruition. Each stage has a characteristic set of activities and tasks. 9. Both mentors and proteges have high levels of respect for each other (Densmore, 1975; Gabarro, 1978a; 1978b; Homans, 1950). 11. MPRs have levels of affection similar to parent child relationships (Braden, 1976; Bretano, 1870 (sic); Denty, 1906; Hall, 1976; Strauss, 1973; Yoshino, 1968). 12. MPRs end in a variety of ways, often either with continuing amiability or with anger and bitterness (Levinson, 1978). 15 Through this listing Clawson indicated the dynamic character of the mentoring relationship. The relationship must be treated tenderly, with affection and respect for one another. Just as a human being grows and develops, one should expect this type of relationship to develop. The relationship can also die, either with great pain and bitterness or with a sweet and peaceful passing. Particularly appropriate to this study was Clawson’s observation that the health of the relationship depended on the 'willingness' of the participants to enter voluntarily into the relationship and "not necessarily out of formal assignments." This did not necessarily rule out the formal assignment, but the fact that an assignment had been made did not guarantee the effectiveness of the relationship. The level of personal investment in the process remained the key element. Therefore, in addition to the qualities of intimacy, freedom to grow, and the presence of a nurturing structure as noted above, the review of Clawson also indicated that a healthy relationship should be characterized by the presence of a growing or deepening relationship, one that passed through identifiable stages, and one which was marked by a mutual commitment to the relationship by both parties involved. ”Mutual trust, respect, and a belief in each other’s ability to perform competently" (Zey 19843173) determined the potential for developing an effective mentoring relationship. Moore added to the description of a healthy mentoring relationship in identifying seven elements "that ought to be included in any attempt to formalize the normally informal and highly idiosyncratic process.“ She described those characteristics as: 16 1. Accessibility: Provide for frequent (daily) interaction between mentors and proteges in real work settings, dealing with real problems. 2. Visibility: Provide opportunities for proteges to work with other high level leaders inside and outside the institution and to serve in leadership roles themselves. 3. Feedback: Insist that proteges receives careful feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Correction is as important as praise in the protege’s talents are to be developed. 4. Recognition: Sound mentoring requires commitment, time, and skill. But when mentoring is well done, its value to the institution and to the protege deserves special (but not necessarily public) acknowledgment and support. 5. Allowance for Failure: The intense personal nature of such relationships can foster uncomfortable situations. Monitor the process and allow opportunities for both mentor and protege to bow out gracefully, with their integrity preserved. But do not act too quickly: growth often comes through difficulty. 6. Openness: When left to their own devices, mentors often select from a narrow range of persons who possess characteristics similar to their own. A mentor program can correct this tendency by insisting that both mentors and proteges be drawn from diverse pools of talented people. '7. Commitment: Mentors, proteges, and their institutions must believe that good can come out of such a relationship and willingly invest themselves in the commitment (Moore 1982:23-28). These characteristics form the backdrop to the present study. Burton (1979) provided insight into this mentoring relationship by drawing a correlation between mentoring and the therapeutic relationship of a psychologist and a patient. A mentor, according to Burton, provided the mentee with guidance, advice and a ”blessing“ to which the mentee responded through gratitude, admiration and respect. Burton also pointed out dangers that could arise from accepting the role of mentor. As a psychologist, he saw a danger in allowing the mentoring relationship to block or prevent a therapy relationship where that would be more appropriate. 17 Sheehy had studied the mentor relationship from a woman's perspective, reporting her findings in Pagsage; (1976a), which is a counterpart to Levinson’s work Seaggg;g_g£_a 828:2.L112.(1973’- In a more focused study, Sheehy (1976b) examined the mentoring relationship between women professionals and their male mentors. She not only agreed with Levinson that the absence of a mentor would make development difficult, but the problem was exacerbated for women because fewer mentors were available for them. She also indicated that a sexual liaison could increase the dependency of a female protege in such a way that it would interfere with her development and growth (1976b). Relying on a study conducted by Hennig (1970), Sheehy concluded that the relationship between a woman and her mentor followed a predictable and developmentally progressive pattern ultimately concluded by the mentor who severed the relationship with the mentee. Weber (1980) supported the claim that mentors encouraged the mentee in the pursuit of one’s life “Dream“ (Levinson 1978), but Weber preferred to say that they were pursuing “hopes, objectives, plans, events, and actions“ (1980320). Weber was candid in pointing out hazards that accompanied the mentoring relationship. While others often emphasized the desire of the mentor to pass on his/her wisdom and experience in an attempt to find his own immortality, Weber warned that this desire to I'live vicariously through an alter ego, to recreate themselves in an attempt to gain some sort of corporate immortality“ (1980:23) had more dangers than benefits. But Merriam asserted that this ability to give to the next generation is reminiscent of Erikson’s (1950) middle-age period of adult development in which the psychosocial tasks for mid-life is to resolve the issue of generativity versus stagnation. Generativity 18 is a concern for and an interest in guiding the next generation... Clearly, mentoring is one manifestation of this mid-life task" (19843163). The presence of mentors for nurturing the young adult’s journey toward his/her life’s dream appeared from most accounts to be a vital aspect of the mentoring relationship. The mentoring relationship was reported as aiding this transition so much that Levinson claimed that it "is one of the most developmentally important relationships a person can have in early adulthood“ (1978:98). Merriam, however, questioned this conclusion of Levinson. “The linking of mentoring to adult growth and development is still in its nascent stages,” and ”suggesting that lack of mentoring results in stunted psychosocial growth seemtsl premature, at best” (19833163). The effectiveness of the mentorship relationship when examined from the perspective of developmental psychology was dependent on the ability of the mentee to learn from that situation. Education theorists (Piaget 1971; Dewey 1938) had long posited developmental theories as a basis for explaining the complex interrelationships between the human person and learning. Essential to understanding the developmental perspective in education, one must accept the integral role that the "person” occupies in learning. For Piaget (1967, 1971, 1973) learning is active, that is, controlled by the volition of man. As learner, man is actively engaged in a process of action and interaction with the environment around him. There is a reciprocity between the learner and the environment including both objects and persons. Piaget extended this theory in stating that man seeks a state of equilibrium through a process of assimilation and accommodation. As one proceeds through life, and as both man and his 19 environment change, the learner can ”assimilate“ that environment. Assimilation refers to that process of taking into one’s own cognitive and psychological structures the new set of stimuli that presents itself. Another option is to ”accommodate“ to this new reality by adjusting one’s own cognitive and/or psychological structure in order to maintain this state of equilibrium. Piaget identified a certain invariant sequential pattern through which people pass as they develop and mature. Social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957) referred to this phenomenon as ”balance theory“ of human development. According to Festinger, we seek to find 'consonance' with our environment. The greater the level of dissonance, the more we seek consonance. Further, the greater the value we place on a particular stimulus, the greater the pressure will be to find such consonance. Knowles (1970, 1975) built on these theories in articulating his principles of 'andragogy.“ In contrast to the commonly accepted assumptions of pedagogy, Knowles constructed an educational philosophy and methodology for adult education which he called 'andragogy," a word coined from the original Greek meaning the art and science of teaching adults. The adult learner becomes, according to Knowles, increasingly self-directed. “An essential aspect of maturing is developing the ability to take increasing responsibility for our own lives - to become increasingly self-directed" (1975315). Using experience as a rich resource for learning, the adult approaches learning as an opportunity to address immediate tasks and problems. Knowles made a special point that the adult’s readiness to learn was rooted in life developmental tasks. The motivation to learn is intrinsic to the learner. These qualities are essential to the mentoring relationship and characterize in large measure 2C) what other researchers described as a relationship in which people were able to satisfy their personal needs. The desire to learn, the task to be accomplished, and the means of learning arise from within the learner himself. This approach to understanding the adult learner, while receiving special emphasis within the past few decades, was first articulated by Eduard Lindemann in the early twenties. ”Text and teachers play a new and secondary role in this type of education. They must give way to the primary importance of the learner" (Lindemann 1926). Lindemann identified four aspects of adult education which demonstrated that adult education was a life-long activity, non-vocational in nature, concerned with situations not subjects, and placed primary emphasis on the learner’s experience. Young adult males face not only developmental issues as they enter the young adult world, but those who are entering the parish ministry face issues of transition peculiar to that profession. Brister, Cooper and Fite (1981) conducted a longitudinal study of twelve pastors and their spouses over a five year period of time. They hypothesized that their study would (1) identify effective ways of making the transition from student status to full time minister, (2) provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the seminary curriculum and clues for its restructuring, (3) suggest the content and structure of continuing education programs and denominational support systems, and (4) help the participants themselves negotiate the first five years of ministry (Brister, et. al. 1981315). Their study revealed that entering pastors had needs in several areas. They experienced what was termed a "crisis in competence.“ This conformed to the Alban Institute’s findings that over two thirds of a minister’s time was spent on ”inter personal relationships and . . . stress over their lack of competence” (Brister, et. al. 1981369). They discovered discontinuity between what they thought would happen in ministry and what really transpired. The disparity between the ideal and real was marked. There was also the trauma of culture shock. Other stresses and stressors were identified as personal issues, on-the-job concerns, role expectations, and the need to break off from the old and enter the new. The coping resources that were available to these new pastors were (a) finding and developing a mentor relationship with an older experienced pastor and (b) intentionally developing a conscious awareness of a self centered in God. . Oswald (1980) reported on a major research project conducted by the Alban Institute involving one hundred graduates of ten seminaries on the theme of transition. Oswald discovered that most graduates experience both an emotional and spiritual high just prior to, and at, graduation. Little grief was associated with leaving the seminary community. It was not until six months or more into the ministry that entering pastors began to be aware of the intransigence of the parish. Coming to terms with the reality and demands of parish life was a slow painful process for most. The study revealed that the key problem for the new pastor was role confusion. ”Trying to ascertain priorities in ministry gave them the most difficulty" (Oswald 198038). As a matter of fact, Oswald feared "that in this transitional time some of our more capable clergy decide to make a shift out of parish ministry (198038). This confusion of priorities came to expression in a variety of other needs. The new pastors needed help in translating the knowledge they had received in seminary into an integrated practice of ministry. The areas of authority, leadership, supervision, and actual and symbolic roles also caused difficulty. Host graduates, though committed to an "enabler" model of ministry, had little skill or insight into how to enable a group toward more effective ministry nor how to motivate a parish to develop its ministry. Another urgent need was to provide a model or support person who would be able to help process the feelings of loneliness, failure and inadequacy (Oswald 1980315-16). The existence of such a ”mentor“ or support person became increasingly important in the entering pastor’s life as he faced the beginning of his professional career. This body of literature highlights the psychosocial aspects of mentoring, indicating the critical role that a mentor fulfills as a person enters the early adult stages of life. Such a mentor must exhibit characteristics which convey accessibility, openness and commitment to the younger partner. QQB§§3,I!QQQTION egg DEVELQEflgfll Bova and Phillips (1984) compiled a number of definitions of "mentor“ to demonstrate the richness of the relationship which develops between a younger §d91§-‘"d the older guide. One will observe that many of these definitions are heavily weighted toward career advancement. The developmental aspects of mentoring are not explicit and often missing. A mentor is: 1. One of relatively high organizational status who by mutual consent takes an active interest in the career development of another person. (Sheehy, 1976, p. 151) 2. A guide who supports the person’s dream and helps put it into effect in the world. (Woodlands Group, 1980, p. 131) 3. One defined not in terms of the formal role, but in terms of the character of the relationship and the function it serves. A mentor’s primary function is to be a 7 2.3 transitional figure, one who fosters the younger person’s development, a mixture of parent and peer. (Levinson, 1978, p. 98) 4. A non-parental career role model who actively provides guidance, support and opportunities for the protege. The function of a mentor consists of role model, consultant/advisor and sponsor. (Sheehy, p. 131) 5. One who personalized the modeling influences for the protege by a direct involvement not necessarily implied by a role model. Thus, in addition to being a role model, the mentor acts as guide, a tutor or coach, and a confidant. (Bolton, p. 198) 6. One who possess sincere generosity, compassion and concern. They listen in the best Rogerian sense, displaying feelings as well as ideas. (Woodlands Group, p. 920) 7. One who is receptive to looking objectively at accomplishments and giving encouragement, and also running interference for proteges being groomed for higher level jobs. (Thompson, 1976, p. 30) 8. A mentor may act as a host and guide welcoming the initiate into a new occupational and social world and acquainting the protege with its values, customs, resources and cast of characters. (Levinson, p. 98) 9. A mentor is a person who shares ”the dream“ -- not necessarily a consciously formulated career goal but rather a cherished perception of self (ego ideal). (Hisserian, 1982, p. 87) 10. Mentors are influential people who significantly help proteges reach major life goals. They have the power -- through who or what they know - to promote welfare, training or career. (Phillips-Jones, 1982, p. 21). (Bova and Phillips 1984317). \/ Kram (1985) provided one of the most recent and helpful reports on mentoring in the organizational context. In this work, Kram creatively combined the interests of mentoring as a psychosocial development phenomenon with an interest in career advancement. She interviewed thirty young managers who identified the type and variety of mentoring relationships which they had developed in the work place. She then interviewed those identified as mentors and returned to the young managers for a second round of interviews. After analyzing the data collected through this process, Kram suggested that the mentoring relationship served two primary functions: career functions and psychosocial functions. Under each primary division, she identified various subcategories. By “career functions“ Kram referred to ”those aspects of the relationship that enhance career advancement,“ while psychosocial functions refer to “those aspects . . . that enhance [a] sense of confidence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role" (Kram 1985:23). The five subcategories of the career function were sponsorship, exposure-and-visibility, coaching, protection and challenging assignments. The four subcategories of the psychosocial function were role modeling, acceptance-and-confirmation, counseling and friendship. She identified the psychosocial functions of mentoring as role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counseling, and friendship (1985335-39). The career functions included sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, and provision for challenging assignments (1985324-35). Kram also identified specific phases of the relationship. The first six to twelve months was the “initiation“ phase. A certain “fantasy emerges in which the senior manager is admired and respected for his competence and capacity to provide support and guidance“ (1985351). The “cultivation“ phase usually lasted from two to five years. “The range of career functions and psychosocial functions that characterize a mentor relationship peak during this phase“ (1985353). This cultivation phase was described positively and was the period least characterized by strife or conflict. The third phase, “separation,“ then set in. This phase was marked by “significant changes in the functions provided by the relationship and in the experiences of both individuals“ (1985356). Separation occurred both structurally and 25 psychologically. The young manager was now faced with the prospect of moving out on his/her own. “Redefinition' then occurred. The stress of the separation diminished, and “the central relationship of the past takes on new meaning and a new role in each individual’s current work life“ (1985361). Kram warned about misconceptions surrounding the mentoring relationship. While it was easy to recognize the benefits that accrued to the mentee who was launching a new career and entering the adult world, she also stressed the benefits that came to the senior partner. “They meet generative needs“ and mentoring provided “an alternative purpose or project for those who are no longer focused on advancing their own careers“ (19853195). She also warned that one should not expect the mentoring relationship to always be a positive one. “Organizational factors may cause a mentor relationship to become destructive as well.“ Or the senior member may “become so self-absorbed" in his mid-life crisis that “no energy remains for coaching and counseling“ (19853196). ‘/ Schmoll (1981) studied the mentor/mentee relationship that occurred with persons engaged in or preparing for professional roles. She examined the overall qualities of the relationship, the personal qualities of each of the participants, how their relationship developed, and what aspect of the relationship proved to be significant for each of them. Her study resulted in three basic findings. She identified characteristics common to mentors, to mentees, and to the relationship. Schmoll identified the following as overall characteristics of mentor/mentee relationships: 1. friendship 2. professional and personal 3. informal 26> 4. comfortable 5. open 6. accepting of differences 7. trust 8. commitment 9. caring 10. mutual sharing 11. mutual respect 12. mutual admiration l3. mutual satisfaction 14. compatibility (Schmoll 1981:92-93). She also discerned how the relationship contributed to both the professional and personal growth of mentors and mentees alike. Therefore, not unlike Kram’s study (1985), Schmoll was able to verify that relationships which often begin with a career induction purpose result in salutary personal growth effects. Schmoll also provided an excellent description of how the mentoring relationship differed from other commonly recognized relationships, e.g., friendship, sponsorship, protege, etc. Dalton, Thompson and Prince (1977) had studied the various stages of professional careers and came to a conclusion of how these stages impacted the mentoring process. The following table represents the four stages which they have identified along with the central activity of that stage, the primary relationship, and the major psychological issues. In stage I the ideal relationship was that of being mentored by an older colleague. “Ideally, in this stage he will work with a mentor who knows how to design a study, structure an audit, or analyze the critical risks involved in a loan. He works closely with the mentor, learning from observation and from trial and correction the approaches, the organizational savvy, and the judgment that no one has yet been able to incorporate into textbooks“ (Dalton, et.al. 1977:24). On the other end of the scale, a person in Stage III often “begins to play the role of 27’ Four Career Stages Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Central Helping Independent Training Shaping the activity Learning Contributor Interfacing Direction of the Following Organization Directions Primary Apprentice Colleagues Mentor Sponsor relationship Major Dependence Independence Assuming Exercising Psychological Responsibility Power Issues for others (Dalton, et. al. 1977:23) informal mentor as an outgrowth of his success in Stage II“ (Dalton, et.al. 1977329-30). The authors often referred to Stage III as the mentor stage “because of the increased responsibility individuals in this stage begin to take for influencing, guiding, directing, and developing other people. It is usually persons in this stage who play the critical role in helping others move through Stage I“ (Dalton, et.al. 1977:29). A number of research projects have been developed to study the peculiar effects of a mentoring program on women (Bolton 1980: Cook 1979; George and Kummerow 1981; Pitt and Newton 1981; Halcomb 1980; Hechinger 1979; and Warihay 1980). Most of these studies noted that the absence of women above them in the corporate structure presented difficulties and that a woman who selected a male as a mentor had to be especially perceptive in distinguishing between personal and career goals. {28 This body of literature highlights the aspects of career induction and development in mentoring programs. As the study of these programs indicate, mentors can be assigned to mentees with a certain level of effectiveness, and there is a discernable, predictable pattern of development in that relationship. SIBQQTURED MENTORING PROGRAMS Application of these theories to assigned or structured mentoring relationships lies at the central point of this study. Several examples of structured mentoring relationships exist and were available for review. In the area of education, for example, Empire State College, NY (ESC) was the most frequently studied structured mentor program among researchers. ESC represented a new philosophy in higher education in which a faculty member, called a “mentor,“ was assigned to each student. The student and mentor worked together on a one-to-one basis throughout the student’s entire academic program. No formal classes were offered. Each student worked by means of learning contracts in an independent studies. The mentor served the student through advisement, nurturing intellectual development, and evaluation. Hawkins, in evaluating this program, concluded that the uniqueness of the mentor/student relationship was that it combined academic progress with personal growth and development. Although each mentor described this philosophy in different terms, and the descriptions emerged in different ways in the interviews, this synthesis was clearly what the mentors described as the gg;g,of the educational experience of mentoring (1984324) . The curriculum process of ESC was based on the adult education principles of andragogy and recognized the role and function that a mentor, counselor or guide could play in that learning enterprise. Hawkins, in 129 developing his main thesis that “caring“ was the critical factor in education through a mentoring process, identified four main components that comprised the caring relationship. These four were knowing, patience, trust and courage (Hawkins 1984:89). Another area in which the career induction motif of mentoring was applied was in the teaching profession. Schlechty (1984) used the Career Development Program (CDP) of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools as an example of an induction program for new teachers using a mentorship mode. Especially important to note for this research was the fact that participation in this program was mandatory. New teachers were assigned to advisory/assessment (A/A) teams who were expected to observe and regularly confer with the new teachers. These teams were also to provide the new teachers with the necessary coaching, support and assistance that they might need. Waters and Wyatt (1985) reported on an intern intervention program which was launched in Toledo, Ohio to train and evaluate new teachers. Other programs had been developed in California, Connecticut and New York. In analyzing this movement, Galvez-Hjornevik (1985b) recognized that the dynamic of assigning a “mentor“ to a new teacher violated the “Homeric sense of the word.“ In its original usage, the term mentor connoted “a voluntary and deep relationship, not limited to basic direction and encouragement (which more accurately characterizes the responsibilities of a coach).“ She also pointed out that while many teachers recognize the value of serving as a mentor, “relatively few have assumed the role“ (1985b319). A number of structured mentoring programs have emerged within the context of the church and preparation for the ministry. Various 30 denominational agencies and para-church organizations have attempted to introduce the concept of mentoring into their ecclesiastical processes. One such organization was the The Mentor Institute of Aurora, CO. This Mentor Institute had set a goal “to enhance individual and organizational effectiveness through mentoring and inter-personal growth“ (McGee 1986). McGee attempted to combine the concept of mentoring with a “new technology (Interpersonal Analysis) in such a way as to provide a means for identifying areas of interpersonal strength and weakness with the purpose of overcoming interpersonal problems that block growth in team relationships“ (McGee 1986). The instrument this service used consisted of fifty questions to be answered by a person of a mentoring team. Areas of interpersonal congruency and discrepancy were identified and collated in a personal profile. SCUPE (Seminary Consortium for Urban Pastoral Education) is located in Chicago, IL and is sponsored by ten seminaries located throughout the United States and Canada. Their primary function is to train students from the sponsoring institutions for a full year of study and field experience in urban ministry in the metropolitan area of Chicago. In addition to this primary purpose, the SCUPE Board of Directors initiated a mentoring program in 1984 for young black pastors in the Chicago area. While entrance into the program was voluntary, and while participants exercised a high degree of discretion in the selection of their mentor or mentee, SCUPE had developed a relatively structured program for the mentoring pair to follow. The SCUPE program revolved around four principles. First, “a strong mentoring program requires mentors who have been trained to do mentoring“. Second, the mentoring program “must focus on felt needs of the pastor and congregation.“ Third, mentoring is 31 dependent on personal interaction. The inner goal of mentoring is “personal growth.“ The personal interaction includes a “self-assessment process which rests on trust and may happen in many different ways.“ Fourth, a strong mentoring program “includes a communal dimension. Group support enriches the personal growth resources of participants“ (SCUPE n.d.31-2). The requirements for participation in the program were stringent. The focus of the program, while very much on personal development, was also largely on the development of skills appropriate to the ministry. An assessment process marked the beginning of the relationship by which the mentee identified the skills which he should develop in order to gain effectiveness in urban ministry. In the light of that assessment, potential mentors were interviewed who showed promise of being able to instruct the entering pastor in these specified areas. The basic model of education was that of apprenticeship. But “the key to the success of an apprentice model is the quality of the mentoring relationship“ (SCUPE n.d.:5). The mentor was trained in the apprenticeship model consisting of four phases: demonstration, description, role-reversal, and evaluation and correction. Serious questions are still raised, however, about the effectiveness of formalized mentoring relationship. “Can a formalized approach achieve the same positive results as the natural, informal, and spontaneous mentoring relationship“ (Short and Seeger 1984:15)? Price (1981372) reported that formal mentoring programs were growing and that many were aimed at minorities, women or the so-called “fast-trackers.“ But Short and Seeger still concluded that “formalized mentoring programs have serious shortcomings.“ Although they did not wish to dismiss the potential for such programs, they recognized that “until studies are 232 conducted and analyzed, the status of formalized mentoring remains unclear“ (1984:15). Mfifllgfilflfi y! 15; RELIGIOUS CONTEXT Another area of literature that was reviewed arose from distinctly Christian roots. A form of mentoring has occurred over the centuries in many religious contexts. The word “disciple“ connotes the same dynamic and force of relationship which the modern word mentor seeks to convey. Because the study population was composed of ordained ministers in the protestant tradition, they all shared a conceptualization of mentoring which was analogous to a phenomenon referred to as “discipling.“ The term was made popular in the last few decades primarily by Campus Crusade for Christ, a para-church campus ministry evangelistic organization. The term is now widely accepted as a special, conscious and deliberate relationship in which a mature believer helps an initiate develop in his/her faith and understanding of the implications of that faith for living in contemporary society. Richards (1975) is one author who articulated the application of learning theory to the area of discipling. After dealing with various approaches to learning theory such as behaviorism and transactionalism, Richards demonstrated how Piaget brought an added sophistication to the general approach of the theorists. Piaget, according to Richards, added a third factor to that of “nature“ and “environment.“ Piaget “explored the cognitive structure of developing persons, and noted that the way man organizes his environment is controlled by cognitive capacities all men have, and which develop sequentially“ (Richards 1975374). 33 Richards then posited a fourth factor which functions for those who hold to a supernatural existence. Instead of limiting the factor of environment to an area governed largely by the subjective perception of that environment, a religious person “believes in a supernatural environment as well as a natural one: an environment which encompasses the natural and gives it shape and meaning, but which extends beyond it" (Richards 1975375). Richards then summarized his view of learning theory by stating that “man is active,“ “man is structured,“ “the environment is structured,“ and “reality is revealed“ (1975:76). Richards then contended that the manner in which one was best able to comprehend and appreciate that “objective truth“ was through a process of discipling. Truth “must be learned in exactly the same ways that any ’experienced reality’ is to be learned! That is, we are to be discipled into faith’s life in the same way any person is discipled into his or her culture!“ (Richards 1975:77). The socialization process for the religious person involves, therefore, not only learning cultural and behavioral patterns, but it involves as well learning the belief system of that group as perceived as being grounded in objective reality. A modeling method was suggested as the means through which this socialization process was best attained. Richards concluded that “in the social sciences studies of identification and modeling have focused on relationships between adults and children. Yet studies have pointed out also that for adults as well, social anchors to personality and behavior are important“ (1975:84). In a significant way, discipling, modeling, or mentoring are ways through which these “social anchors“ are provided as adults continue to develop in their multiple relationship to the faith community. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Ethnography is a research methodology developed by anthropologists to study peoples and cultures. The term is often used to describe methods which contrast with quantitative methods, the latter stressing the objectivity of the researcher and the quantification of the data. Ethnography, on the other hand, depends on “the researcher being the primary conduit for data collection and analysis“ (Merriam and Simpson 1984:89). Blumer suggested that a researcher could not understand the reality being investigated unless one recognized one’s own participation in that reality. “The student must take the role of the acting unit whose behavior he is studying. Since the interpretation is being made by the acting unit in terms of objects designated and appraised, meanings acquired and decisions made, the process has to be seen from the stand point of the acting unit“ (Blumer 1962:101). Blumer referred to this interactive process as “symbolic interaction,“ which was meant to highlight the fact that “human beings interpret or ’define’ each other’s actions instead of merely reacting to each other’s actions“ (Blumer 1962397). In contrast to quantitative techniques in which there is an alleged gigggt examination of the empirical world, an ethnographic process requires that the “researcher not only witness and describe the events under study, but by conducting himself properly, come to participate in the creation and sustenance of those events. Ideally he will share the perspective of the participants, and come to understand the events just as they do. The result will be much more than a third- person account of the events; it will be a description and an interpretation of the events from the point of view of those who create and sustain them“ (Cusick 1983:132). 3S Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) referred to this phenomenon as “reflexivity.“ “We are part of the world we study“ (1983:14). “There is no way in which we can escape the social world in order to study it; nor, fortunately, is that necessary“ (1983:15). The manner in which the people respond to the presence of the researcher “may be as informative as how they react to other situations“ (1983:15). Glaser and Strauss (1965, 1966, 1967) and Glaser (1978) have made a significant contribution to the field of grounded theory research. They referred to their method as “theoretical sampling“ through which they intend to discover theory in the process of data collection. “Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges“ (Glaser and Strauss 1967:45). Glaser summarized the steps involved in the process of theoretical sampling: 1. Begin collecting data. 2; Look for key issues, recurrent events, or activities in the data that become categories of focus. 3. Collect data that provide many incidents of the categories of focus with an eye to seeing the diversity of the dimensions under the categories. 4. Write about the categories you are exploring, attempting to describe and account for all the incidents you have in your data while continually searching for new incidents. 5. Work with the data and emerging model to discover basic social processes and relationships. 6. Engage in sampling, coding and writing as the analysis focuses on the core categories (Glaser 1978). The methods for collecting data in an ethnographic study are varied. Terms such as “field study,“ “case study,“ “participant observation,“ “survey,“ and “qualitative research“ have been used almost interchangeably. Merriam and Simpson suggested that that “the term {shaggggpnx has two distinct meanings. Ethnography is (1) a set of 336 methods or techniques used to collect data, and (2) the written record that is the product of using ethnographic techniques“ (1984:91). The techniques available to the ethnographer range from passive observation to full participation in the activities of those who are being observed. Field notes, reflective memos and direct interviews or surveys of the participants are also critical aspects of the technique. “Of all data gathering techniques available to the researcher, the survey -- either written or oral-- is used most extensively“ (Merriam and Simpson 19843127). The “survey“ or “interview“ can be either an open-ended or closed interview. The open-ended question requires that the researcher remain free of preconceived notions of what an appropriate answer might be to any given question. Questions must be carefully formulated in such a manner to avoid leading the respondent in any particular direction. Hence, the open-ended question “has the advantage of eliciting a wider latitude of possible responses from participants, and, consequently, information may result that is unanticipated by the researcher“ (Merriam and Simpson 19843128-129). This open ended approach is especially critical to the researcher who is attempting to uncover theory and represent the reality of his research object as faithfully as possible. Movement from an open-ended to a more carefully designed question format was suggested by Bogdan and Biklen. At the beginning of a project, for example, it might be important to use the more free-flowing, exploratory interview because your purpose at that point is to get a general understanding of a range of perspectives on a topic. After the investigating work has been done, you may want to structure interviews more in order to get comparable data across a larger sample or to focus on particular topics that emerged during the preliminary interviews. (Bodgan and Biklen 1982:136) SUMMARY egg CONCLUSION This review of literature provided the framework in which the research project was conducted. In reviewing the phenomenon of mentoring, adult developmental theories were reviewed emphasizing the psychosocial development of the adult. Persons in various professional have attempted to precipitate mentoring relationships within the career context both_tg ease thgflintrodugg{90w9i_§ungxigg_igto a career as well as assist a person in thei£~advancement along career lines: Structured n.__— Mun-I'- mentoring programs were also introduced in the areas of education and religious workers. This chapter concluded with a discussion of the theory and procedures involved in a field research methodology employed in the study. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the naturgmand_ quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. The population consisted of thirty two ordained pastors in the Christian Reformed Church who had been assigned to one another as mentors and mentees. In order to accomplish this purpose, a methodology based on the theories of_Glaser and Strauss (1965, 1966, 1967) and Strauss (1978) was used. As the research progressed, the data collection and analysis was divided into .two discreet phases. Phase one concentrated on defining the basic descriptors and identifying the dynamics of an assigned mentoring relationship. Phase one also functioned as a complete field testing of the research and analysis process while still permitting the data collected in phase one to be used as an integral part of the study. A total of twelve interviews were completed in phase one. The data were thoroughly analyzed and the report written before proceeding to phase two of the research. Phase two of the data collection began with the categorization system that resulted from phase one. This system permitted a more structured interviewing process during phase two. This structured interview process permitted a close examination of the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. Twenty interviews were completed in the second phase. The interview technique was adjusted so that the inquiry was more structured and directed by the interviewer. 39 wmfilfiw Grounded theory research is a systematic, organized manner of collecting data. While it typically avoids quantification of data, the method does demand rigor and discipline. Glaser (1978) had identified several basic stages for a grounded research methodology. The first step was the identification of a general problem area. The problem to be addressed can be identified in a number of ways. Generally the problem is stated in the form of questions. These questions, however, are not formulated as pre-conceived hypotheses. They are, rather, questions that assume no pre-conceived notion of what is happening in a given situation. Grounded theory research is a method which attempts to uncover theory rather than prove or disprove an existing theory. Underlying this approach is the desire to understand what is happening in a particular incident or combination of incidents. The second step was to engage in a limited review of literature. Glaser (1978) suggested that the review of literature be in areas surrounding the problem under study, but not focused directly on the topic itself. An understanding of theories from related fields would help the researcher focus attention on the problem at hand. However, the researcher must carefully guard the integrity of the inductive methodology of this approach. Rather than testing the viability of an existing theory, this approach attempts to “discover“ or “uncover“ theory as it arises from the data under study. Glaser and Strauss (1967), therefore, encouraged the researcher to ignore the literature in the area being studied to avoid contamination by pre-conceived thoughts or paradigms. 40 The third step suggested by Glaser (1978) was that of theoretical sampling. Theoretical sampling is a process by which data are collected, coded into conceptual elements, and integrated into conceptual models or frameworks. This concurrent process of data collection, coding and analysis is the key for generating theory. “Through a process of constant comparisons, the researcher creates more abstract levels of theoretical connections“ (Glaser 1978:39). The data can be collected in a variety of ways, typically referred to as “field methods.“ These include such methods as field observation, participant observation, and semi-structured interviews. Coding is the process by which a link is formed between data and theory. The data are divided into a variety of categories or concepts. These concepts are then subdivided into their various indicants or properties. This process is simultaneous with the data collection process. When the categories are fully saturated, that is, when no new properties emerge from further data collection, the basis for a theoretical framework has been laid. The analysis is continuous with the collection of data and the coding process. Glaser suggested that the researcher record his/her thoughts, impressions and emerging theories in a system of memos. “Memos are the theorizing write-up of ideas about codes and their relationships as they strike the analyst while coding“ (1978:83). The fourth step in Glaser’s methodology involved sorting. The process of sorting begins early with data collection. Sorting is the process by which data are brought back together. The series of memos containing the emerging theory(s) are sorted and realigned until theoretical completeness is reached. The final result is an integrated constructive contribution to the area of study under reflection. 41 mass The immediate precursor of this study was work completed by Schmoll (1981) in which she studied mentoring relationships among persons engaged in or preparing for professional roles. Schmoll was primarily concerned with how mentors and mentees described the overall qualities of their relationship. She wished to discover how mentors and mentees described themselves and each other, how they described the development of their relationship, and how they described the significance of their relationship for themselves and for their mentor or mentee (1981349-50). She concluded that “although this study has suggested that organizations should not attempt to arrange mentor/mentee relationships, it seems organizations can facilitate the establishment and continuation of mentor/mentee relationships“ (Schmoll 1981:138). This study focused more precisely on that type of relationship which she suggested could be “facilitated“. The fundamental question guiding this study was what is the nature and quality of a mentoring relationship which has been assigned or arranged for the participants. mmm The Christian Reformed Church is a denomination of protestant congregations in the reformed tradition. Their cultural and national roots can be traced to the Netherlands and western Europe. Since its origin in the United States in 1857, this denomination has expanded into Canada and currently records a membership in excess of 300,000 members in 876 congregations. There are 836 ordained pastors active in the ministry. Beginning in 1982, all persons entering the ordained ministry in this denomination were assigned a mentor. The program is 42 supervised and coordinated by the Pastor Church Relations Services (PCRS), a denominational agency located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Each entering pastor is provided a list of three pastors within the general geographic location of his first congregation. With the approval of the Director of PCRS, the novice pastor is allowed to select one of these pastors to serve as his mentor for the next five years. His selection must receive final approval from the Director of Pastor Church Relations Services and the executive committee of the governing board. As of July, 1986, one hundred twenty-two mentor/mentee pairs had been appointed within the denomination. The Director of PCRS judged that fourteen of these pairs were non-functional due to the great geographic distances which separate them. These pairs were able to see each other only infrequently and usually in conjunction with other regularly scheduled church activities. The remaining 108 pairs have developed, in his judgment, a certain level of working relationship. Participants, however, were selected from the total list of 122 pairs. The Director of PCRS provides the potential mentees a brief orientation to the mentoring program during the spring of their senior year in seminary. Once the relationship with the mentor is established, this same Director maintains periodic contact, usually by telephone, approximately once every six months to encourage the pair to continue their contact together. An annual half day conference to which mentors and mentees are invited is provided in conjunction with the annual Synod of the Christian Reformed Church. The average attendance ranges between forty and sixty persons. Attendance is voluntary. There are no specified or pre-determined processes through which mentors and mentees must go. The Director produces regular mailings to the mentors and mentees containing suggestions and guidelines for the mentoring 43 process. They are encouraged to meet together regularly, especially to encourage and direct the new pastor through the initial years of his ministry. WIEMP_LJ_HCPMT While random sampling and stratification of the sample is crucial to quantitative research methods designed to test existing theory, grounded theory research does not make such stringent demands. It is important that sufficient data are generated to saturate the emerging theory. Hence, the process of interviewing, coding, and sorting should be conducted to such an extent that no new indicants emerge to describe the developing theory. A researcher generally cannot anticipate how long it will take to reach such saturation. Levinson (1978) based his conclusions on forty interviews. Schmoll (1981), on the other hand, based her conclusions on twenty-two interviews. The collection of the data for this study was divided into two phases, the first of which consisted of twelve interviews and a second phase which consisted of twenty interviews. All of the participants were ordained ministers in the Christian Reformed Church. They were all male since the denomination does not ordain women to the office of minister. The denomination is small enough that most ministers have some acquaintance with the rest of their fellow clergymen. The relationship between the researcher and any given participant, however, was not so intimate or familiar that it would adversely effect the results of the research. The level of familiarity was an asset in that it allowed the researcher to move more directly and immediately to the issues under study. 44 The actual selection of the participants was made according to the travel and work convenience of the researcher. These mentor/mentee pairs were located throughout the United States and Canada. Three broadly defined regions were identified in which a high concentration of mentoring relationships existed. These were in the greater Denver area, western Michigan and southern Ontario. Participants were selected from each of these general regions. Once a general region had been selected and scheduled for a visit, a target city was selected within that region and all the mentoring pairs within a forty mile radius of that location were interviewed. For example, when London, Ontario was targeted as a core city, mentors and mentees in Essex, Ingersoll, St. Thomas, and Sarnia were interviewed. MAW Data for this study were derived from personal interviews and demographic information provided by the participants. A total of thirty- two mentors and mentees located throughout the United States and Canada were interviewed. At the completion of the first twelve interviews, the data were thoroughly analyzed. This was an important step in the total research process since it allowed for a complete field testing of the research and analysis process and, at the same time, allowed for the retention of the data collected in phase one to be used as an integral part of the study as it was continued in phase two. These categories were then applied to the analysis of the relationships in both phases of the study. Phase two began by using the categorization system that emerged from phase one. This system allowed for a much more structured interviewing 45 process during phase two. A new recording form (Appendix D) was prepared that used the inclusive categorization system of the mentor/mentee relationship. In both phases the primary source of data was the interview. The participants were not asked to provide any additional documentation for their perspectives on their mentoring experience. Documents, articles and selected records from the Director of Pastor Church Relations Services served as a second source of data for this research. These documents were especially helpful in formulating a conception of what an ideal mentoring relationship would be in the definition of the principle administrators of the program. we. PR0____TDCUL Two trial interviews were conducted with a mentoring pair in the western Michigan region. The interview protocol used for those interviews was adapted from Schmoll (1981). After completing the two trial interviews, an open-ended interview format was defined. In keeping with grounded theory methodology, minor adjustments were made in the interview protocol as necessary during the collection of data in both phases while constantly guarding the integrity and objectives of the process. At the conclusion of phase one the data were analyzed and basic descriptors of the mentor, the mentee, and the relationship between them were identified. This constituted the conclusion of phase one of the data collection. Phase two consisted of twenty additional interviews in which these categories were substantiated and/or amended. The data collection proceeded until the categories were saturated. The analysis 46 of data was done in such a way that data collected within a given phase was used exclusively in that phase. Chapter Four reports in depth on each of these two phases. The interview protocol outlined below applied to both phases except where noted. Guidelines The following guidelines for conducting the interviews were observed throughout the process. 1. All the interviews were completed within a twelve month period of time. 2. Each mentor and mentee comprising a pair were interviewed separately, but within four days of each other. This close scheduling of interviews helped insure the reliability of the data gathered. 3. Each interview was conducted as though it were totally autonomous of the other. No reference was made to the mentor regarding the mentee’s response, and vice versa. 4. No attempt was made to control the order of the interviews throughout the collection of data. 5. All mentoring pairs within a forty mile radius of a targeted city were interviewed during the same field trip, with the exception of the western Michigan region. The high concentration of mentor/mentee pairs and the easy accessibility the researcher had to them rendered this guideline unfeasible in this region. Fggmat All interviews were conducted and coded by the researcher. The fact that the same interviewer both coded and sorted the data contributed to 47 the reliability of the findings. The interview format in phase one was designed around a series of semi-structured open ended questions. In phase two, the questions were designed to follow more closely the categories that had been identified in the first phase. The same introductory comments were made to all the mentors and mentees. The same format of questioning was used for all participants. The interviews in phase one were divided into five basic sections. The person being interviewed was informed that five areas would be addressed, and that the approach in each area would be basically the same, viz., they would be asked to name words or adjectives which described the aspect of the relationship under consideration. The final section would be a closing section in which the interviewer would ask additional questions on areas which might not have been previously addressed by the interviewee. After arranging themselves for the interview, the interviewer began with the following statement: The Director of Pastor Church Relations has informed me that you and (name) have been matched together in the mentoring program. My purpose today is to gain some understanding of this relationship. I am not here to judge the program as it has been structured by the denomination. I am here to learn something about the nature of the mentor/mentee relationship, especially as you have experienced it. I will divide the interview into five basic sections. In each section I will ask you to describe your relationship with (name) from a particular perspective. Then we will talk in a little more detail about that aspect of the relationship. As we go along, I might ask other questions that relate to the purpose of this study. I will audio record this interview in its entirety. I will be using these recordings to obtain specific data which will be compared in a variety of ways. I will not report any of the findings with your name attached nor in any other way that could be directly associated with you or your ministry. I appreciate your willingness to participate in this study, and I appreciate the fact that you have signed the permission slip indicating that you understand the terms of confidentiality that have been set for this study. 48 Following this introductory statement, the interview proceeded along the following format: Section 91: What adjectives or words would you use to describe the relationship as it now exists? After the interviewee had responded, the interviewer asked of each adjective in the order mentioned, “Tell me what you meant by “(adjective).“ The probing continued until the interviewer was satis- fied that the meaning of the adjective had been exhausted. (NOTE: This same probing technique was used as the standard follow-up procedure for the lead question in each section.) Section 023 What adjectives or words would you use to describe the relationship when it began? Section 03: What adjectives or words would you use to describe the benefits of your involvement in this relationship? Section 44: What adjectives or words would you use to describe the drawbacks or problems involved in this relationship? Section .53 What adjectives or words would you use to describe the future direction of this relationship? This would conclude the regular line of questioning. However, the interviewer continued to probe any areas that had emerged in previous interviews which were judged to be of significance for the study. Sample questions for additional probing are: Have you been, or are you now involved with other relationships of this nature? What do you think could be done to promote the development or growth of the relationship? While grounded theory research methodology is designed in such a manner that basic categories arise from the data as it is being collected (Glaser and Strauss 1967) and requires the researcher to guard against 49 coming to the data with pre-conceived notions of what might be found there (Cusick 1983), the review of the literature on mentoring did give some indication to the general direction in which the data collection might go. While always open to new or revised categories, the initial interviews were especially sensitive to data that would address the following categories: 1. The effects of “assignment“ on the relationship. Would the participants note any positive and/or negative effects arising from the fact that the relationship was arranged for them at the beginning of the program? 2. The specificity of definition of “mentoring.“ Would the participants articulate a conscious awareness of mentoring as distinguished from other functions in which they might normally be involved, e.g., pastoring, advising, or consulting? 3. The developmental stages of the relationship. Would the participants describe any development or change in their relationship over a period of time? 4. The effects of personality on the relationship. Would the data indicate which aspects of the mentoring role were dependent on or independent of the personality of the participants? These categories served as the initial categories for the ordering and sorting of the data. New categories emerged which stood along with, or replaced, these original categories. Sometime during or at the end of each interview the participants were asked to provide the following demographic information. This information was directly requested only if it had not been volunteered during the course of the interview. The information requested was the 5C) person’s age, the month and year of ordination, the average frequency of meetings with the mentor/mentee, the number of miles that separated them, and the number of pastorates the mentors served prior to their present church. Throughout the interview restatements and brief repetitions of the participant’s responses were used to insure accurate perception and recording of the participant’s responses. At the close of each interview, the participant was reminded of the purpose to which these data would be used, of the confidentiality of the information, and was promised a summary of the findings. mamas During phase two of the data collection, each interviewee was given the same introduction to the project that was used in phase one. Each party was informed of the project by letter and had signed a consent card indicating they understood and agreed to the terms of confidentiality. At the beginning of the interview, the interviewer introduced the subject in the following manner. As I indicated to you in the letter, the research that I am conducting focuses on the relationship between a mentor and mentee, especially where that relationship has been assigned at the outset. The gathering of information has been divided into two phases. Several interviews were done earlier this year in different areas of the United States and Canada. I have analyzed that data and have tentatively identified a num- ber of factors that pertain to the mentor, the mentee, and the relationship between them. I will begin this interview in a rather open ended fashion. I’ll want you to describe your relationship with [name] in whatever words you like. As the interview progresses, however, I might begin to ask you specific questions about some of the items I am especially interested in. Don’t worry if these questions might not follow from what you have said. That doesn’t mean that you have missed anything, it only means that there are certain areas I wish to cover before we conclude this interview. 51 The interview then proceeded primarily along the lines of those in phase one. The interviewee was asked to describe the relationship using four or five adjectives that might capture its essence. Approximately half way through the interview, the focus shifted from what was actually happening in the relationship to what he might consider to be an ideal situation. Questions such as the following were routinely used: “How would you describe the ideal mentor?“ “If you had an opportunity to select from five potential mentees, what qualities or characteristics would you judge to be most important for an effective mentoring relationship?“ “If you could change anything in your relationship with [name] to make it ideal, what would that be?“ Near the conclusion of the interview the check list of the categories that had emerged during phase one was consulted. If sufficient data had not been gathered in the interview relative to any of these categories, specific questions were addressed to that area. For example, if a mentee had not commented on the category of age differential between the mentor and mentee, he would be asked: "Your mentor [mentee] is [the number of years] older than you and has served [number] of churches. What impact might that have had on your relationship?“ Every interview concluded with a recapitulation of the highlights of the conversation. This recapitulation was usually introduced with a phase such as, “now that we’re coming to the close of this conversation, let me attempt to highlight what I’ve heard. Please correct me, or add anything to what I say, as I go along. But I heard you describe this relationship . . . “ Invariably the interviewee would verbally or non- verbally affirm what was being said and/or interrupt to make additions or corrections at specific points. The interviews during phase one ranged from forty-five to seventy minutes in length with the average being sixty minutes. The interviews during phase two were slightly shorter, largely because the questions were more pointed. The interviews in this phase ranged from thirty to sixty minutes in length with the average being forty-five minutes. MANAGEMENT 9E Ifl§,QeIQ Glaser and Strauss (1967) indicated that the collection of data and the analysis of the data are concurrent activities. “The analyst jointly collects, codes and analyzes his data“ (1967:45). This section contains an explanation of the manner in which the data were managed and identifies the categories which emerged at the conclusion of phase one. Egg; Interview Protggol Within two days after each interview, the following activities were completed: 1. a brief summary of the interview content was written from memory and notes. 2. impressions about the procedure and the participant’s behavior during the interview were recorded on paper. 3. a description of the context in which the interview took place was recorded, including the time and date of the interview, a description of the physical setting, the climate of the interview setting, and any incidents that might have affected the session. S3 4. participant code numbers were assigned to the interview notes and filed with the other reflections and descriptions described here. Han—39L?“ 0.1 the MAP. 19.9.9.5. Each interview was recorded on audio tape with the written permission of each participant. Each participant was informed in advance of the purpose and format of the interview. In many cases initial contact with potential participants was made by telephone, but in every case a letter was sent indicating the nature of the research and assuring the participant of the confidentiality of the information that would be provided (Appendix A). In order to guarantee confidentiality, each participant submitted a signed card indicating their willingness to participate in the research on the basis described in that letter. That signed card was received prior to proceeding with the interview (Appendix B). At the conclusion of each interview, a code number was assigned to the audio tape and, from that point on, reference to material from that tape was made either by code number or a fictitious name. The code number was a nine digit number, such as 01R09256A. The code represents the following: 91R09256A the pair number 01309256A indicates mentog or menteE 01R09256A 8 indicates the month and day of the interview 01R09256A - indicates the year (1989 or 1981) 01R09256Q indicates the order of the interview on that particular day. Up to four interviews were conducted on certain days. 54 Therefore, throughout this coding process, immediate identification of a tape was able to be made with respect to the particular mentoring pair, the participant as a mentor or mentee, and the date and series of the interview. Ethan 0_n.s Data H_3___tana elven Phase one of the data collection process was comprised of twelve interviews. Each of these interviews were conducted according to the protocol outlined above. In the process of interviewing, the tapes were also reviewed and working notes were prepared on the form appearing in Appendix C. The first three digits of the tape code, viz. the mentoring pair number and the designation of mentor or mentee, were transferred to the tape notes. The pages were noted by a single digit, followed by a two digit indication of line number on that page. Thereby, any comments transferred from the tapes to the notes were able to be identified by this identification code. For example, 04E:2:29 would refer to a comment made by the mentee of pair 04 as noted on page two of the tape notes, line 29. As the data collection process proceeded in phase one, the tape notes were carefully analyzed in order to discern emerging categories. The first four interviews were analyzed in a group and single word descriptors were written in the right margin. Further analysis of these comments led to the emergence of thirty-four categories. These were further analyzed and cataloged into eight basic categories, each of which described some important aspect of the mentoring program. The coding process allowed for any given comment to be assigned to multiple categories so that a comment such as “My mentor is really beginning to open up more to me, and I am getting to see some of his pain in the SEE ministry“ could be entered in such categories as “qualities of a mentor,“ “degree of intimacy,“ and “reciprocal relationship.“ Each of the thirty-four categories were assigned a four letter code. This material was then entered into a computer data base program using three variables: the category (e.g. ATAG), the tape note code number (e.g., 03E:2:43), and the actual comments (e.g., “Remember, he’s not much older than I am“). This information was subsequently entered into the data base program as the analysis of additional individual audio tapes proceeded. At the conclusion of phase one, the data base program generated a printout of the comments according to the category. The data were also able to be manipulated in order to collate any comments by a given mentoring pair on any given subject. The development of the categorization system (Table 1) based on the data of phase one was an important step in the total research process. This first phase permitted an extensive field testing of the research and data analysis process prior to the commencement of phase two, while still allowing for the retention of the data collected in phase one as an integral part of the entire study. Chapter Four contains a discussion of these categories and the way in which they were interpreted in the light of the second phase of the data collection. The categories themselves, as well as the process described here relative to the management of the data, applies to both phases of the data collection. 563 Table I An Inclusive Categorization System of the Mentor/Mentee Relationship CATEGORY ONE: ATTRIBUTES OF THE RELATIONSHIP ATAG Age Differential ATCS Contrast/Similarities between Participants ATDF Degree of Formality ATDI Degree of Intimacy ATDS Descriptors of the Relationship ATIN Initiator of the Relationship ATLM Limitations to the Relationship ATRC Reciprocity of Relationship CATEGORY TWO: DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIP DVBG Beginning of Relationship DVCR Current Status of Relationship DVFT Future Expectations for Relationship CATEGORY THREE: EFFECTS OF RELATIONSHIP ON EFCN Congregation/Ministry EFME Mentee EFMR Mentor EFSP Spouse/Family CATEGORY FOUR: IMPOSITION OF RELATIONSHIP IMMT Matching of Participants IMNG Negative Effects IMPS Positive Effects CATEGORY FIVE: MENTEE renr Definition of rem Duties of rem Qualities of I£RG Rights of CATEGORY SIX: MENTOR MRDF Definition of MRDT Duties of MROU Qualities of MRRG Rights of 57 CATEGORY SEVEN: RELATIONSHIP TO RLES Other Ecclesiastical Systems RLPC Pastor Church Relations Services RLSO Significant Others CATEGORY EIGHT: STRUCTURE OF RELATIONSHIP STCN Content of Agenda STFR Frequency of Interactions STLO Location of Interactions STPA Participants STPR Process (including degree of intentionality) mmmm The collection of data in phase two began by using the inclusive categorization system which emerged from phase one. This system allowed for a much more structured interviewing process during phase two. A new interview note form (Appendix D) was prepared that utilized the categories named in the system. While the purpose of phase one was to develop preliminary understandings of the mentoring process and to develop a system for categorizing responses, the purpose for phase two was to substantiate both the preliminary understandings and the system of categorization that emerged. The data were gathered and managed in a manner appropriate to that purpose. Immediately after each interview, field notes were written describing the circumstances under which the interview was conducted. The attitude of the interviewee, the physical situation of the interview setting, and any other striking feature of the interview were noted. Simultaneous to the interviewing process, the tapes were reviewed and notes compiled based on those tapes. The interview note sheet (Appendix D) was devised in such a way so that salient comments could be E58 noted by category on the worksheet. Notation was also made of the demographic information that was sought. When the note sheets were completed for a mentoring pair, a vignette was written in which the essence of that relationship was captured. These vignettes are contained in Appendix F. Using these vignettes and the notes of the taped interviews, a judgment was reached with respect to the degree to which the mentor met the characteristics of a mentor as defined by the data of phase one. Similarly, a judgment was reached with respect to the degree to which the mentee met the characteristics of a mentee as described by the data of phase one. The relationship itself was then tested with respect to the degree of mutual commitment, intensity and structure. Throughout this process, attention was also given to those areas in which adjustments would be made to the conclusions of phase one. Discrepant cases were also noted which gave some indication that the categories previously identified were valid although in a single given situation that category might not hold true. The data of phase one were managed, therefore, in such a manner as to allow the basic categories to emerge from that data resulting in the inclusive categorization system of the mentor/mentee relationship. In phase two, building on this categorization system, the data were controlled to a higher degree in order to confirm, adjust or alter these categories. The collection of data in phase two also continued until all the categories were saturated and further interviewing would likely not produce any additional significant insight into the nature of the mentoring relationship under study. 59 Mgmg,Writing On several occasions throughout the process, memos were written to note various impressions, concerns or emerging ideas. These memos were written either in conjunction with a particular interview, or they were written independently of a specific event. There were occasions when the simple process of musing on the data brought new insights or raised new issues. Memos were also written occasionally as the result of further review of the literature prompted by a specific concept or reality that seemed to be emerging during the analysis of the data. The process of memo writing not only aided in managing the data as they were being worked, but the memos also lent some confidence to the validity of the data and the reliability of the research. Wibflfl The validity of data in grounded theory research is always a concern. The researcher is not able to control the context in which the study is conducted in the same degree to which quantitative studies provide such control. There are, however, several rules which the researcher must respect in order to enhance the validity of data. These indices were first postulated by Homans (1950) and were reiterated by Janesick (1977). They suggested that validity of data was enhanced when the researcher (a) spent as much time as possible with the persons being studied, (b) conducted the research in the same place the persons being studied lived and worked, (c) observed the subject in as many social contexts as possible, (d) spoke the same language as the subjects, (e) achieved as great a degree of intimacy with the subject as possible through multiple contacts, and (f) obtained a confirmation of the 6C) meanings from the subjects being observed. These guidelines were formulated primarily for those engaged in participant observation as a field research method. Items “b,“ “d,“ and “f“ were especially appropriate to the interview protocol employed here. The most critical index of validity was the level of consistency between the notes and coding of interviews. The method described above for the management of the data, analysis of the tapes, and identification of categories arising directly from the comments of the participants met the criterion of Cusick that the researcher not approach the data collection with "whimsy“ but with a high level of intentionality and responsibility. Although geographic distances and the occasional nature of the meetings between mentors and mentees prevented close observation of the subjects in as many social contexts as possible, the other criteria posited by Homans were adequately met. In particular, all interviews were conducted on the location where the persons being studied lived and worked. Prior knowledge and involvement with the participants led to a degree of intimacy that might not otherwise have been possible with someone not as familiar with the individuals or their ministry. Careful restatement of conclusions or observations in order to elicit confirmation or correction from the participants during the interview process also enhanced the validity of the data. WELT“ Reliability of data addresses the issue of the consistency of the findings and the replicability of the findings. Janesick (1977) pointed out that qualitative studies were not as concerned with reliability as were quantitative studies. There is no standardization of methods, 61 instruments or scoring. As a matter of fact, Weber (1949) seriously questioned whether this form of research should be concerned with the issue of reliability at all. According to Weber, generalizable laws (or in this case the replicability of a study) likely lead to research that is the least valuable. The more comprehensive the validity or scope of a term, the more it leads us away from the richness of reality since in order to include the common elements of the largest possible number of phenomena, it must necessarily be as abstract as possible and hence devoid of content. In the cultural sciences, the knowledge of the universal or the general is never valuable in itself (Weber 1949:80). Nonetheless, this study addressed the issue of reliability in a number of ways. All interviews were conducted by a single, experienced researcher. Time frames for conducting and scoring the interviews had been set. The semi-structured interview protocol, while allowing for relatively free expression on the part of the participant, also assured that each interviewee would be asked the same questions. All interviews began and ended in a similar fashion. Finally, careful documentation was maintained during the process and was retained as a permanent record. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. Thirty-two ordained ministers who were part of a structured mentoring program in the Christian Reformed Church participated in the study. Characteristics of the mentoring relationship were identified as well as the qualities associated with being an effective mentor or mentee. These characteristics were identified through the compilation of demographic data pertaining to each participant as well as a multiple comparison analysis of the interview data. The findings and discussion of the research data are presented in the following sections: general characteristics of the study participants; the presentation and discussion of phase one of the study: the presentation and discussion of phase two of the study: and a summary of the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. Phase one of the study consisted of twelve interviews and served as a means of providing a complete field testing of the research and analysis process. An inclusive categorization system of the mentor/mentee relationship emerged from the data of phase one. Phase two employed the inclusive categorization system in order to generate a much more structured interview technique. Data gathered throughout phase two was used to clarify and substantiate both the preliminary understandings of the 62 63: mentor/mentee relationship as well as the research process itself. The data of both phases of the study were used to draw conclusions about the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. w CHARACTERISTICS g 1:: sum 9491191943115 The participants of this study were all ordained ministers in the Christian Reformed Church, a protestant denomination of 876 congregations in the United States and Canada. Since 1982 a denominational agency known as Pastor Church Relations Services has been mandated with the responsibility of matching new pastors entering the ministry from seminary with more experienced pastors in a mentoring relationship. Six mentoring pairs were interviewed in phase one of the data collection, and an addition ten pairs were interviewed in phase two of the data collection. A variety of demographic information was gathered from each participant during the interview session. Table 2 summarizes that information for both phases of the data collection. The mentors ranged in age from thirty-five to sixty-three years old. The average age of the mentors was forty-seven years old. The mentees ranged in age from twenty-eight to forty-six years old. The average age of the mentees was thirty-one years old. The age differential between the mentor and the mentee ranged from only two years to thirty three years. The median age differential was 15.25 years which falls within the parameters suggested by Levinson (1978) of between ten and twenty years. The mentors represented a wide range of pastoral experience. Although one had served only one previous pastorate, the average number of congregations that a mentor had served in addition to his present one ‘ I I Year of' Date I Miles V 64 Table 2 ($1.44; Number of | Congre- l gation I Fict. Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants 1 Pair r? -' 4W ' -‘4 " J‘ U '#I. ' #"-A"-A"A'|'A"'A."‘I"A"'A"'A"'AI-'AI-‘J‘-'# m as a. a. e. 1. n. g. o. a. .4 a. Em m n m s a .. .. .. mna v--vle-1--v|-fi-elv-'. 1-- 7" v-‘ V" 1" 1'- v'- 1" V" I--. a . q. 7. mm m mm mm -m 9m 9 m m mm am w mm mm mm mm nu m n u u m m o d Isle all. less all. else sale seal ales sate ale! IeCa lose seal alel seal elel W'. V'-W-' 1" v'- v--fi". YO- 1'- 1-- 1-- 1'- V'- 1-- YO- Y'-fi--a h w am a. um um mm mm mm mm «m «m um um mm mm mm mm Dave v'Ofi-'#-- 7-- 1-- v..; 1'- 1-- v'- 1"1'- v'- 1'- 1'- v--v"z a 5‘ m. m MM 20 20 10 20 10 so 40 30 30 30 30 70 40 50 20 40 w» M DD; fi'OVDOfi'- 7-- 1'- i--. v--1--v--v--v"v-'v'-v-'1--v--. w «lea «II. ease case 22 22 less 22 as: case 21- 2e.- Sal 22 32 2|. DO. valIeYDEfi" 1" 1" v--. v'-v-'v"1--1"V--1'-T'-V"v|'a 0 Size 45 83 155 56 I 66 1 80 56 91 205 205 91 11 115 77 09 200 164 140 136 111 191 107 224 20 22 160 49 65 199 126 A finiwuu. .11.--.111 .nc.uu.--.u:.nn.un.nu.-a.un.uu. 1. . c . m m . m .u . a x w mm w" ww ww ww mm m wm mm w ww ww ww mw mm mm --. v--.--v--w--w--v--. 1--J--wuuwuwwww.Uu.mm.wwwww,nu. ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww ww {EFME“ME?ELM:-wmm.minim;3.31.32.32.31.m. ‘65 was 3.18. The mentors had served an average of twenty years in the parish ministry. The mentees, on the other hand, were all in the first congregations and had served, at the point of the interview, an average of two and three-fourths years in the ordained ministry. Nine mentors are currently serving a church in which there is more than one ordained person on the ministry staff. In every case, the mentors were considered the “senior“ pastor or head of staff. Six mentees were also serving congregations with more than one person on the ministry staff. In five of these situations, the mentee was in some associate or assistant pastorate. .One mentee had move directly from seminary into a senior pastor position. The mentors served churches which ranged in size from a congregation of eleven families to one of 249 families. Mentees served congregations which ranged in size from fifty-six families to 205 families. In six cases, the mentee was serving in a larger congregation than his mentor, although three of them were in staff ministry positions and were not considered the senior pastor. The geographic distance between the mentor and mentee ranged from only one mile to a high of forty miles. The average distance was nine and one-half miles. WfiWEMfiEEIEM The purpose of phase one of the data collection process was to develop preliminary understandings of the mentoring process and to develop a system for categorizing responses. Table 3 represents an inclusive categorization system of mentor/mentee relationships which emanated from this process. However, this system did not occur in a ‘66 linear fashion. The system emerged simultaneously to and in concert with the data collection process. For this presentation, however, the inclusive categorization system is presented first, followed by a discussion of the preliminary findings. It should be noted that since the categorization system evolved during phase one, it would not be appropriate to use that as an organizer for the presentation of the data of phase one of the study. The inclusive categorization system consisted of eight primary categories with a total of thirty four subcategories. This system emerged from a continuous analysis of the data collected in phase one and served as the primary instrument for recording and analyzing the data in phase two. The presentation and discussion of phase one will involve a discussion of the characteristics of the mentor, the characteristics of the mentee and the characteristics of the relationship between the mentor and mentee. This section will also examine the effects of that relationship on both the mentor and the mentee. Chgcgctggistics Qi tn; Mentor The data of phase one indicate the presence of five characteristics that had been identified by Schmoll (1981) in her study. These included a willingness to enter into the relationship, a willingness to give of themselves in the relationship, a more advanced position within a career path than the mentee, self-confidence and interdependence (Schmoll 1981393). The data also indicated at least one additional category which should be noted, namely, a non-defensive attitude. The data of 67 Table 3 An Inclusive Categorization System of the Mentor/Mentee Relationship ATAG ATCS ATDF ATDI ATDS ATIN ATLM ATRC IMMT IMNG IMPS MEDF MEDT MEOU $333 CATEGORY ONE: ATTRIBUTES OF THE RELATIONSHIP Age Differential Contrast/Similarities between Participants Degree of Formality Degree of Intimacy Descriptors of the Relationship Initiator of the Relationship Limitations to the Relationship Reciprocity of Relationship CATEGORY TWO: DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIP Beginning of Relationship Current Status of Relationship Future Expectations for Relationship CATEGORY THREE: EFFECTS OF RELATIONSHIP ON Congregation/Ministry Mentee Mentor Spouse/Family CATEGORY FOUR: IMPOSITION OF RELATIONSHIP Matching of Participants Negative Effects Positive Effects CATEGORY FIVE: MENTEE Definition of Duties of Qualities of Rights of CATEGORY SIX: MENTOR Definition of Duties of Qualities of Rights of 68 CATEGORY SEVEN: RELATIONSHIP TO RLES Other Ecclesiastical Systems RLPC Pastor Church Relations Services RLSO Significant Others CATEGORY EIGHT: STRUCTURE OF RELATIONSHIP STCN Content of Agenda STFR Frequency of Interactions STLO Location of Interactions STPA Participants STPR Process (including degree of intentionality) phase one are reported from two perspectives: the person of the mentor and the duties of the mentor. Schmoll’s (1981) characteristics noted above deal primarily with the person of the mentor. The Person of the Mentor Willingness to enter into the relationship is, of course, a key characteristic for a healthy mentoring relationship. In Schmoll’s study this factor was especially appropriate since becoming a mentor was a voluntary act. The potential mentor would be free to decline an explicit or implicit invitation to enter into the relationship. The data of phase one indicate that a willingness to enter the relationship is also important but from a slightly different perspective. The potential mentor is approached not only by the mentee but by the supervising agency of the denomination as well. An “assignment“ is made which the potential mentor must freely accept or reject. However, not only must the mentor be willing to enter into the relationship, but the mentor must possess the basic relational and ministerial skills requisite to the task ahead 69 of him. The data indicate that the mentor must not only be willing to enter into the relationship, but he must bring to that relationship several essential qualities. One of those qualities is the second characteristic noted by Schmoll (1981), viz., a willingness to give of themselves in the relationship. Mentees described their image of an ideal mentor as one who would “take me under his wing“, be “credible“, and one who has “internal security.“ Mentors suggested that they “ought not come on too strong“ and be able to “move toward mutuality.“ Both mentors and mentees recognized immediately the need for the mentor to be more experienced. Mentee Andy looked to mentor Al as a “data bank of resources“ on which he could draw so that he could be more efficient in meeting the challenges of his ministry. Another appreciated the fact that his mentor was familiar with the denomination and had a perspective on it that could only come from a number of years in ministry. The characteristic of self-confidence is crucial to a good mentoring relationship. “He must be able to do the job decently“ said mentee Clare. This was said in reference to performing the task of being mentor. He must have “internal security,“ mentee Andy commented. The mentees generally portrayed a picture of someone who was both knowledgeable and skilled in the ministry, who had a wide range of contacts and maintained a perspective on the ministry of the entire denomination. This self-confidence, however, was not seen as something that ought to block an honest exchange and interdependency within the relationship. '70 This interdependence is the fifth characteristic listed by Schmoll (1981). Although she does not define the term, the data of phase one indicate that a mentor ought to invest himself in the relationship to the degree that benefits accrue to him as well as to the mentee. Nearly every mentor used a term like “friend,“ “colleague," “mutual support,“ or “mutual respect“ to describe the quality of the relationship. This meant that a certain “bonding“ had to occur. Another defined it as finding a “kindred soul.“ Mentor Carl observed that “I have learned as much from him as he did from me.“ Mentee Fred judged that their relationship was developing and deepening specifically because the mentor was “opening up: he talks more about his church and his problems than before.“ Mentor Brad looked toward the day when he would be able “to minister more to him“ as an expression of appreciation for all of the investment the mentor had made to that point in this mentee’s life. The comments listed above all fit into the categories mentioned by Schmoll (1981). The data of phase one, however, also indicate another characteristic of a mentor which ought to be highlighted, viz., a non- defensive attitude. While it might be argued that this could be considered a part of “self-confidence,“ the data indicate this non- defensive openness strongly enough that it should be singled out for special attention in this exploratory phase. The mentees wanted a mentor who would “not be quick to make value judgments" but rather "a person you could trust yourself to be with.“ Mentee Clare suggested that a mentor ought to be non-defensive and open to the degree that he would “not be startled by some revelation“ from the mentee about some unusual thought or theological position. Mentee Eric suggested that his relationship did not develop precisely because he did not have the confidence that his 71 mentor would be able to accept him as he was. ”He might blow what I say out of proportion“ or too quickly try to interpret or “fix“ the situation. ° In summary, the characteristics of an effective mentor based on the data of phase one are: (a) a willingness to enter into the relationship, including the ability to function effectively within the relationship. This characteristic, therefore, deals both with the willingness and the skill to assume the role of mentor. (b) a willingness to give of themselves to the relationship. This characteristic indicates a certain level of vulnerability within the relationship as well as a reciprocity to the relationship. (c) a greater level of advancement along the career path relative to the mentee. This characteristic indicates that the mentee must be able~ to look to the mentor’s past experience as a resource of information and experience that can, in some measure, be transferred to the younger partner. (d) self-confidence. The mentor must be certain enough about himself and his performance in ministry that the mentee is able to take notice of the internal security of the mentor. (e) interdependence. The mentor must be willing to invest himself in the relationship to the point that he comes to depend on, or receive from, the relationship in a significant way. (f) non-defensive. The mentor must be psychologically healthy in order to tolerate and welcome ideas and experiences which might 72 challenge his present system of attitudes, values and beliefs. He should be able to investigate these options honestly and withhold judgment until an appropriate time. Table 4 indicates the frequency with which the various mentors and mentees cited these characteristics as being important for the mentor. The “x“ indicates that this person directly appealed at least once to this quality as being important for being an effective mentor. The presence of the “x“ does not necessarily mean that the mentor in question actually possessed that characteristic. The Duties of the Mentor In order to fulfill the expectations that mentees have of their mentors, the data of phase one suggest that there are several duties which the mentor must perform. First, the mentor must (a) listen. Mentee Fred was frustrated about the fact that Frank was not a good listener. On the other hand, Henry and Isaac both appreciated the empathetic listening which they experienced from their mentors. “I can talk to him about anything,“ said Isaac, “and I know that he will listen.“ Mentors must be especially adept in the skill of active listening. Mentors must, however, not be too quick to interfere or control the mentee’s life. The involvement in the mentee’s world must be (b) gggggnt,ggg non-intrusivg. “We must be there for them“ Al said, but “we must let them struggle.“ Another mentor struggled with making a judgment on how and when to intervene in what he judged to be an unhealthy attitude on the part of the mentee toward ministry. “I would confront him if I knew it wouldn’t injure the relationship.“ A third duty of the mentor is to remain (c) ngective, not hooked into the 73 Table 4 Frequency of Citation of Mentor Characteristics Phase One I Mentor/ I Willing I Willing I Greater ISelf Con-I Inter- I Non- I I Mentee I to enth to give I Career I fidence IdependenceldefensiveI gm : x I : x ; I ; g I my I x I T x I x I I x I I a... I I I I I I. I I I 3.... I x I x I I I x T x I I cm I x I I I x I I I I Clare I x I x I x I x I x I x :I I n... I I I I T x I I I Dick I x I x I x I I x I x I Isa I ,. I x I I I x I x I I an. I x I x I I I I x I In.” I ,. I x I I I x I I I Fred I I I: x I x I I I key: x 8 indicated characteristic as important situations and circumstances of the mentee’s ministry. Mentor Frank suggested that he was really functioning as a mentor when “I helped him gain perspective on a bad evaluation“ given to him by his governing board. Frank went on to suggest that it was his duty to “give him an objective reaction“ to whatever was happening in his ministry. 74 Chagagtggistics gt SD! Mggggg Schmoll (1981) also suggested that there were certain character- istics that a mentee should possess as he enters this relationship. The first three correlate to the first three characteristics of the mentor that were previously presented, viz., a willingness to enter into the relationship, a willingness to give of themselves in the relationship, and being a novice in career development relative to the mentor. She also suggested that the mentee should emulate the qualities exhibited in the mentor. The Person of the Mentee The data gathered in phase one did not suggest any new characteristics beyond those which were identified by Schmoll (1981). These characteristics were confirmed by observing clear expressions of the characteristics in the mentees who were functioning within the relationship. The characteristics were also confirmed by the comments of those mentees who were frustrated in their relationships and who cited the lack of such a characteristic as a precipitating cause of the degree of ineffectiveness in the relationship. Eric, the mentee who had decided to avoid being helped and who had determined that he would not be vulnerable, certainly confirmed the need for a mentee to be willing to enter into the relationship and to fully participate in it. The fact that the mentee is a novice in the area of career development is very evident from their comments. In defining a “mentor,“ the mentees made frequent reference to their novice state in contrast to the experience of their mentor. “He shows me the ropes, watches over me, mothers me!“ said mentee Clare, quickly adding, “and I love it!“ Mentor Al suggested that 7S mentees should be professionally competent. The fact that Al respected and appreciated the high level of ministerial skill which the mentee Andy brought to his early phases of ministry was important. Even though the mentee had a lot to learn about the ministry, the level of skill he possessed at the entry level made the task of mentoring all the more pleasant. The data of phase one did not address the characteristic noted by Schmoll (1981) that the mentee should emulate the qualities of the mentor. As a matter of fact, there was some evidence that while the mentees respected and appreciated their mentor’s ministry and personality, the mentees stressed the need for flexibility, openness to being different, and freedom to develop in a direction that might not be suited to the mentor. Table 5 indicates the frequency with which the various mentors and mentees identified these characteristics as being important qualities for the mentee. The “x“ indicates that this person directly appealed at least once to this quality as being important for being a responsible mentee. The presence of the “x“ does not necessarily mean that the mentee in question possessed that characteristic. It does indicate that this person judged the characteristic should be evident in a mentee. The Duties of the Mentee The data of phase one suggest that there was at least one duty that each mentee ought to recognize, viz., to accept the teaching and instruction of the mentor. Mentor Ed complained that “he’s too strong willed: he’s not teachable.“ Ed added later that he judged that Eric had “pretty well determined not to be vulnerable.“ If a mentoring 76 Table 5 Frequency of Citation of Mentee Characteristics Phase One I Mentor/ I Willing I Willing I Novice I Emulate I {Mentee I to enter I to give I I Mentor I I m I x I I I x I I Andy I x I I I I Bob I I I x I I I and I x I 'x I I I Icm I x I I I I I Clare I x I x I I I I n... I I I I I I Dick I x I x I x I I Is. I x I x I I x I Ian: I x I x I I x I I Frank I x I x I I I I Fred I I I I x I Key: x 8 indicated characteristic as important relationship is to be effective, one might suggest that a mentee not only have a personality that accepts direction and is open to nurture, but that he also has a duty to accept that guidance. A conscious act of the will is required in making himself open and vulnerable to the probing and suggestions of the mentor. 77 Characteristics 91 the Rglatiggship It is important to examine not only a conception of an ideal mentor and ideal mentee, but it is also important to consider the relationship itself between the mentor and mentee. Both parties might possess all of the desired qualities and attitudes that would make for a good mentor or mentee but that would not guarantee the development of a healthy or valid relationship. In reviewing the literature and in analyzing the interview data, three points of reference emerge as being essential to judging the effectiveness of any mentoring relationship. Commitment Clawson (1980) noted that mentor/mentee relationships grow out of a personal willingness to enter the relationship and not necessarily out of a formal assignment. This was also noted previously as a characteristic of a responsible mentor and mentee. In studying an assigned mentoring relationship, therefore, it is important to determine the degree to which each member evidences commitment. Schmoll (1981) identified commitment as one of the overall characteristics of the mentoring relationship. Commitment must be understood in two senses: (a) commitment to the .relationship and (b) commitment to the mutual task (i.e., transition into the ministry). Each party assigned to or entering the relationship must have a commitment both to the relationship and to the other person involved in that relationship. This commitment will be evident by the amount of intentionality the person brings to the relationship, the intensity of involvement, and the level of care for the person or interest in the relationship that the party evidences. Moore (1982), in describing a healthy relationship, suggested the importance of 78 commitment by asserting that ”mentors, proteges and their institutions must believe that good can come out of such a relationship and willingly invest themselves in the commitment“ (1982:28). The first point of reference, then, in assessing a mentoring relationship will be the degree to which each party gives evidence of commitment to the other party and to the task at hand. Intensity of Involvement A second benchmark of an effective mentoring program is the assessment of the intensity of involvement in the relationship by both the mentor and mentee. To what degree is the relationship dynamic or organic? To what degree is the relationship developing in intimacy? To what degree is there room in the relationship for individual freedom and growth? The relationship between the two persons will evidence the developmental stages that have been identified by previous research. Kram (1985249) identified those as initiation, cultivation, separation and redefinition. By recognizing the existence of these phases, one is better equipped to interpret the dynamics of the relationship at any given stage. One is also able to judge when a relationship has stalled at any given point. The truly effective mentoring relationship will deepen in its level of intimacy (Levinson 1978). This will come to expression not only in the widening of the topics of conversation to include greater levels of personal risk-taking, but it will also include the playful aspects of a social relationship (Clawson 1980). Schmoll used such words as "comfortable,“ “caring,” “mutual sharing," ”mutual respect,“ “mutual admiration,“ and “mutual satisfaction” (1981393) as descriptors of the relationship. Because these are pastors, the level of 79 intimacy might also well be evident by the degree to which they share with one another their own spiritual journey. Those who are moving toward deeper levels of intimacy might spend time praying together. The purpose of the mentoring relationship is obviously not to produce a clone of the mentor but to motivate the mentee to develop his own attitudes, values and beliefs. Moore (1982) stressed the need for the relationship to be open and to provide allowance for failure by the mentee. Schmoll (1981) stressed the fact that each party ought to accept the differences of the other person. Burton (1979) was one who warned of the hazards involved when this degree of freedom was not provided, and the mentor tended to control the life and direction of the mentee. An effective relationship will, therefore, be marked by such qualities as growth through developmental stages, a deepening intimacy and a freedom and openness to allow the mentee to develop in his own peculiar pattern. Structure The third point of reference in assessing the effectiveness of the relationship is structure. Nearly all of the research done to date indicated that the health of the relationship depended in large measure on the degree of intentionality that each party brought to the relationship. Although the quality of the relationship should be "comfortable“ and "informal'I (Schmoll 1981), the mentor must provide “support and guidance” (Kram 1985). The structure should not be rigid nor dominate the relationship. The structure should serve as a skeletal system on which the flesh of the relationship can grow. Therefore, arrangements should be made to provide for open structures which allow 8C) for other participants such as a spouse and/or a significant other to participate. Flexible structures will make provision for necessary adaptation and change. A healthy relationship will also exhibit a certain level of intentionality and structure. The quality of intentionality will be evident. There will be a regularity to their interactions. The relationship will not be permitted to float; rather it will be anchored in a certain discipline and structure that is mutually agreeable to both parties. Table 6 uses brief summaries to indicate where each pair was functioning relative to these three characteristics. Pairs A, C, and D appeared to be the most committed to the program and to one another personally. As a result, these pairs also appeared to be growing in intimacy and in the intensity of the relationship. All three pairs maintained a non-intrusive but well structured approach to their relationship. Pairs B and E seemed to be floundering. Determining one specific factor which might have been the primary inhibitor to the relationship was impossible. The fact that these two pairs are the ones in which there is only a two year age differential between the mentor and mentee is not insignificant. The mentees in both cases were very hesitant to enter into the program. Structure and intentionality in pursuing the relationship is nearly non-existent. Appendix E contains brief vignettes of each mentoring pair who participated in phase one of the data collection. A review of these vignettes helps capture the joys and frustrations involved in such dynamic relationships. 81 Effects 91 SD! Relationship 99 the Mentor The relationship described above has definite and well defined effects on the mentor. When the mentor is committed to the relationship and experiences the growing depth of intimacy, positive results are forthcoming. Erikson’s (1950) point that men of this age (in the stage of generativity) seek to pass on their wisdom to the younger generation is amply verified. The mentor often experiences a sense of satisfaction for providing the training he is giving. Mentor Mike’s first response, when asked if there were benefits for him through this program, was that 'it’s rewarding to build an investment in another guy." For others, the effect is a fond recollection of their early experiences in ministry. But the benefits go beyond merely a sense of satisfaction. The relationship keeps the mentor fresh theologically. The presence of the mentee and his new situation in ministry gives the mentor occasion to reflect on his own ministry style and principles. The fact that the mentor now has a colleague with whom he can talk "ministry” is also. important. ”It forces me to articulate my thoughts,“ Carl said. And Dave commented: “I am able to express myself on theological issues candidly.“ But one key benefit appears to simply be that the relationship, when it is working, “helps me recapture some of the bounce to my own ministry.“ The interactions between mentor and mentee put joy, happiness, and a sense of renewed vigor into the ministry of the mentor. "It’s fun to have someone who’s open to your wisdom," admitted Frank. For some, the relationship develops into the deeper friendship that has apparently eluded some pastors for many years. Carl confessed that “there’s a deepening friendship here, something that I’ve never had with a colleague before.” 82! Table 6 Summary of Relationship Characteristics of Mentoring Pairs Phase One I PAIRS I COMMITMENT I INTENSITY I STRUCTURE I I A I high on programl friendship I regular monthly I I I mutual I reciprocal I meetings I I I moderate to I growing in I issue oriented I I I each other I intimacy I agenda | I I leveled off I I I I B I initial high I friendship I informal I I I later lessened I initially pater- I unstructured I I I I nalistic I no agenda I I I I undeveloped I I I I I 2 yr age diff I I I C I high on programl kinship I regular/monthly I I I high to each I mutual satisfyingI mutual initiativel I I other I growing intimacy I mutual agenda I I I deepening I freedom to I I I I I explore I ' I D I high on programl kinship I regular/monthly I I I high to each I growing intimacy I conscious I I I other I I agenda I I E I mentor I formal/superfic- I sporadic I I I committed I ial I unstructured I I I mentee I 2 yr age diff I no agenda I I I hesitant I nearly nonexis- I I I I l tent I I I F I high on programl 35 yr age diff I regular I I I moderate to I father-son I bi-monthly I I I each other I growing in I issue oriented I I I I mutuality I I Effects gg_thg Relationship 9n the Mentee In addition to all of the benefits of the relationship in terms of providing the young pastor with a friend, colleague and sounding board for early ministry, the data of phase one also suggested that an effective relationship helped the young pastor “focus his ministry“ as well as gain 83: a perspective on the broader picture of ministry within the denomination. The mentor had a tempering presence on the young pastor so that he did not over react to any given situation. He provided a balance between I'confrontation and support.“ Overall, the presence of the mentor had helped one young pastor learn ”what it means to be human in ministry.“ Summary f Phase One The first phase of the data collection consisted of interviews with six pairs of mentors and mentees. As the data were collected and analyzed an inclusive system of categorization emerged which aided in the continuation of the research. The eight major categories with thirty-two subcategories provided the framework of the remainder of the study. The data were then grouped into three general categories: characteristics of the mentor, characteristics of the mentee, and characteristics of the relationship itself. Analysis of this initial data indicated that the personal qualities of effective mentors were (a) a willingness to enter into the relationship, (b) a willingness to invest themselves personally in the relationship, (c) a greater career experience relative to the mentee, (d) self confidence, (e) an ability to receive from, as well as give to, the relationship, and If) a non-defensive attitude toward his own ministry and history. Three duties emerged as being primary to the effective functioning of the mentor: (a) listening, (b) being accessible but non-intrusive, and (c) remaining objective. Similarly, a mentee should be characterized as one who (a) is also willing to enter into the relationship, (b) and invest himself fully in that relationship. He should be a person who is (c) relatively a novice in the profession and (d) is willing to emulate the mentor. The one duty 84 that was identified as being important to the mentee was the responsibility to be open to instruction. The relationship itself would be judged healthy if it were marked by (a) a strong commitment between the two parties both in terms of the relationship and the task, (b) an intensity in the relationship, and (c) an intentional and visible structure. WfiWIwIfllflm The second phase of the data collection consisted of twenty interviews structured around the the initial conclusions drawn from the data of phase one. The interviews, while beginning in an open ended manner, focused on the categories that had been identified in the inclusive categorization system of mentor/mentee relationships. This section contains a description of two sample mentoring pairs as well as a general discussion of the characteristics of the mentor, the mentee and the relationship. The section concludes with a discussion of the effects of the mentor program on the mentor, on the mentee, and on significant others involved in the relationship. Wimmmmm Vignettes of two mentoring relationships are given here in order to provide a background to the interpretation which follows. Vignettes of the remaining relationships are contained in Appendix F. In these vignettes an attempt is made to capture the quality and intensity of the relationship. The relationship between Ike and Isaac was selected as representative of an effective relationship which focused primarily on the personal and spiritual development of the young pastor. This BEE relationship bears some formal similarity to the mentoring relationship which Kram (1985) described as "psychosocial mentoring.“ The relationship between Harold and Henry was selected to illustrate an effective mentoring relationship which focused on those aspects referred to by Kram (1985) as “career induction.” IKE (Mentor) and ISAAC (Mentee) Ike and Isaac have developed a unique and solid relationship. Because Isaac is in a staff ministry situation, he relies largely on his ministry partner to answer questions concerning the strategies and methods of ministry. Isaac, however, found himself struggling with personal and private issues early in his ministry. He had met Ike on several occasions prior to his ordination and, therefore, was drawn to Ike when it came time to select a mentor. Theologically the two were initially quite different. Ike was a pastor who spent most of his time in a suburban setting while Isaac described himself as ”a bleeding heart liberal" who wanted to focus his ministry on issues of social justice. The relationship began rather slowly. They saw each other frequently at informal gatherings of area clergy. Isaac felt early in the relationship that he "would take a real risk. I had to share with him some deep personal struggles that I continue to go through." Ike has not become his therapist; Isaac describes him as his spiritual guide. Isaac describes the relationship as “one of the most meaningful relationships I have in my life right now.” Ike agrees. Although the relationship might appear to benefit Isaac, Ike recognizes that a genuine reciprocity has set in. “He’ll 86» always be friends,“ Ike says. “And he can become a real help to me when I want to bounce some ideas off someone.“ when asked to reflect on what he would consider to be an ideal mentor, Isaac laughed and said, ”Ike.“ He then proceeded to say that an ideal mentor would be “a person who would provide perspective, stimulation and insight for ministry and personal life, as well as provide an outlet to share things. He should be a refuge from the everyday life of ministry.‘ In reflecting on how Ike lived up to those expectations, Isaac responded, “one hundred percent!“ Isaac has used Ike as a personal counselor, friend, pastor, confidante and spiritual director. Ike had similar respect and admiration for Isaac. Ike’s definition of an ideal mentee would be a person who has the capacity to be himself. He should be relatively unguarded and open to taking risks. Further, he should be willing to share. Ike is candid in admitting that the relationship developed quickly when Isaac was willing to take the risk and open up to Ike about his personal struggles. An immediate bonding did not occur, but the foundation was laid for the months of a growing intimacy and intensity that ensued. Two other factors emerged as significant to this relationship. First, although they differed in their perspectives on ministry, the two were basically theologically compatible. They were able to identify with each other within a certain theological and political arena. The differences between the two of them promoted lively discussion and precipitated new thoughts and perspectives. The similarities were strong enough to lay a foundation of trust. 87’ The second factor which was significant to this relationship was that each felt that the age and experience differential was optimal for effective mentoring. Ike was exactly ten years older than Isaac and was now in his third pastorate. ”But the age,” said Isaac, “isn’t as important as Ike’s track record and what he’s gone through in terms of his own struggle and growth." They seemed to agree that the accumulated experience plus a slight edge in terms of age kept Ike young enough to understand Isaac yet old enough and experienced enough to have credibility in ministry. The commitment to this relationship is very high. Isaac took a risk near the beginning which resulted in dividends to both parties. The relationship is very intense and a deep bonding has occurred. In recent months the relationship has moved away from the more formal structure of earlier years, but each party indicated that this was a natural development for a relationship that has taken on such a personal dimension. HARTLD (mentor) and I-EIIRY (mentee) Harold and Henry have developed a highly satisfying professional relationship which has recently begun to extend into family and personal concerns. From the very beginning both parties were eager and open to enter into the relationship. Harold felt honored that Henry would select him as a mentor. There was very little resistance to the program. Henry said that he felt comfortable with Harold from the start and that he selected him "because of his identity with my form of ministry and because of his experience with staff ministry.” Henry had taken a position as a co-pastor in an urban church. Harold had already served BE) two previous congregations in an urban setting and was now in his third charge. Both agreed that Harold should be older and more experienced in order to make the mentoring relationship effective. As a matter of fact, Henry suggested that the lack of a significant age difference between himself and Harold was the only real drawback at the outset. He was not certain that Harold was old enough. 'I wasn’t looking for another peer relationship. I have enough friends around here. I needed someone’s brain I could pick.“ The relationship was described by both as being mutual, relaxed and friendly. They take care to nurture the relationship, meeting on a regular basis. The content of the agenda has progressively moved away from ministry or professionally oriented issues into more personal issues. Henry is aware, however, of the limitations of the relationship. Harold has not become the spiritual guide for which Henry had hoped. Harold tends to be more analytic and ministry oriented. On reflection, Harold suggested that an ideal mentor would be one who would respect the mentee as a pastor and person. This, he said, would lead to mutual affirmation. But there must also be “a willingness to listen, to share. There has to be a transparency, a mutual vulnerability.“ And the mentor must be the party responsible to maintain the structure and accountability within the relationship. Both parties describe this relationship as a healthy, intimate but professional relationship. The agenda and focus of the relationship remain on ministry. It has been mutual from the start, with the recognition that Harold was the more seasoned partner in the relationship. Hhile their conversations now focus increasingly on 89’ personal issues, these are raised almost exclusively as part of a conversation on ministry needs. Henry describes the ideal mentor as one who would initiate and take responsibility for maintaining the structure for the relationship. He should take special care to see that the young pastor was developing a healthy self-concept as pastor. He should be old enough and experienced enough to be able to teach the young pastor without apology. And he should not be too busy; he should maintain accessibility to the mentee. The relationship between Harold and Henry is very good. The relationship is mutually satisfying, deepening, and has all the appearances of continuing its growth during the next several years. The commitment to the relationship is high on the part of both parties. Although the relationship is not overly intense, it is solid and deep enough to be mutually satisfying to both the mentor and mentee. The structure of the relationship is good. The regularity of formal meetings combined with frequent informal contacts has kept this relationship vital and alive. Characteristics 91 Mentors Six characteristics of an effective mentor were identified in phase one of the data collection. These characteristics were derived from an analysis of the data gathered at that point and descriptions presented by Schmoll (I981). The characteristics were: (a) a willingness to enter into the relationship, including the ability to function effectively within the relationship. (b) a willingness to give of themselves to the relationship. 90 (c) a greater level of advancement along the career path than that of the mentee. (d) self confidence with respect to both the person and the skill of the mentor as pastor. (e) a willingness to establish a mutuality in the relationship by being as open and vulnerable as he expects the mentee to be. If) a non defensiveness exhibited by a willingness to entertain new ideas and experiences which might challenge his present system of attitudes, values and beliefs. As a result of an analysis of the data of phase two, some adjustments were made in these descriptors. The factor identified by Schmoll (1981) as 'a willingness to enter into the relationship” had more significance for those mentoring relationships which were voluntary. A young professional who seeks to establish a voluntary alliance with an older professional must, obviously, find someone who is willing and capable of entering into that relationship. Hhile that willingness to enter into the relationship was also an issue in this present study, the fact that the relationship was assigned places it in a different perspective. Because of the procedure involved in the appointment of mentors, those who were unwilling to enter into a relationship would never be presented to the young pastor as a potential mentor. In no case did any acting mentor suggest that he was unwilling to enter into this relationship. Some, such as George or Nathan, did it out of respect for the program and obedience to the Director of Pastor Church Relations Services. Others were willing to enter into the relationship because they had some prior knowledge of the young pastor and, like Ike, were already building some form of relationship with the potential mentee. 91 The data of phase two demonstrated that the factor ”willingness to enter” should be combined with the factor ”a willingness to give of themselves to the relationship.“ The issue in an assigned relationship, then, was the degree to which a mentor would be willing to invest himself in the relationship. How much time, emotional energy and attention would he devote to the relationship? The factors of advanced career experience, self-confidence, and inter-dependence remain valid and have been corroborated by the data of phase two. The data indicated that many mentors and mentees wished to avoid any reference to “dependence“ on each other. While healthy relationships were clearly marked by a high degree of mutuality and reciprocity, the participants were also clear that they functioned professionally and personally quite independently of each other. The characteristic of “non-defensiveness” identified in phase one was now combined with the characteristics of self-confidence. "Non-defensiveness'I was identified during phase one as a characteristic that might warrant independent attention from self-confidence. The data of phase two indicated, however, that self-confidence and non- defensiveness were terms that described the same characteristic. Mentees and mentors would use these, or related terms, nearly inter-changeably to denote the quality of self-confidence. Hence, the primary characteristics which emerged from phase two of the data collection dealing with the person of the mentor were: (a) a willingness to invest himself in the relationship, (b) an advanced cargg: status relative to the mentee, (c) self-confidence and (d) Legipgggitx in the relationship. Table 7 represents a summary of the degree to which each mentor in phase two met these characteristics. ‘92 Table 7 Mentor Characteristics of Phase Two IiMentor I Investment: Career I Self- I Reciprocity I I I I I Confidencel I I George Iw low I low I moderate I none I EHarold I high I moderate I high I high j I Ike I high I high I high I high I I Jack I moderate I moderate I low I moderate E Sen Ifimoderate I moderate I moderate I none 3 ELarry I moderate I moderate I moderate I none 3 IiMark I high 1 high I high I high j ENathan I low I low I low I role rev’sl E IOrren I none I no relationship developed 5 iPaul E high E high I high I low E A. A The Person of the Mentor In this section the four characteristics of the mentor are discussed more fully in light of the data of phase two. A further definition of each characteristic will be provided as well as examples from the data which give evidence of that characteristic in the mentors. MWM QWUNMS Lemming! relagiggshig, Every mentor interviewed expressed allegiance to the mentoring program. They allowed their name to be presented as one of three nominees The appointment was approved by for the position to the young pastor. the administration of the Pastor Church Relations Committee. Such an allegiance to the program did not, however, guarantee a personal investment in the life and work of the mentee. The data suggested four indicants of the characteristic I'investment." They were (a) initiative, (b) frequency of meeting, (c) structure or planning, and (d) follow through. That the mentor should be the one held accountable to take the initiative to begin and develop the relationship became apparent early in the data gathering process. when the mentor failed to take this initiative, the mentee often felt cheated. Hhile Jack flatly announced that his mentee John ”never called,“ John complained that he had expected Jack “to take the initiative right from the beginning, and that never happened." Similarly Kevin complained that his mentor Ken waited until 'I called him with something to talk about.“ Len complained that his mentor Larry would meet “only on my initiative. I always had to call, he never did.“ Larry, on the other hand, suggested that his decision not to initiate contacts with Len was intentional. 1"! don’t go to him. He comes here when he senses a need. I think that if I would initiate the contacts, that would lead to my dominance of the relationship.“ Nonetheless, those new pastors who judged that they had satisfactory relationships uniformly indicated that their mentor was the one who took the initiative both at the beginning and throughout the relationship. Isaac summarized the feelings of others when he expressed his satisfaction with Ike’s level of initiative, but quickly added, “I would really have liked Ike to be more structured and take more initiative. I see that as Ike’s responsibility.“ The frequency with which the mentoring pairs interacted with one another was also an indicant of the willingness of the mentor to invest 94 himself in the relationship. The frequency of interactions was, however, difficult to discern in some cases. The data suggested that there were at least three forms of interaction: (a) formal or planned meetings at which the mentoring relationship was the primary or sole focus; (b) coordinate meetings which were held in association with other activities or functions where both mentor and mentee were present; (c) informal contacts which might range from telephone conversations to unplanned encounters with one another. Those mentoring relationships which appeared to be satisfactory to the participants uniformly maintained a high level of involvement in the formal and/or coordinate meetings. They would typically meet regularly one time per month. Ike and Isaac, who judged their relationship to be highly satisfying, met only once every two months. However, they also maintained regular telephone contact as well as social contact on a weekly basis. The relationship between Orren and Oswald, on the other hand, simply did not develop because they met only once a year for a casual, unstructured lunch. Mentees Peter, Herle and Isaac, all of whom had excellent relationships with their mentors, especially emphasized the need for regular formal as well as informal contacts. A third indicant of the willingness of the mentor to invest in the relationship was the degree to which the mentor was willing to plan and structure the meetings. Hark was the most structured of all mentors interviewed. I'During the first year, we would make our agenda ahead of time. He would agree which areas or topics we’d like to discuss at our next meeting.‘ They also allowed the agenda to be flexible to accommodate the immediate needs or concerns of the mentee, but Herle always appreciated the preparation that hark put into the meetings. ‘?5 After about two years the need for the formal structure gave way to a more casual approach to the meetings. However, even though they are now in the fifth year of their relationship, it was still structured and intentional. Meetings were planned for the second Friday of every other month. They were studying books and sermons together. And they saw each other every Honday at a local gathering of clergy where they consulted together about the state of their ministries. The fourth indicant of a mentor’s willingness to invest in the relationship was noted especially by Len. 'He was frustrated not only by the fact that his mentor Larry did not take the initiative to make contacts or set up meetings, but he was also frustrated by the fact that the few times he had attempted to risk something in their conversations, Larry would never follow through. ”If I would tell him that I had a rough time with an elder in my consistory, he’d wipe it aside with some comment like, ’Oh, you’ll always have something like that,’ and he would never follow through on it. He never would call back to ask how things were going.“ The effective mentor, then, was one who was willing to invest himself in the relationship by taking the initiative both to structure and maintain the relationship. He would also work toward making the interactions between the parties part of a structured routine. Even during those periods of time when no meetings were scheduled, this mentor would care for the young pastor and keep in touch with him through a variety of means. figgggg,§hg§actggistig 22;,Adxggced 9553;; Status. Levinson (1978), Kram (1985), Schmoll (1981) and many others indicated that the very nature of a mentoring relationship rested on the 9e. fact that the mentor should be older and more experienced than the mentee. This age and experience differential seems endemic to the very definition of ”mentor.” In the present study, however, such a conception of a mentor was not uniformly accepted. Of the ten relationships studied in phase two, two of them indicated that the age/experience differential was not important to them. Hhat was more important to George and Greg, for example, was ”kinship” or ”becoming colleagues in the ministry.” Greg rarely used George for any problem solving in ministry. George commented that ”Greg came into the ministry with a lot of experience. He’s pretty self-assured.” In a similar fashion, John commented that the age differential was ”not really important" to his relationship with his mentor Jack. “We really just focus on ministry issues." They had found some identity together over two separate issues of ministry and had begun to exchange tapes and articles relevant to those issues. But in both these cases, George and Jack were judged to be less than satisfactory mentors. These men functioned in some other important ways in the lives of Greg and John. In those relationships where the age/experience differential was important, some significant insights were expressed. The data revealed three indicants of the role and function of the age/experience differential in the mentoring relationship. The three indicants were chronological age, ministerial experience, and currentness of perspective. For some, the chronological age was important. "It’s important," said mentor Harold, “that we’re one generation apart. It’s important that I am a bit older. He can pick my brain.“ Henry agreed and 97 identified the fact that Harold was only nine years his senior as a “draw back“ in the relationship. “I wasn’t looking for a peer relationship.“ Peter also suggested that ”it is important to have a mentor who is older. It’s gives me more confidence in him.“ Peter identified the optimum age differential to be fifteen to twenty years. Hark defined it in terms of generations. He said that it would be best, as it was in his relationship with Herle, to be just one generation ahead. “I’ve just left the type of family and growth issues that Herle is in right now. I have a little distance from them, but not so much that I have forgotten what its all about." Too great an age differential was also counter productive. Len felt that Larry’s impending retirement was one factor that prevented a more healthy relationship. “He appears to be coasting, somewhat. His sights are somewhere else.“ But others stressed the importance of experience rather than age. Ike was only ten years older than Isaac, but Ike had “gone through the wringer, and has come out a winner,“ said Isaac. Isaac saw his mentor as one who had gained credibility in ministry because of his intense experiences in his own ministry. Isaac could also relate to Ike because Ike's experiences had been in the same type of ministry that Isaac was presently serving. Having a mentor who shared, and survived, similar ministry settings was a common theme in nearly all of the relationships. But once again, Len commented that the accumulated experience of his nearly retired mentor served as a block to the development of the relationship. Larry had too great a reputation in the area. Larry had far more resources available at his disposal. He had a ministry staff, a secretary, and a consistory that worked hard. There seemed little in 98 Larry’s ministry or recent experience that was relevant to the smaller, struggling, single pastorate that Len was serving. The third indicant of this characteristic emerged slowly from the data. Host mentees indicated that a foundational issue was not age nor experience as much as the mentor’s ability to share a common vision and perspective on ministry. Hhen asked what effect age and/or experience might have had on their relationship, mentee Kevin said, ”Oh, I hadn’t thought about that much. Having a shared vision is much more important." Hark and Herle were most expressive on this issue. Herle felt strongly that if he had been assigned to another pastor who differed significantly from him in theological perspective, “it would have shut the doors on my development.“ Not only should there be a measure of common agreement, but Herle expanded on that to assert that the mentor must.be “in touch" with the ministry regardless of his age. Peter expressed the same sentiment. Hhile wanting to maintain respect for the mentor, Peter was very conscious in selecting a mentor who was theologically acceptable but who would still challenge and stretch him. "I don’t want a mentor who will force his theology on me. But he should be someone whom I can respect theologically and who keeps current on the issues and needs of ministry.” Peter also thought that a retired minister might be able to function as a mentor, but he expressed doubts about the ability of many recently retired pastors to keep current with ministerial issues. “There are very few ministers like a recently retired pastor in this area who are so sharp yet. But most of them have forgotten what its like to be Y0U09-' The data indicated that the issue of age/experience remained critical to an effective mentoring relationship. The ideal match would 99 suggest a mentor who was one generation ahead of the mentee, had endured some of the same experiences and circumstances presently facing the mentee, and had shared with the mentee a common theological and ministerial perspective. dens; W 13.1. M. Harris employed the term “personal autonomy” to characterize the pastor who had the "capacity to balance and resolve opposing demands within himself and between himself and the congregation" (1977:71). His definition captures the essence of the characteristic under consideration here. The effective mentor who exhibits “personal autonomy" was confident enough of himself and his ministry that he was able to freely enter into a meaningful relationship with a young pastor. Four indicants of the characteristic of self-confidence were identified: the self- confident mentor (a) allowed for differences of personality and opinion; (b) was secure in his own person and position; (c) recognized the limitations of the relationship; and (d) was non-defensive for his person and work. The effective mentor was one who found a certain dissonance between himself and the mentee as a stimulant to the relationship. In the best of the relationships involved in this study, each mentor and mentee was articulate about the differences between them. Henry, for example, noted that his mentor Harold was much more program oriented and was not as comfortable in discussing personal or spiritual issues. Henry, on the other hand, regularly kept a spiritual journal and observed monthly a day of spiritual retreat. “I challenge Harold on that, and he takes it well." Herle praised his mentor precisely because “he allows me to be myself." Hark agreed that the two of them were different, “but it is 10C) that difference that stimulates our relationship." Paul and Peter, on the other hand, were at a crucial point in their relationship. Paul was open to the differences that might exist between the two of them, but Peter was now debating whether or not the differences in theological perspective might be too much. When asked about the future prospects of the relationship, Paul said, 'I don’t know. It depends on Peter’s personal struggle. If he is threatened by our differences, then it will weaken and phase out. If he becomes more open, then we’ll have something to build on." This meant that the mentor must not only allow for differences, but he must be secure in his own person and position. Ike openly admitted that his mentee “should be able to learn from my mistakes. I won’t hide those from him. There really are no limits to my sharing my faults and weaknesses in ministry.“ But that kind of openness was not uniformly found about mentors. John described the ideal mentor as a person who would share a common perspective, a type of kinship. He should also provide an adequate structure for the relationship. And finally, "he should believe in himself and be free enough to share. Hy mentor meets only the first of those three qualifications.“ Hark, on the other hand, demonstrated that self-confidence when he said, 'I’m rarely threatened by him. I respect him, and he respects me. We’re pretty open.” Hark and Herle shared parallel experiences when they both encountered physical consequences from stress in the ministry. Apparently these experiences not only gave them a common basis for discussion, but they also provided an occasion to become vulnerable with one another. Harold, as a matter of fact, used the term “mutual vulnerability" to describe the ideal 101 mentor. There ought to be a ”transparency“ about the mentor which invites the mentee to come into his life and learn from his experiences. To possess the characteristics of self-confidence also meant, according to the data, that the mentor recognized the limitations of the relationship. The effective mentor did not attempt to make the relationship into something that violated its defined nature. George, Harold, Ken and Larry all made mention of the fact that they would not intrude directly into the mentee’s ministry. They would not, for example, intercede, interfere, or intrude into the actual work of ministry in the mentee’s congregation. They recognized certain professional limitations to the relationship. Herle was very insistent that Hark not have “a vested interest in my ministry.” Herle would retain full responsibility for the outcomes of his own ministry. “I need a sounding board, but I don’t want him to assume responsibility for what is going on over here.“ Others recognized that there were certain limitations to the degree of intimacy in the relationship. Paul said, ”I’m not going to become his counselor or therapist. Nor can I be his spiritual director.‘I Peter wanted someone who would meet with him on a weekly basis for prayer and meditation, ”but that’s not the purpose of this relationship as I understand it,” said Paul. ”I did help him get a friendship going with a pastor in a neighboring church. They’ve got a good thing going now.“ Others recognized that there were limitations to the agenda. While many relationships began to branch out into personal areas, they almost all did so while maintaining a firm footing in the profession of ministry. The relationship between Ike and Isaac was the most personal of all the relationships in phase two, but even here, the personal issues IADZ were almost always raised in the context of ministry issues. “The majority of the time,“ said Ike, “we talk ministry. But a significant time is also spent on his personal, private spiritual struggles. Those things seem to arise rather naturally from what we’re talking about.“ The final indicant of self-confidence as a characteristics of an effective mentor was that of a non-defensive attitude. Ike was very willing to let Isaac look at his life and ministry. “He should be able to benefit from my mistakes." Herle expressed high appreciation for his mentor because "very early in the relationship he opened up and allowed himself to be vulnerable.“ The effective mentor, characterized as one who possesses self-confidence, allowed for the presence of differences between himself and his mentee, was secure in his own position and person, recognized the limitations of the relationship and was non-defensive in his approach to the mentee. Hggggg_§haracteristic 21;,Bgciprocity. Hinisters in the Christian Reformed Church have labored with a long history of egalitarianism in the ministry. The denomination’s ecclesiastical polity states that no minister or office bearer "may lord it over another“ (Brink and DeRidder 19793313). The church’s tradition underscores that point, insisting that all pastors regardless of age or experience have the same standing in the denomination. The annual Synod routinely makes decisions which guard this egalitarian approach to the pastorate and firmly resists any movement or decision that might introduce a hierarchy in the ministry. Hentor Larry was especially concerned about this issue. This concern was the primary reason for holding back on initiating the relationship. He was afraid that it might be construed as an attempt on his part to play "bishop” over the young 103i pastor. Peter was also concerned that the logical consequences of an assigned mentoring program would result in an implicit hierarchy of pastors. Hence, most participants shunned any reference to "dependency" in their descriptions of the mentoring relationship. Each pastor must be able to function effectively on his own merits and competences. On the other hand, nearly all recognized, either implicitly or explicitly, the need for reciprocity in the relationship if that relationship was going to take on any meaning and significance. To enter into a valid human relationship, there must be a mutual growing together. Of the ten relationships studied in phase two, five of them showed little or no presence of reciprocity in the relationship. In each of these cases, the relationship had leveled off very early in its development, and the mentor was routinely described a “colleague," 'consultant,“ or ”resource.“ Ken justified his lack of intrusion into the agenda saying, “I intentionally don’t talk about myself or my situation. That’s not the purpose of the meeting.” While that may be true to some extent, Kevin in his interview lamented that the relationship remained I'so professional” and that Ken was “too busy to really get more involved.“ The relationship between Nathan and Norm showed evidence of role reversal. Hhile most mentees complained that their mentor did not open himself up and tended to keep the relationship focused nearly exclusively on the mentee, Norm pointed out that his relationship did not develop because Nathan, the mentor, quickly latched on to the relationship to meet his own needs to the exclusion of those of the mentee. ”He seems to come with more of an agenda than I do. There are more things that he wants to talk about. I’d find it more satisfying if we could talk about me.“ Nathan admitted that he found the 104 relationship very helpful. "I find it stimulating to work with Norm," he said. “He gives me a lot of hints about books to read.“ Nathan then described how his congregation was moving into a new phase of its ~ ministry and that he would likely use Norm “to help me get some ideas on goal setting and redirecting our ministry.” A sixth relationship exhibited some form of reciprocity, but it was limited primarily to a sharing of ideas and theological perspectives. The relationship did not include a mutuality of personal issues. The final four relationships considered reciprocity on the part of the mentor at the professional and personal level essential to their relationship. Herle said that his mentor opened up and shared mutually in the relationship from the very beginning. Hark said himself that he was free at any time to share in his personal struggles or trials. Harold and Henry had made the reciprocal nature of the relationship part of the contract from the outset. “He agreed,“ said Harold, "that it would be a two way street from the very first meeting.“ The mutuality in these four relationships came to expression in a number of ways. One indicant of reciprocity was a mutual sharing of resources and insights on ministry and theological issues. Jack and John frequently exchanged tapes and ideas for ministry strategies. The relationship between Harold and Henry also contained a high level of sharing of resources. Both Harold and Henry were in urban ministry settings, and they routinely used each other as a sounding board for new ministry ideas. A second indicant of reciprocity was the willingness of both parties to display themselves on a more personal and intimate level. The relationship between Hark and Herle was characterized by their 1055 willingness to share their emotions and feelings which resulted from physical illnesses precipitated by stress in the ministry. Ike and Isaac also penetrated to the intimate recesses of their hearts as Isaac "took a risk" and revealed to Ike some of the deep inner struggles he faced even though he was relatively successful in the ministry. This allowed Ike, in return, to work through some of the frustrations and feelings that he had accumulated over a relatively rough period in his own personal ministry which had remained dormant for the past few years. A third indicant of reciprocity was the recognition that they were spiritual sojourners together. A pastor must be able to minister spiritually to all the parishioners in his congregation. Rarely does anyone minister to him. Hany pastors feel a deep need simply to pray and meditate with someone else who is in a similar situation. Though this degree of mutuality did not occur frequently, it was definitely present in the case of Ike and Isaac as well as Hark and Herle. Harold and Paul had enough sensitivity to the issue that, while not filling the need themselves, they helped arrange a spiritual partner for their mentee. Reciprocity in the relationship was requisite to a healthy and lasting relationship. This reciprocity can be expressed on a professional, personal, or spiritual level. The data indicated, however, that such reciprocity was necessary to the establishment of a vital mentoring relationship. The Duties of the Hentor The preceding section addressed the issue of the characteristics or personal qualities of an effective mentor. This section translates that material into specific duties. Hhat a person is, or ought to be, becomes 10¢» the standard for what a person should do. Therefore, in order to function as an effective mentor, what must a pastor do? The data of phase one indicated three primary duties: listen, be present but non-intrusive, and be objective. The data of phase two confirmed these three as primary and important duties for the mentor. The data clarified the description of what these duties required of a mentor in specific situations. The four personal characteristics of an effective mentor which have been identified flow into the three duties mentioned above. Table 8 represents the inter-relationship between the characteristics and duties. The personal characteristic of personal investment certainly implied that the mentor should be present for the needs and consultation of the mentee. Routinely mentees described the ideal mentor as one who would be accessible and ”on call' when they needed him. Others suggested that this presence of the mentor implied not only physical presence, but the ability to attend to the conversation with integrity and intensity. Even Orren, who had not developed any relationship with his mentee, noted that an ideal mentor should be one who “is primarily a listener, a sounding board. He should not primarily be an advice giver.” The fact that the mentor should be advanced in the career path relative to the mentee suggested, in part, that the mentor was able to be objective in a variety of ministry situations. Host mentees stressed this duty as primary. Above all, they wanted a mentor who would be objective in any situation presented to him. Herle insisted that his mentor not become directly involved in the mentee’s ministry precisely because he was afraid that Hark might lose this objectivity. Several mentees who were in staff ministry situations appreciated the mentor’s 107 Table 8 Inter-relationship of Characteristics and Duties of the Hentor | Characteristics I Duty I I INVEST I BE PRESENT I I CAREER ADVANCEHENT I BE OBJECTIVE I I SELF-CONFIDENCE I LISTEN I I I BE PRESENT | I RECIPROCITY I BE PRESENT I ' I BE OBJECTIVE I objectivity in helping them analyze the various dynamics of staff ministry. This was especially true for Henry and Isaac. The data of the study suggested two duties associated with the quality of self-confidence: to listen and to be present. Empathetic listening and accessibility are fostered when one has developed a certain level of confidence in his person and work. Because not all mentors experienced total confidence in themselves, the mentees suggested by their comments that listening and being accessible were duties that the mentor should keep in mind. Kevin was especially vocal on this point. He respected his mentor and appreciated his insight, but he was overwhelmed by Ken’s busy schedule and admitted that “I rarely bother him with little things, or call him between meetings. He’s so busy.“ Kevin quickly defended Ken by saying that Ken never put him off when he called. Kevin merely sensed that any contact outside of the regular schedule would be an intrusion. Peter shared the same feelings toward his mentor. On the other hand, Hark was a pastor of a large active congregation but Herle never felt that he was intruding into a pastor’s busy schedule. "As a 106! matter of fact, he often calls me just at the right time.“ The duties to listen and be present also implied, therefore, a responsibility for the mentor to be actively present. The mentor must continuously remind the mentee of his availability and interest in the life and ministry of the young pastor. The characteristic of reciprocity implied the dual duties of being present and being objective. To be accessible to the young pastor was obviously a prerequisite to reciprocity in the relationship. The data also suggested, however, that reciprocity functioned best when it was build on an objective basis. Norm complained that Nathan was using the relationship more for his own benefit than for that of the mentee. In those relationships where the reciprocity was high, invariably the mutual sharing together retained an objective focal point, viz., the enhancement of the ministry and person of the mentee. The data of phase two, therefore, confirmed the three primary duties of the mentor: to listen, to be present/accessible, and to be objective. The data also provided specific indicants of these duties. Words or phases used by the mentors and mentees are listed in Table 9 as indicants of each duty. The mentor, then, must be a person who is confident in himself and his ministry, and possesses professional experience in advance of the mentee so that he is able to invest himself in the relationship and work at making the relationship reciprocal. In order for the relationship to develop, the mentor’s duty was three-fold: he must be accessible to the mentee, he must listen, and he must remain objective. 109' Table 9 Indicants of Hentor Duties I TO LISTEN I TO BE PRESENT I TO BE OBJECTIVE I I -affirm I -take initiative I -use experience I I -confront I -be on call I -open minded I I -open minded I -provide structure I -be in touch I I -sensitivity I -follow through I -respect others I I I I theology I I -spiritual I -vulnerable I -set aside personal I I -soundi ng board I -transparent I agenda I I -empathetic I I I I -respects I I I I confidentiality I I I Matthews... The data also provided an insight into the characteristics of the mentee. The mentees had been in the ministry for an average of three and one half years. Two of them were now in the fifth year of ministry. One had been in the ministry for only one year. Six mentees were serving in congregations where more than one ordained pastor was on the ministerial staff. In all cases except one, these mentees were serving in some capacity other than that of senior pastor. In examining the data concerning the mentees, this section will review both the characteristics and the duties of the mentee. Four characteristics of the mentee were identified in phase one of the data collection. These characteristics were (a) a willingness to enter the relationship, (b) a willingness to give to the relationship, (c) a novice position in the career relative to the mentor, and (d) a desire to emulate the personality and characteristics of the mentor. These characteristics were based on descriptions that were used by Schmoll 110 (1981). The data of phase one did not indicate any additional characteristics. The data of phase two suggested, however, that several adjustments must'be made in these descriptors. As with the mentors, the characteristics of willingness to enter and willingness to give to the relationship were combined into a single characteristic ”willingness to invest in the relationship.“ The characteristic of being a novice in the career relative to the mentor remained valid. The data did not substantiate in this population the characteristic of “emulation." On the contrary, the data indicated that emulation of the mentor was not something the mentees sought to do. The section which follows explains the renaming of this characteristic to ”critical learner“ as a more suitable characteristic for the population of this study. The Person of the Hentee In this section the three primary characteristics of the mentee are discussed more fully in the light of the data of phase two. An explanation is also given for the renaming of the third characteristic from “emulation“ to "critical learner." ”WELL smmmmm relationship. Both mentors and mentees agreed that each party had to be willing to invest themselves in the relationship in terms of time and energy. While the mentor’s level of investment might be measured by such indicants as taking the initiative to structure the meetings, following through on previous discussions, and building a predictable routine into the relationship, the mentees would be seen as invested in the process if 111 they were teachable, open, non-defensive, willing to take risks, and being a person who could be trusted. The ideal mentee, as described by Jack, was one who was open and willing to realize “that there is a lot more out there than he has answers for. He must be willing to reach out.” John, his mentee, expanded on that by saying that a mentee should I'be responsive, teachable, and have gotten beyond the seminary attitude of having all the answers.“ Column two of table 10 indicates the degree to which each mentee was invested in the mentoring relationship. Oswald developed no relationship with his mentor. Greg and Norm were marginally invested in the program. Greg really did not care to have George serve as a mentor. He was searching more for a colleague. Even then, the relationship was extremely casual and could not be distinguished from many other relationships that might have developed between neighboring pastors. The same was true for the relationship between Nathan and Norm. In this case, no relationship would have developed except for the fact that the denomination had assigned them to this program. The degree to which John, Kevin, Len, and Peter were invested were rated as moderate. The data provided evidence that each of these mentees were open to the program and were diligent in fulfilling most of the formal expectations. In one way or another, however, each failed to move into a deeper and more personally significant relationship with their mentor. John judged that Jack was not in a position to meet his personal needs. Kevin felt that Ken was too busy. Len was intimidated by the age and experience of Larry. Peter was still struggling within himself to decide whether or not theological compatibility with Paul was requisite to a lasting relationship. Henry, Isaac and Herle were the three who 112 Table 10 Hentee Characteristics of Phase Two EHentee I Invest I Novice I Crit. Learner E IGreg I low I low I low I EHenry I high I moderate I high I E Isaac I high I moderate I high I EJohn I moderate I low I low I EKevin I moderate I low I moderate I ELen I moderate I low I low E IiHerle I high I high I high E ENorm I low I low I low E IOswald I none I no relationship developed E E Peter E moderate 1 moderate E moderate I gave evidence of having given themselves fully to the relationship. Henry’s investment was on the professional level. Isaac was the mentee who early in their relationship decided to take a risk and divulge some deep spiritual and personal struggles which he was experiencing. Herle and Hark had quickly moved into a fully balanced relationship being at ease talking about both ministry and personal issues. Hggtgg Characteristic gg;_e gaggg; 59215; relativg g9 ED! mentor. This characteristic refers not only to the fact that the mentee was younger and less experienced than the mentor, but that there was a personal recognition of the novice status on the part of the mentee. Several mentors and mentees, in describing the ideal mentee, suggested that this person should be humble, open to learning, competent in the 113 ministry but having real potential for growth, willing to try new things, and have a clear sense of calling. Through the conversations, the tone of the responses strongly suggested that the mentee should recognize that he was a competent pastor able to perform all of the functions assigned to him. On the other hand, there was to be a recognition that this was his first ministry experience. The mentee would be able to learn much from that pastor who preceded him by a generation or two in the ministry. Column three of Table 10 indicates the degree to which the mentees of phase two exhibited an awareness of and appreciation for the fact that they were novices in the ministry. Herle was the only mentee who spoke openly, appreciatively and candidly about his need for a mentor to guide him in the right direction in the ministry. Henry, Isaac and Peter also had a high regard for the careers of their mentors. But an analysis of their conversations indicated that the advanced career experience and/or their novice position in the ministry was not the factor that lay at the core of the relationship. Other factors, such as a personal bonding, a struggling with personal issues, or mutual investigation into ministry strategies, were more typical of the binding force that held the relationship together. One half of the mentees, however, were rated “low“ in this characteristic. Norm, for example, never experienced the development of this kind of relationship because his mentor, Nathan, judged that Norm was not a novice in the ministry. ”There’s no problem at all. He’s had a lot of experience, even though he’s young,” said Nathan, "and I don’t think there’s much I can show him. If he gets into trouble, I’ll be available to help.“ George and Len, on the other hand, were the type of persons who exhibited a strong self-image. They projected confidence and 114 judged that they were in control of their ministry. One of them, who had pastored his congregation for three years at the point of the interview, spoke for approximately five minutes about the ways in which he had helped his mentor in a new ministry situation. The other mentee was described by his mentor as being "cocky and overly self-assured at times.“ The situations of Len and John were similar in that, while they did not project an arrogant or cocky attitude, they judged themselves to be in a better ministry situation than their mentors. Each had a mentor who exhibited some significant ministry need and/or lack of confidence in his own ministerial skills. Hence, even though these young pastors appreciated the older pastor as a resource or consultant, they did not find their need for a mentor met in the relationship assigned to them. 5295:: Characteristic 2;; e cgiticgl learner. The data of phase two indicated that an effective mentee must be a critical learner. The term ”critical learner” refers to that capacity to either assimilate and/or adapt the style and perspective of the mentor to the mentee’s personal needs and situation. When mentees were asked about differences between themselves and their mentors, most mentees were able to distinguish those qualities and techniques in their mentor which they wished to emulate from those which they did not accept. Henry, for example, said ”we’re really quite different. I think that Harold is too protective of himself. And I tend to be more open to talking about spiritual things.“ Len was quite vocal about how he did not wish to emulate his mentor Larry. While he respected Larry very much, Larry’s age and theological perspective were simply too great an obstacle for Len to overcome. 115 Therefore, while Schmoll (1981) had defined as one of the characteristics of the mentee the willingness to emulate the mentor, the data for this population did not provide evidence that this characteristic was important to their relationship. Schmoll described this willingness to emulate their mentor as follows: The mentees sought to strengthen personality traits, strengthen skills or strive for similar goals that they perceived in their mentors. Some of the mentees in connection with their comments on emulating their mentors stated their mentors not only represented types of persons, skills or accomplishments they sought to emulate but that the personality traits, skills and accomplishments the mentors represented were perceived as attainable by the mentees (Schmoll 1981:124). Two factors must be considered in explaining the difference between the present population and that of Schmoll. First, the present population consisted of persons who were assigned to a mentoring relationship with very little control or voice in the selection of the mentor. Even in those cases where the mentee was somewhat knowledgeable about the mentor, the selection process differed significantly from the process in Schmoll’s study. The population in Schmoll’s study consisted of persons who voluntarily sought a person who would meet the career and developmental needs of the young professional. It only seems logical that, given the time and options available in a voluntary selection process, one would attempt to establish a relationship with someone who embodied the personality, skills or accomplishments which constituted the dream of the mentee. Second, the vocational or career situation of ministers likely differs significantly from other professional roles. In nearly all cases in Schmoll’s study, the mentees and mentors were working in the same business or corporate context. There was nearly daily contact. The 116 relationship had the potential of being far more intense than with the population in the present study. The pastors, on the other hand, had separate and unrelated congregations representing a variety of needs and demanding a variety of approaches. Len spoke openly about those differences in asserting that his mentor’s ministry situation simply “didn’t fit in my situation. It wouldn’t make sense for me to duplicate what he does over here.“ The category did, however, have significant bearing once adjusted to this new population. The desire of the mentee was not so much to emulate his mentor as to learn from him. The learning that would occur would not be a mere repetition of the skills and perspectives of the mentor, but it would be a critical assimilation of that which would be appropriate to the ministry and person of the mentee. Harold and Henry, for example, were very conscious of the differences between them. But these differences were the grist for Henry’s development of greater confidence in his own skills and perspectives. Column four of table 10 indicates the degree to which the mentees were able to engage in critical learning in the relationship. A critical learner is one who is able to discern which qualities of the mentor he wished to emulate in contrast to those qualities that would not be suitable to the mentee’s person or situation. Those relationships which were rated moderate to high in their degree of satisfaction did evidence some aspects of “emulation.“ They routinely stressed the need to be at least theologically or ministerially compatible with their mentor. Herle referred by name to a neighboring pastor suggesting that if that person had been assigned as his mentor, “the relationship wouldn’t have gone anywhere. There has to be some common ground, some respect for the man’s 117 theology and work.“ But Henry and Ike were also very open about the differences they felt existed between themselves and their mentors. Hhile recognizing the presence of this basic foundation of common theological and ministerial perspective, these mentees gave strong evidence that they did not want to become duplicates of their mentors. Henry, for example, lamented that Harold was not more open to discussing spiritual things. “I press him on that.“ Isaac recognized that Ike did not exhibit as much concern for those who have suffered social injustice and deprivation. “I respect him very much,“ said Isaac, "but I just can’t buy into all of his perspectives as is.“ One other factor was of significance in explaining the shift from emulation to critical learning. In all the relationships which were judged to be satisfactory, the mentees also indicated that they had developed secondary relationships with other persons which complemented the primary relationship with the mentor. Henry and Peter, both of whom had wanted spiritual partners, met that need by developing a relationship with a neighboring pastor specifically for that purpose. John and Kevin developed relationships with other pastors in the area to supplement their exposure to ministry styles and perspectives. Len found that he could meet many of his personal needs through a relationship he had developed with another young lay couple in his congregation. Three characteristics emerged from the data to describe the person of the mentee. The mentee should be able and willing to invest himself, both in terms of time and person, into the relationship. He should be willing to perceive himself as the career novice in the relationship. He should, finally, be a critical learner able to emulate those aspects 118 of his mentor which fit his person or ministry situation and/or critically adapt the mentor’s insights to his own situations. The Duties of the Hentee The preceding section addressed the issue of the characteristics of an effective mentee. As noted before, being involved in a personal relationship involved not only a definition of the personal qualities that would enhance that relationship but a definition of the obligations or duties that emanate from that relationship. Therefore, in order to function as an effective mentee, what must this new pastor do? The data of phase one suggested that the mentee should be teachable. Hhile this is somewhat suggestive of a duty, the manner in which it was expressed by the participants made it difficult in phase one to distinguish it clearly as a duty in contrast to a personal quality. The data of phase two provided a richer resource of information. Seven distinct duties arose from the interviews. Each of these items were mentioned directly by a mentor or mentee in at least three separate interviews. Often they were mentioned more frequently. The following duties emerged from the data as primary: 1. The mentee must invest himself in the process. 2. The mentee must want to learn. 3. The mentee must be able to return in kind what is given to him. 4. The mentee must remain responsible for his own ministry and person. These duties are roughly parallel to the characteristics of the mentee as identified earlier. What is important to remember, however, is that the mentee must not only exhibit these qualities as personal 119 characteristics, but these items must also be translated into obligations for responsible action. Hence, while nearly all mentors and mentees would agree to such a description of an “ideal“ situation, not all mentees gave evidence of their willingness and/or ability to fulfill these duties. Table 11 indicates the degree to which each mentee actually acted upon these duties as reported either by the mentee himself or the mentor. The willingness of the mentee to invest in the relationship was measured by his availability and presence at scheduled meetings as well as the initiative that he exerts in making less formal contacts with his mentor. Oswald, for example, must share part of the responsibility for the failure of their relationship. Hhile he knew that he and Orren were to function together, and while he assumed rightly that Orren should have taken the initiative, Oswald also took no initiative when the relationship failed to develop. Similarly, John and Kevin limited their contacts with their mentors to the formal meetings only. Rarely would they contact their mentor between meetings for any reason, even when they realized that the formal meetings would be three or four months apart. On the other hand, Henry, Isaac and Herle would not only meet regularly with their mentor, but they would contact him periodically between meetings whenever an issue arose in which they judged their mentor would be potentially helpful. These contacts were not only ministry related, but they would occasionally serve the purpose of bolstering one’s spirit or helping the mentee overcome depression that might have set in. Some of the informal contacts occur in the most unpredictable places. Ike and Isaac not only meet in formal sessions regularly, they use the time 120 Table 11 Degree of Fulfillment of the Duties of the Hentee I Hentee I Invests I Seeks I Develops I Remains I I I in I Learning IReciprocityI Responsible I I I Relation I I I for HinistryI E Greg I low I low I low I moderate I I Henry I high I high I high I high I E Isaac I high I high I moderate I high I I John I moderate I moderate I low I high I I Kevin I moderate I moderate I low I moderate I i Len I moderate I low I low I moderate j EHerle I high I high I high I high I E Norm I low I moderate I moderate I high I i Oswald I none I no relationship developed I I Peter E moderate E moderate E moderate I high I associated with the Honday volleyball game as an opportunity to bring each other up to date on their ministry and lives. The willingness was also measured by the degree of risk, or candor, the mentee exhibited in the course of the interactions. As noted before, Isaac was the clearest example of a mentee taking a risk in opening up to his mentor. Similar situations of a less dramatic nature occurred regularly among those mentees who were willing to invest in the relationship. In reviewing the duties of the mentee, the first duty suggested by the data of phase two was the duty of the mentee to invest himself in the relationship. If a mentee was not willing to work at the relationship, taking the time and 121 energy to attend to the relationship, the mentoring relationship became ineffective. A second duty assigned to the mentee was that he should actively seek out learning through his involvement in the relationship. While nearly all of the mentees appreciated the friendship that potentially arose between the parties, a certain number of the mentees used the relationship for intentional learning. In describing the ideal relationship nearly all of the respondents indicated that the learning agenda of the mentee was the primary purpose for the relationship. Not all relationships resulted in such learning, however. Greg and Len gave little or no evidence of an openness to learn. In both cases, the need for friendship and affirmation dominated the relationship to the , point where very little discussion transpired of an instructional nature. Those who were faithful to the duty to actively seek learning through the relationship would do so in a number of ways. They would always set and/or contribute to the agenda of the regular meetings. They would frequently consult with their mentor on items of church ministry or church government. Herle was especially appreciative of the wide experience his mentor had in denominational matters. Len, on the other hand, while having an equally capable mentor in denominational matters rarely used him as a consultant. Another way in which a mentee fulfilled the duty to actively seek learning was to take the initiative and raise issues which might leave him vulnerable. This refers not only to Isaac’s reaching out for counsel and advise on a personal matter, but Henry would routinely check with Harry about various ministry programs, sermon ideas, or methods of handling group situations. The two of them talked about the stimulating time they would have together discussing the various 122 possibilities for their ministry. They both were learning from each other. A third duty assigned to the mentee was to return in kind to the mentor that which he had received from the mentor. This corresponds to the characteristic of reciprocity in the mentor. As the relationship develops and opens up, and as the mentor begins to develop mutuality in the relationship, the mentee must respond in kind to these overtures. Hhen questioned about the difference in their relationship from its initiation to its current stage, those mentees who experienced satisfaction uniformly pointed out that the relationship was no longer one-sided. Len and Kevin were frustrated in their attempts to fulfill this responsibility largely because of the decision of the mentor to withstand any overture for mutuality. They insisted that the relationship be entirely for the benefit of the mentee, and therefore they judged that they would hold to a minimum any expression of their own personal struggle or trauma in ministry. Isaac, on the other hand, took the risk and was grateful to see that Ike responded in kind to him. In most cases, however, the mentor would be the leader in the development of the relationship, underscoring again the duty of the mentee to respond in kind to the leading of the mentor. The fourth duty identified from the data for the mentees was that they must continue to be responsible agents of ministry in their own congregation. Larry and Hark were two of the mentors who included in their definition of an ideal mentee that he should be a person who was competent and responsible in the ministry. Harold expressed it by saying “the more competent, the easier the job.” The mentee must learn to use 123 the mentor as a sounding board, or a foil, without abrogating responsibility for his own ministry. The duties of the mentee cannot be easily distinguished from the personal characteristics that an ideal mentee should possess. Listing them as such underscores, however, the responsibility that a mentee has to invest himself in the process, to actively seek learning from the relationship, to respond in kind to the mentor as the relationship develops, and to maintain responsibility for his own ministry. charactggistigg 91 ED! Rglgtionship Three characteristics of the relationship itself were identified at the conclusion of phase one of the data gathering. Those characteristics were (a) commitment, (b) intensity of involvement and (c) structure. The descriptions above with respect to the characteristics and duties of the mentors and mentees have touched in a significant way on this area as well. The data of phase two confirmed the characteristics as stated in phase one and validated them as legitimate descriptors of a good mentoring relationship. The vignettes of the relationships of phase two are in Appendix F. Table 12 contains a summary of the relationship characteristics of these pairs. mamfiwflim i amnesty. Adults learn primarily through reflection on their experience in the normal routines of living (Knowles i970, 1975). Rarely, however, does a person find himself in a situation where that reflection is structured and given a context in which to function. The assigned mentoring relationship has provided such a structure for many mentors. They 124 Table 12 Summary of Relationship Characteristics of Hentoring Pairs Phase Two I PAIR I COWIITHENT I INTENSITY I STRUCTURE I I 6 I low on program I neighboring I very casual I I I low to eachother I pastors I sporadic and I I I casual I I infrequent mtgs I I H I high on program I professional I regular I I I high to eachother I collegial I open agenda I I I I growing I structured I I I I high on program I intense I regular I I I high to eachother I personal I structured & I I I I intimate I informal I I J I low to program I nearly non- I unstructured I I I moderate to each I existent I casual I I I other I weak mentor I issue oriented I I K I moderate to prog I professional I structured I I I moderate to each I non-reciprocal I regular I I I other I I business oriented I I L I moderate to prog I tenuous I structured I I I guarded to each I intimidating I business oriented I I I other I cautious I intrusive I I H I high to program I intense I regular formal I I I high to eachother I intimate I 8: informal I I I I reciprocal I structured 8: I I I I I routine I I N I low to program I role reversal I regular formal I I I low to eachother I consultant I issue oriented I I O I no commitment to I no relationship I no structure I I I each other or I I I I I program I I l I P I mentor committed I initial growth I structured and I I I mentee wary but I now cautious I formal I I I willing I Imonthly I I25 entered the relationship with the objective of assisting a new pastor in his entrance into the profession of ministry. The focal point, especially at the beginning, was the new pastor’s personal and professional development. In many situations, however, the mentor discovered that he was receiving benefits equal to that of the mentee. The data suggested that there were four benefits that resulted for the mentors from involvement in this program. These benefits were (I) a developing friendship, (2) a stimulant for ministry, (3) a focal point for their need for generativity, and (4) an occasion for personal and spiritual growth. mmm QWW The pastors serving as mentors ranged in age from early forties to mid-fifties. Typically, their circle of friends were well defined and established. Several mentors noted that they had been able to develop a new friendship through this program. while nearly all of the mentors mentioned that their mentee had become a ”friend,“ Harold, Ike, Jack, Hark and Nathan made particular reference to a special, deliberate relationship with the mentee. Harold, Ike and Hark saw the relationship expand into other social areas. Jack felt most comfortable associating with John and his wife at area social gatherings where other clergy were in attendance. Nathan left the impression that he had not developed any friendship with area clergy since moving into that region four years ago. His relationship, meager as it might be with Norm, was the only relationship he had. Bonding into a friendship relationship was apparently one of the benefits for the mentors. 12¢: figgtg; Benefit 2;; A Stimulggg fig; Ministry. In the process of guiding the newer pastor into ministry, many mentors found that their own ministry was stimulated. Mark, for example, said that the discussions with Herle “not only gave me some distance from my own ministry, but they forced me to analyze why I did things the way I did. You know, for years, you just do things because - well, because that’s how you do them. Now I have to analyze why!” Others, like Ike and Nathan, found the relationship stimulating because of the “more up to date insights the fellow brings with him from seminary." Nathan especially appreciated learning what books Norm was reading. Paul and Peter also studied together, using the process for their mutual growth and education. MIMQLEMMMMQWW 'Vit- Erikson (1950) had suggested that most men, when they reach the age of the average mentor, had reached that stage in life where they sought to transmit new insights and ideas to the next generation. The data suggested that in many cases mentors found this relationship as a stimulant for that desire. Larry took the position of mentor because it represented a challenge to him. “I'm going to make this thing work,” he said. 'I want to help him succeed even though he began with several strikes against him." Hark reflected that it was “rewarding to build an investment in another person.‘ Even Paul’s sense of satisfaction arose, in part, from the fact that he might be able to influence the direction, theologically and personally, of a new pastor who was facing a decision about his own theological direction. 127 Hggtgg,aggefit es; en chgsion igg_Personal ing_Spiritual Grggth. Nhile some of the mentors, as noted previously, did not wish to take and/or did not feel comfortable functioning in the capacity of spiritual partner, many others found that the deepening relationship had benefits for their own spiritual and personal well-being. The relationship between Hark and Herle, for example, was more than a professional relationship. They had both experienced physical effects of stress in the ministry. At the time of the interviews, they were both physically healthy. They both independently indicated, however, that their restored health was due, in part, to the relationship they had developed between them. It was in that relationship they were able to develop some distance from their stress. They would read devotional material together, pray together, and support one another personally and spiritually. Hany of the mentors indicated that they regularly spent time in prayer with their mentee. Harry and Ike are two mentors who were particularly stimulated in this area. These two men tended to be action oriented. Their mentees, on the other hand, were more reflective and person oriented. Their mentees openly challenged their mentors to break out of their obsessive work habits and to take more time for their own personal and spiritual nurture. Hark, perhaps, summarized all of these benefits in reporting that “I find it rewarding to build an investment in another guy. He has given me distance from my own ministry. He’s a good sounding board for ideas. He’s a friend who has forced me to look afresh at my ministry.” Table 13 illustrates the degree to which these benefits were of importance to the various mentors. The notation 'IA' denotes that this benefit was an “important aspect.“ The ”A“ denotes that the benefit was an “aspect” of the relationship but had not been singled out as having any special significance for the mentor. He recognized its presence with appreciation but did not rate it as being highly important to his assessment of the relationship. The 'NA' denotes that this benefit was "not an aspect” in this relationship. Effects 91 tn; Rglationship 99 SD! flggtgg Officially, the mentee is the central focus of the program. The relationship was created and designed to assist the mentee pastor in facing the transitional issues and stresses of the first five years of his ordained ministry. The administration of the Pastor Church Relations Services attempts to select mentors who are capable of guiding the new pastor into that profession. The novice pastor is experiencing many new, strange and sometimes confusing events. The relationship with the mentor is intended to provide an arena in which active reflection can occur. Although there is little evidence that any relationship consciously employs an action-reflection form of learning (Knowles 1975), the data suggested that there are two distinct areas in which such reflection occurred in the good relationships. Hggggg,figgefit Q1; Qggsultant/Resggrgg Sggvices. Nearly every mentee agreed that whether their personal relationship with the mentor was satisfying or not, he at least provided an excellent resource for ministry related issues. As unsatisfactory as the relationship might have been for Len personally, he still acknowledged that Larry provided him 'a good sounding board" for planning his ministry. As a matter of fact, their agenda was often limited to these ministry oriented issues. The I'how-to-do-it" type of discussions were dominant. Table 13 Importance of Benefits for Hentors IHentor I Friendship I Stimulant I Generativity IPersonal/ I I I I for I I Spiritual I I I I Hinistry I I Growth I IAI I IA I A I NA I NA I Tm 1 IA T A i A T A I .1... : 1A : AA : AA : A 5 {AAA T A : A : A r A g I Ed I NA I NA I NA I NA I EFrank I A I NA I IA I NA I r.....: A : AA : AA : AA ; EHarold I A I IA I NA I IA I I Ike I IA I A I NA I IA I {Jack I A I A I NA I NA I in... I A I AA i AA i A i gum; AA : A I A : AA : E Hark I A I IA I A I IA E I Nathan IV IA I A I A I A I I Orren I NA I NA I NA I NA E 9AA ; A 3 A g A g A ; Key: IA I Important Aspect of the Relationship A I An Aspect of the Relationship NA I Not an Aspect of the Relationship Hentees would consult with their mentors on a wide range of topics: planning weddings and funerals, managing consistory meetings, handling an irate parishioner, writing a proposal to improve the parking facilities 13C) at their church, or ministering to a young man suffering from AIDS. Norm appreciated the relationship because it provided him a place where he could talk in confidence about his church. He not only struggled with finding suitable options for ministry, but felt that there were at least some occasions where exploring those options had to be done out of the general context of that ministry. In most cases, the mentors would help the mentees identify the ministry options and allow, even insist, that the mentee select his own option and assume responsibility for it. Occasionally a mentor lacked the skills necessary to engage in this form of education and would merely reminisce on how he had done it. Most mentees did not appreciate merely hearing the stories of the "good old days,” but came to the mentors for an objective assessment of their options in any given situation. figgtgg,§ggefit g2; Broadening ngggggtive. Not only would the mentors provide counsel and advice for a specific ministry situation, Isaac praised his mentor because ”he helps me see the big picture.“ This, occasionally, helped calm a troubled spirit as with Herle who said that Hark "helped me understand the broader picture of my congregation, and to accept as normal some of the resistance I was experiencing.” Norm, on the other hand, appreciated his mentor because he could instruct him on some of the political issues and procedures within the denomination. Hany entering pastors feel ill equipped to deal with their fellow pastors at the classis (regional decision making body) meetings. They did not know how to properly bring reports or overtures to the floor of classis in such a way as to guarantee a hearing. 131 A nueber of personal benefits were also identified as critical to the relationship. The new pastors were in a position to think analytically about theeselves as well as their einistry. mm m Eu. In! lief—01:1 ".25. Uniforely eentees identified the presence of the eentor as a safety net for their early einistry. 'lt’s good to know that he’s there," Greg consented. “Maybe I don’t use hie very ouch, but it’s good to know he’s around." For soee, the safety net referred to little sore than knowing that a ainisterial resource was readily available. If the eentee would run into a crisis in his own einistry, he felt secure having a built-in resource available. Others suggested that the safety net extended to personal issues. Peter retold the story of how one afternoon Paul dropped by his office just after a young girl had left the office threatening to take her life. Paul’s einistry to Peter and assistance in helping einister to the young lady helped Peter through a crisis that eight have otherwise proved extreeely trauaatic for hie during his early years in einistry. Hark also coeeented that the presence of a mentor provided ”stability in tines of crisis.“ That stability aeant that he not only had a resource available, but someone who would be able to exaeine the situation froe a distance from an objective point of view. George, Isaac and Herle all referred to the stinulating effect of the relationship for the-selves personally. Their nentors kept them aotivated to do the work that had to be done. Sone eentees discovered that eany of the routine functions of the ministry could become burdensoee. The eentor functioned for then as an ”encourager," or "stimulator” for their einistry. 132 mmmmm Although eany new pastors thought that after graduation froe seeinary their days of learning would end, eany found that the eentor provided occasions for personal growth and developeent. This growth ranged froe the deeply spiritual and intieate conversations between Ike and Isaac to the professional discussions between Hark and Herle. The eere developeent of a friendship within the profession of einistry was a satisfying experience for a novice pastor who eight have otherwise faced a very lonely tiee in the early years of his profession. Overall, Ike, said, I'this relationship has taught ee contenteent. It’s taught me how to be at peace with eyself and ey situation, even when things might not be going all that well.“ Herle coeeented in a sieilar way, saying that his eentor provided hie with an objective eirror "so that I didn’t take failure personally. I ae eore at peace with what I’e doing because of Hark’s influence.’ mmm WM Nore, herle and Isaac all eentioned that involveeent in the relationship also prodded thee to look afresh at soee of their theological positions. Hhat they had learned in seninary was challenged by the life of the congregation. They struggled with eaking the adjusteent. Paul pointed out that Peter was in the eiddle of that struggle at the tiee of the interviews. It was not clear which direction Peter eight take, but Paul was certain that the eentoring relationship would effect and be affected by the ieeinent decision that Peter would eake concerning certain theological positions. Others, like Jack and John, really had no relationship outside of shared theological positions. Jack described the relationship as one that was built around the coeeon 133 concerns about worship styles and the proeotion of a theology of healing, a perspective not coeeonly accepted within the denoeination. Similarly, Nore said that his relationship with Nathan was lieited to an exchange of theological ideas. That exchange was beneficial enough to keep Norm invested eodestly in the relationship. He and Nathan would read and discuss soee of the latest books, especially as they applied to urban einistry. The benefits ranged froe personal to professional for the eentees. Nearly every eentee, regardless of the degree of over all satisfaction with their relationship, cited soee positive effect that had occurred. Table 14 indicates which benefits were considered as an aspect of the relationship by the eentees. The table also indicates the level of ieportance of that benefit to the eentee. The notation “IA” indicates that the benefit was an "ieportant aspect” of the relationship. The notation 'A' indicates that it was an “aspect“ of the relationship but was not singled out as being of special ieportance. The “NA” indicates that the benefit was “not an aspect“ of that relationship. When pressed about any negative effects, not a single eentee could think of an actual negative effect that had occurred. The lack of developeent was the greatest coeplaint, but in these cases eost eentees had found an alternative way to eeet their needs. Effects g1 the figlationghig 99 Others The data suggested that the relationship between eentor and eentee also consistently produced positive effects for at least two other parties: the spouse of the eentee and the eentee’s congregation. 134 Table 14 Importance of Benefits for Hentees :vhentee I Consultant; Broadening I Safety ; Stie— I Personal I Theol. I I I Services I Perspectivel Net I ulationl Developeentl Growth E 1...:. :. :.:N.: N. 1.1 {and} A i N. {Mimi N. i.} ; Clare I IA I A I A I NA I A I A 1 Jam? 1.}. JAVA}. {1.} 1 Eric I A I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA ; :...: ..1. 1.1.1. 1.1 lfireg I A I NA I IA I NA I NA I A l 1 Henry I A I IA I A I A I IA I A I : Isaac I A I A I A 1 IA I IA I IA ; 1...: . z N. 1.1.: N. :N: {Kevin I A I A I A I NA 1 A I A E E Len I IA I A I IA 1 A : NA I NA 3 :.....: . : .. 1. :. r .. 1.. 1 {mm} . i N. I.iN.I N. {m} 1......1 . 1 N. :...:..: N. 1...; 1.....1 ..1.. 1.1.1... 1.1 Key: IA I Ieportant Aspect of the Relationship A I An Aspect of the Relationship NA I Not an Aspect of the Relationship Hhile soee of the relationships, like that of George and Greg, never involved the eentee’s spouse, six of the ten eentees eentioned that they felt their wives received soee benefit froe the relationship. In eany of 135 these cases, the relationship would broaden out periodically to include the spouse in both social contacts and discussions of ministry. This involveeent often represented one of the few occasions for the spouse to discuss the stresses and pressures that she experienced in making the adjusteent to the parsonage. The eentees also eentioned that they felt their wives were relieved to know that the eentee had soeeone else to turn to for council and advice. Knowing there was a coepanion for him apparently relieved the wife of soee of the pressure of being the sole sounding board for the young pastor’s frustrations and trials in the einistry. The second group of people that seeeed to benefit froe this relationship was the eentee’s congregation. This benefit was rarely articulated and likely not conscious. But at least one-half of the eentees eentioned that there was an unarticulated good feeling and an increase in confidence knowing that their new pastor had an older, more experienced pastor caring for his. Those who were in staff ministry positions routinely said that the eentoring relationship provided then with an objective place to work through the dynamics of staff einistry. MIMMQMEMWMW This chapter has described the data that resulted from two phases of data collection. The first phase consisted of twelve interviews. An analysis of the data of phase one suggested that an effective eentor would exhibit six qualities: a willingness to enter the relationship; a willingness to give to the relationship; a greater level along the career path relative to the eentee; self-confidence; inter-dependence; and non- defensiveness. Three duties of the eentor were identified during phase 136 one as the duty to listen, the duty to be present but non-intrusive, and the duty to be objective. The characteristics of an effective nentee identified during phase one were a willingness to enter the relationship, a willingness to give, a recognition of novice status in the career relative to the mentor, and an eeulation of the qualities of the eentor. A duty that fell to the eentee based on the data of phase one was to be teachable. The relationship itself was characterized in phase one by its degree of coeeiteent, intensity, and structure. The data of phase two were collected in such a eanner as to correct and/or substantiate the categories identified in phase one. The description of the qualities of an effective eentor were described in phase two as a willingness to invest in the relationship, an advanced career status relative to the eentee, self-confidence, and reciprocity. The duties of the eentor were identified by the phase two data as being present, being objective, and listening. The qualities of an effective mentee were described in phase two as a willingness to invest in the relationship, a recognition of a novice status in the career relative to the eentor, and a critical learner. The duties of the eentee which eeerged froe the data of phase two were to invest hieself in the process, to seek teaching, to return in kind to the eentor, and to resain responsible for his own einistry. The relationship itself continued to bear the characteristics of coeeitaent, intensity and structure. The relationship had specific effects on the eentor. They experienced a developing friendship, a stimulant for their own einistry, 137 an outlet for their drive for generativity, and personal/spiritual growth. The eentees also experienced tangible results. There were the obvious professional benefits of having a consultant/resource person readily available. The presence of the eentor also gave them a broadening perspective on the church, the einistry and their theology. There were personal benefits as well: the provision of a safety net for their einistry and person; a stieulation for the einistry; and their own personal developeent and theological growth. The data also suggest that tangential benefits accrued to the spouses of the eentees as well as the aentees’ congregations. CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. The concept of eentoring has a long history. The word was originally used in Hoeer’s nggggx,to refer to a relationship between an older adult and a younger son. The older adult was to function as a surrogate father, overseer and guide. In eodern tiees, the concept of eentoring has been introduced into the field of adult developeental psychology as well as into the area of career induction and advanceeent. Not only do young sen (Levinson 1978) and woeen (Sheehy 1976) often select older persons to function as their personal eentor when they enter the adult phases of their lives, but many industries and professions have encouraged the eentoring process as a way for people, especially woeen and minorities, to find their way through the saze of career advanceeent (Phillips-Jones 1982, I983). The population in this study consisted of ordained pastors in the Christian Reforeed Church who had been assigned to one other in a eentoring relationship. The denoeination’s adeinistration would select as eentor a senior pastor located in geographic proxieity to an entering pastor who had just graduated froe the seminary. Hhile the denoeination “assigned“ the eentor to the eentee, the parties were then relatively free to detersine the degree to which they would invest theeselves in the relationship. They were also relatively free to detereine the direction L38 139 in which the relationship would go. While the Director of Pastor Church Relations Services would provide some encouragement to develop the relationship, and while some degree of peer pressure to conform could be noted, no real accountability for their performance was structured into the system outside of the relationship itself. This chapter contains a number of conclusions along with various implications of the study for organizations considering or involved in assigned mentoring relationships. These conclusions are not exhaustive of all that can be drawn by way of implication from the data. They represent, however, the more significant insights and observations which summarize the relationships examined in this population. The conclusions are not necessarily transferable to other populations. The nature of the field research methods employed in this study prevent one from generalizing on the conclusions. On the other hand, these conclusions are presented as a slice of one piece of reality with the hope that they might precipitate a new look at other such slices of the mentoring experience. W211. mama The emerging relationship between the mentor and the mentee often results in a deepening friendship. But the precise relationship between the experience of mentoring and the development of this friendship is not always clear. This is due, in part, to the fact that the concept of 'mentoring' lacks precise definition. This lack of definition exists both within the scholarly literature on the subject as well as with the actual participants of this study. The definitions normally offered are descriptive in nature and often change as the situation which they 14C) describe might change. Hhen asked to define a “mentor,” a “mentee,“ or the 'mentoring relationship,‘ the overwhelming initial responses were either 'friend,‘ or “colleague.“ One might expect the mentor to make some initial reference to the inexperienced nature of the entering astor, or the fact that as mentor he was responsible to educate, direct and guide the entering pastor into the ministry. One might also expect the mentee to view his mentor as "guide,“ “director,“ or "supervisor.“ However, the recognition of any inequality in their relationship often came only later in the conversation. An apparent tension exists between the need to develop a peer relationship within the ministry and the need to recognize the disparity in maturity and experience between the senior and Junior members of the relationship. But the relationships did not start at the point of friendship, and several relationships did not develop in the direction of establishing a friendship. These mentees referred to their mentors more frequently as “resource persons" or 'consultants.” The first conclusion of the study is that a progression can be detected in those relationships which were satisfactory to the participants from a superior/subordinate relationship to a peer relationship. Hhile officially these pastors were equals by the denomination’s definition, functionally a great disparity existed between them during the initiation phase of the relationship. Over time, however, the disparity would decrease as the peer relationship increased. Hany mentors and mentees indicated that there was a growing mutuality or reciprocity in their relationship which was marked by a decrease in emphasis on identifying resources for the junior partner and an increase in emphasis on the discussion of personal issues. Figure 1 indicates 141 Figure 1 Continuum Toward Peer Relationship Superior! ll/l/l/l/l/l/l/l/l/l/l/ll/l Subordin- //////I//////////// ate ll/l/l/l/l/ Relations Peer Relations ----- -over time- - - - - -> that in a healthy, functioning relationship, the amount of time spent on superior/subordinate issues decreased while the emphasis on peer relationships increased as the relationship developed over time. As the relationship developed, less emphasis was placed by the mentee on consulting with the mentor about skill or strategy issues and more time was spent on dealing with feelings or spiritual matters. Kram (1985) identified a continuum of peer relationships, indicating three progressive stages of peer relations: informational peer, collegial peer, and special peer (19853138). Host relations began at the level of informational peer, which Kram described as a stage characterized primarily by demanding very little commitment. The intensity of the relationship was described as social, and the primary focus was on the sharing of information (Kram ”85:13”. The relationship of collegial peers was marked by a greater intensity of the relation which encouraged self-expression. Information was shared as well as experiencing increased levels of trust. The special peer relationship was “equivalent of best friend,“ which evidenced a strong sense of bonding (Kram 1985:139). The conclusion presented here extends the perspective of Kram by adding the feature that as the relationship develops the parties begin to I42 perceive each other in less hierarchical terms. Disparities in maturity and experience may continue to exist, but they have less impact on the relationship as the trust level increases. In addition, this study indicated that as the satisfaction level of a participant decreased, the emphasis on making the mentor and mentee accountable to a third party increased. On the other hand, the more satisfying the relationship was to the participant, the more that person tended to keep the relationship internally accountable. As long as the mentee viewed his mentor as a 'superior,” the mentee tended to suggest that the mentor ought to be accountable to a higher administrative level. But as the level of trust and commitment deepened between the mentor and mentee, the resistance to the notion that they should report to a party outside of the relationship decreased. In her study Kram also identified the four successive stages in a mentoring relationship as initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition (1985349). The conclusion suggested here contributes to a deeper understanding of that progression. As the relationship is cultivated, participants will experience an increasing tendency to focus on personal, spiritual issues with an attendant decrease in the amount of time spent on functional issues. There was even some indication that, in those relationships which had moved to a special peer level, the redefinition of the relationship into a lasting friendship occurred rather naturally and without trauma. In those cases where the peer relationship had not developed, redefinition and continuation of the relationship would not be expected. The implications of this conclusion are several. Hentors should recognize that as a healthy relationship develops, they will experience a I43 shift away from a focus on ministry or issue orientations toward personal and spiritual issues. Potential mentors must, therefore, not only be pastors who have rich and rewarding experiences to share with the entering pastor, but they must also have the capacity to be vulnerable and enter into a mutually satisfying relationship at a deeper level of intimacy. The mentee, on the other hand, must recognize the existence of the implicit hierarchy or superiority of his mentor. A mentee who enters the relationship expecting an immediate friend and confidante enters with too great an expectation. Such levels of trust and intimacy are the result of a developmental process, and are dependent on the ability of both parties to move toward those levels of intimacy together. WflWflMI A closely related conclusion is that one must recognize a close association between meeting the psychosocial needs of the mentee through involvement in this relationship and addressing the needs associated with career induction and advancement. Hentors tended to exhibit a certain pre-disposition toward one or the other of these two functions. Some mentors tended to be more comfortable with the career induction aspects of mentoring. They would be willing to draw freely from their experience, engage in problem solving activities or function as consultant to the mentee for pastoral related issues. Other mentors were more ready to move into various personal issues often associated with the psychosocial development of the young adult. These mentors were willing to deal with feelings such as disappointment, stress, frustration or joy. They were also more intentional in engaging the entering pastor in 144’ conversations that would examine the mentee’s personal motivation and goals in the ministry. A paradigm which is helpful in understanding the dynamic relationship between the psychosocial and the career purposes of mentoring is here adapted from the field of organizational behavior. Based on extensive studies by Blake and Houton (1978) and Argyris (1971), Shawchuck (1981) developed a matrix to express the relationship between concern for task and concern for relationships for persons in leadership positions (Cf. Figure 2). He then demonstrated that different leadership styles are appropriate to groups of various levels of capacity to perform a task. As one moves along the horizontal axis, there is an increased concern for production, or task-oriented leadership. The leader who exhibits a high concern for production is one that is primarily interested in the product or job that is at hand. The vertical axis, on the other hand, represents the leader who is concerned for the people who are involved in the performance of that task. The leader’s concern on this axis is focused more on persons than tasks. Therefore, a leader who would be located in the lower right quadrant of Shawchuck’s diagram is described as ”task oriented'I (Shawchuck 1981332) because of his high concern for production and a low concern for people. The upper right hand quadrant, on the other hand represents a high concern for both production and people. Shawchuck described this leader as a “team manager“ (1981332). The upper left hand quadrant represents the leader who is highly concerned about people but exhibits a low concern for production. This leader is described as the 'country club“ leader 145 Figure 2 Shawchuck Figure of Concern for People vs. Concern for Production E 9 I 1-9 I 9-9 I '2 I I I T 8 I (Country Club) I (Team) I I I I I I g 7 I HIGH CONSIDERATION I HIGH 3mm I I I I I j. 5 I ma 3mm I HIGH consmcnnnou I I I I g s : 1 ‘I a I I I 5 4 I ma arm I HIGH em I II. I I I 3 I ma ooxsmcmnox I ma costnERATIoH I I I I 2 I (lmoverished) I (task) I I I I , 1 I H I (H I g I - u I L o I z 3 II 5 a 7 a 9 8 :3 IIme Fan PROMTICN-—---(high) (8hawchuck 1981332). The leader represented in the lower left quadrant is the 'iepoverished' leader (8hawchuck 1981332) because he represents low concern for both task and production. Siawchuck also suggested that leadership styles must be progressively adjusted from quadrant I through quadrant IV as the 'matirity" of the grow or individual develops. 8y 'maturity' 8hawchuck refers to a 'movement from a passive state to one of increased self- directed activity, and from full dependence won the leader to relative independence“ (1981337). Shawchuck presented six scales by which this maturity is measured. These scales are reproduced in Figure 3. The more dependent, passive, rigid, self-concerned, short-ranged and shallow the participant might be, the more task oriented the leader must be. As the 146 Figure 3 haturity Scales of Shawchuck I ABOVE AVERAEEI AVERAGE I BELOH AVERAGEI I HATURITY I HATURITY I HATURITY I. I Independent ----------- Dependent I I Active -------------- Passive I I Flexible -------------- Rigid I I Concern for Others - - - -Concern for Self I I Long Range ---------- Short Range I I Deeper Interests - - - - Shallow Interests I (Shawchuck 1981:37) participant grows in maturity, the leader’s style should adjust progressively through the quadrants to the changing needs of the individual or group for which the leadership is being provided. The Shawchuck paradigm is adapted in figure 4 to express the relationship between a career induction orientation and a psychosocial orientation in a mentor. The four quadrants represent four basic types of mentors relative to their interest in and/or capacity for involvement in the aspects of career induction and psychosocial mentoring. They range from quadrant I in which the mentor has a high interest in the career induction aspect of mentoring, to quadrant IV in which the mentor has low interest in both career induction and the psychosocial development of the mentee. Quadrant I represents the mentor who is most concerned about the tasks of ministry. In the mentoring relationship he will emphasize those aspects of career induction and professional development that the mentee must face during the early years of ministry. This type of mentor will not be naturally amenable to dealing with the psychosocial or personal needs of the mentee, but he would 147' Figure 4 Hentor Orientation Hatrix (high) p I I III. I II.I s I I HIGH I HIGH I y I I PSYCHOSOCIAL I PSYCHOSOCIAL I c I I LOH I HIGH I h I I CAREER I CAREER I o I I P fi‘ s I I IV. I I. I o I I LOH I LOH I c I I PSYCI-DSOCIAL I PSYCI-DSCBIAL I i I I LOH I HIGH I a I I CAREER I CAREER I l I ** ‘ ‘4 (low) -------------- > (high) career inducti on serve as an excellent resource or consultant for the newly ordained pastor serving his first congregation. Ouadrant II represents that mentor who is highly concerned for both the issues associated with the ministry (career induction) as well as personal, developmental concerns. This pastor represents a fully involved mentor who will expend equal energy and investment on the career and psychosocial aspects of mentoring. Ouadrant III represents that pastor who exhibits high concern for the personal issues involved in the entering pastor’s life, but exhibits low interest in the career aspects of mentoring. This pastor will likely view mentoring as a step-child of counseling. He will serve as a personal encourager, confidante or counselor, but he will not likely give direct advice or assistance in ministry related situations. The pastor represented in quadrant IV is the mentor who is not invested in the process. For one reason or another, this pastor exhibits little concern for either the personal or career issues of mentoring. This lack 146) of involvement, of course, invariably prevents the development of an effective long-term mentoring relationship. This type of pastor would best be described as a disengaged, laissez-faire mentor. Figure 5 provides a description of the type of mentor that represents each quadrant. For the particularly “immature“ mentee, the mentor represented in quadrant I as the “consultant/resource boss” is the most suited. As the mentee develops in his ability to handle the ministry, and as he becomes more active, flexible and independent, the type of mentor described in quadrant II (”the player-coach”) becomes the mentor of choice. This mentor is able to develop with the mentee and shift concerns as needed between career oriented issues and person oriented issues. The mentee who progresses in independence and long range goals, who basically becomes mature in his ability to meet the challenges of the career, could well be served by the mentor represented in quadrant III (”counselor spiritual director). This type of mentor is best suited for the mentee who is competent and self-confident, but yet faces issues of personal development that can be addressed through a personal confidant. Ouadrant IV not only represents the mentor who does not take responsibility for investing in the program, but it can also represent the mentor who has allowed the program to run its full course. After several years of mentoring, the senior partner may well find that he has performed his task so well that the mentee is no longer in need of his services in either the area of career development or psychosocial development. At that point, the relationship will either end or it will transpose itself into a different type of relationship, such as a friendship. This study indicated, therefore, that if one considered a mentor to be an educational leader, the theory developed by Shawchuck and 149 Figure 5 Description of Hentorship Styles (high) p 4‘ I III. I II.I s z I I I y I I COUNSELOR I THE I c I I SPIRITUAL- I PLAYER- I h I I DIRECTOR I COACH I o I I ‘ I s I I IV. I I. I o I I I I c I I DISENGAGED I CONSULTANT I i I I LAISSEZ- I RESOURCE I a I I FAIRE I 8088 I l I L *’ *4 (low) -------------- > (high) career induction others would be applicable to the various styles of mentoring. The less equipped or skilled the mentee might be and/or the less personally open the mentee would be to his own personal development, the more a mentor must be the director, or boss, represented in quadrant I. As the mentee develops in skill and openness, the type of mentor would move progressively through the various styles. Figure 6 represents a further adaptation of the Shawchuck model to give expression to the dynamic progression that exists in the type of mentor-leadership that is normally provided as the relationship develops. By definition, all relationships begin at a certain level of disengagement. As the relationship begins, emphasis is normally placed primarily on quadrant I activities. Effective mentoring, however, occurs when quadrant I activities, which emphasize a high level of concern for career factors, are combined with quadrant III activities, which emphasize a high level of concern for psychosocial factors. The data 15C) Figure 6 Hentor Leadership Styles Over Time 5 I p--— I I I I s \> ._ I I comet-10R \* I SPIRITUAL- III. I I DIRECTOR I IV. DISENGAGED LAISSEZ- FAIRE Ix suggest that there is a natural progression from one form of mentoring style to another, ultimately leading to a cessation of mentoring activities when the relationship either ends or grows into a closer friendship not concerned with mentoring duties. Several factors, then, can be identified that would lead to a satisfactory relationship. First, an appropriate match between the leadership style of the mentor and the degree of readiness for learning of the mentee must be made. Second, one must recognize that as the mentee develops both in the area of career induction and in his own psychosocial maturity, the mentor must have the ability to adjust his 151 mentoring style accordingly. Third, as the demands change from one quadrant to another, the mentor must be willing to invest himself in a relationship which will be increasingly reciprocal. On the other hand, several factors were identified which obstructed the development of a healthy relationship within the population under study. This conclusion concerning the matching of mentoring styles with the level of maturity of the mentee is dependent on a certain degree of intensity and interaction in the relationship. Several serious obstacles came to light with this particular population which made the development of such a relationship problematic. First, each party functioned professionally in a separate and unrelated context. Many of the structured mentoring programs that have been researched (Schmoll 1981; Moore 1982; Phillips-Jones 1982) presume that the mentor and mentee participate mutually in a vocational or career setting. They work for the same corporation or share the same clientele. These pastors, however, functioned in separate and unrelated congregations. The degree to which their ministries were parallel was accidental to the relationship. In the time between the various interactions of the mentor and mentee, there was little or no shared responsibility for professional duties. Second, the frequency of contacts was also limited. In many mentoring relationships, formal structured meetings are not part of the contract. Levinson (1978) and Schmoll (1981) indicated that the relationship consisted almost entirely of informal, casual but pointed conversations that occurred within the work context. Rarely were specific occasions set aside to do the work of mentoring. This does not imply that such formal and structured meetings are not effective. The 152! limitation, however, is that they can become the exclusive occasion to attend to the mentoring agenda. When such meetings are held at best one time per month, and in some occasions as infrequently as twice a year, one can hardly expect the relationship to develop to the level of 'special peer“ (Kram 1985). The implications of this conclusion are several. First, the selection of a mentor must be done with a high degree of consideration for the level of 'maturity,‘ or readiness to learn, of the mentee. Each new pastor enters the ministry with his own unique balance of personal needs and skills. Some mentees demonstrate greater levels of professional competence than others. Other mentees demonstrate greater need to nurture their own personal and spiritual development. A mentor must be selected who is able to relate to the mentee at his particular level of need. Second, the paradigm proposed above helps clarify the definition of 'mentor.“ Nhile the definition lacked clarity in the minds of both mentors and mentees, the descriptions given of the ideal mentor most frequently referred to the activity of quadrant II in which the mentor demonstrated a high level involvement in both the psychosocial development of the mentee as well as the career induction and advancement. A mentor, therefore, is a person who is able to assist the mentee in meeting his own psychosocial needs as well as introducing him to the obstacles and challenges of a new career. W233. mmm Kram asserted that one of the main misconceptions of a mentoring program was “that the primary beneficiary in a mentor relationship is the junior person“ (19853195). This study confirmed that the mentor experienced significant benefits, many of which were unanticipated, through involvement in the program. The mentor and mentee were learning together. Although the senior partner may have had more experience in the ministry, mentors also readily admitted that the structure of the mentor program was the occasion for them to think reflectively on their own experience in ministry. Not often had they been pressed prior to involvement in the mentoring program to explain why they employed certain strategies for ministry, or why they held certain positions in theology. The learning that occurred appeared to function at the two highest levels of the experiential learning taxonomy of Steinaker and Bell (1979), viz., internalization and dissemination. The mentorship relationship became the occasion for both partners to “internalize“ their learnings and to “disseminate” them in a manner peculiar to themselves. In describing the taxonomic level of ”internalization“, Steinaker and Dell assigned the role of 'sustainer' to the teacher (19793107). As the learner begins to internalize new insights gained from his experience in ministry, the mentor’s role is to sustain the new insights and skills by affirmation, correction, and 'comparative-contrastive analysis" (19793133). This last technique is especially appropriate to the mentoring relationship because 'the learner is required, in a sense, to justify the efficacy of the new learning through analysis and through application to new contexts“ (19793134). As both mentor and mentee analyze and discuss various aspects of the ministry and/or the person of the minister, they must be able to apply those insights and transfer them to the new situation represented by the mentee’s ministry situation. 154» The highest taxonomic level is that of dissemination where “the participant informs others about the experience and seeks to stimulate others to have an equivalent experience through descriptive and personalized sharing' (1979311). The instructor’s or mentor’s role at this level is that of 'critiquor' (1979373). ”The teacher’s role is to sustain the experience so that the extension may occur” (1979:33). The effective mentor critiques the mentee’s development and skill enhancement in such a way as to continue the development to the stage where the young pastor develops his own 'style' and approaches the point of suggesting to others that his way of engaging in ministry is a good way. Learning through experience and leading a novice pastor through these two highest taxonomic levels of experiential learning requires that the mentor himself demonstrate a simultaneous and parallel development. The inability of certain mentors to engage in such critical reflection was the point of breakdown in the relationship. Some mentees who had been conditioned by their seminary education to an action-reflection mode of education (Friere 1978) appeared more capable of engaging in this form of conscious experiential learning than did some of their older colleagues. There are two implications of this conclusion for an assigned mentoring relationship. First, the selection of mentors should be done with attention to the ability of the potential mentor for engaging in an action-reflection form of learning. The training program for mentors might include some instruction in this form of adult learning. Second, the recognition that an action-reflection approach to learning is effective within a mentoring relationship also underscores the need for a predictable routine in the relationship. Regularity of meetings or interactions between the mentor and mentee is essential for 1555 this form of adult learning. The interactions must also have enough structure and time available to sustain the process. Here curb-side conversations will not be enough to sustain the intensity of this form of learning. CQNQLQ§IQ§ g1; ASSIGNING e HENTQBING Tl IP Herriam (19833170) called for an evaluation of structured mentorship programs in business and education. The transferability of some of the benefits of a self-selected mentor relationship had not been validated in an assigned relationship. In evaluating an assigned relationship, the distinction between an assigned relationship and a structured relationship must be kept in mind. An assigned relationship refers to those relationships which have been precipitated or matched by a third party. Person A and person 8 are brought together through some means by person C. Once the “match“ has been made a minimum of guidance and interference is given. In essence, the relationship is allowed to develop, or not develop, as if it were a natural self-selection process. On the other hand, a structured program implies that the parties are matched by an outside agent and the program itself is defined by procedural and content requirements. This present study represented assigned mentoring relationships in which, once the match was made, the relationship was free to develop or not develop in direct relation to the willingness and ability of the parties to invest themselves in the process. The program was generally well-received by all the participants. Not a single mentor or mentee, including those whose relationship never did develop, spoke unkindly about the program or the need for it. The ISéI failure of any particular relationship to develop was more the responsibility of the participants than a flaw in the design or intention. In those relationships where the development had extended at least to the level of "collegial peer“ (Kram 1985), the mentors invariably commented on the unanticipated benefits they received from the program. They had entered the relationship on the assumption that the mentee would be the primary beneficiary. At the time of the interviews, nearly every one who had developed some form of relationship also recognized that the benefits were nearly equal for both participants. The implication of this degree of satisfaction with the effects of the assignment process is that such attempts to assign persons to such relationships should be welcomed. Hhile additional care could be given to matching the participants according to need and personality, mentors and mentees welcomed the opportunity to become involved in such a relationship. Hany of them suggested as well that if they had not been assigned to a mentor, they likely would not have sought out such a relationship on their own. They might have limited their contacts to a few casual consultations with neighboring pastors. Only a very few mentees thought that they might have developed a relationship which had a similar purpose and intensity. mmmmmwmm The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. The population of this study consisted of ordained pastors in the Christian Reformed Church who were matched together into mentoring pairs through the administration of the Pastor Church Relations Services. Hhile the study was not designed 157' to evaluate the program as such, obvious implications of the study for the Pastor Church Relations Service can be identified. These implications might also be valid for other mentoring programs that attempt to assign mentors and mentees to one another. 1mm 111. Mm. the. '3an The terms ”mentor” and ”mentee“ do not have commonly accepted definitions. The program in the Christian Reformed Church suffers, as do other programs, from a lack of clarity regarding the primary terms and the fundamental roles that persons must fulfill. This study indicated that two fundamental concerns should occupy the attention of the mentor and mentee, viz., the psychosocial and the career development of the mentee. However, many participants in the program were unable to articulate with any level of clarity either of these functions. When asked to define ”mentor' or “mentee,“ respondents would invariably use terms like “friend,” 'colleague,’ or “resource.' The study also indicated, however, that in those relationships which were judged satisfactory by the participants the elements of career induction and psychosocial development did receive attention. Nhen mentors and/or mentees are invited to participate in this program, they should receive basic orientation to the roles which they will occupy in relation to one another. This orientation might take the form of a workshop, individual consultation, printed orientation materials, or group consultation. Clarification of terms and roles, however, holds promise for establishing a proper direction during the initiation stage of the relationship. Igglicatigg 1;; §glggtion g; Hentors The study indicated that the proper match of mentor and mentee was critical to a satisfactory relationship. The matching of personalities and developmental needs was crucial to the success of the relationship. Hhile recognizing many limitations which the Pastor Church Relations Service faces in locating and enlisting mentors in the program, special care must continue to be exercised in making the assignment. An entering pastor who lacks confidence in his ministerial and administrative skills will require a mentor who will attend more closely to the career induction aspects of mentoring. An entering pastor who has already developed self-confidence in his pastoral skills may be better served by a mentor who attends to his psychosocial needs. There is no simple solution to the challenge to develop a careful matching process for mentors and mentees. Several processes could be considered. The administration of an instrument such as the one developed by Shawchuck (1981) designed to test one’s leadership style might be instructive also with regard to the potential mentoring style of a prospective mentor. The Pastor Church Relations Service might also consider delaying the appointment of a mentor for an entering pastor until the new pastor has been installed into his ministry and has had sufficient exposure to fellow clergy in order to make an informed selection of his future mentor. Because the development of the relationship is highly personal and can become quite intense, the new pastor’s investment and influence in the selection of the mentor should be maximized. 159) Imglication 9;; Training gag Sgggort The training and support of the parties involved in the mentoring relationship could be increased. The program, as it is presently structured, provides little training for the tasks involved in mentoring and little support to encourage the continued development of the program. Initial training should be considered for both mentors and mentees in a joint workshop where they can be introduced to the variety of dynamics involved in a mentorship relationship. The purpose and structure of the program as well as the dynamics and natural stages of a mentoring relationship could be reviewed. A review of basic communication skills could also be provided. An introduction to an action/reflection model of experience-based learning would aid both parties as they attempted to analyze together the various experiences of ministry. Initial training could also provide a structured occasion for the new mentor and mentee to contract or covenant together concerning their emerging relationship. According to the present guidelines established by the Pastor Church Relations Service, a mentor/mentee relationship should remain in effect for five years. The length of time involved in this relationship along with the natural development and adjustment that is anticipated in such a relationship both suggest that periodic in-service training and support opportunities should be offered. Annual or semi-annual meetings of mentors and mentees could continue to clarify for the participants both the purpose and process involved in the mentoring program. As the number of mentorships increases, such gatherings of mentors and mentees could be held on a regional basis with a minimum of expense. Such meetings would not only provide continued training, but such meetings would provide the potential for developing broader support groups within the program. 16C) Hentors could consult with each other; mentees would have an opportunity to discuss their experiences and reactions to the program. Iggligggigg,25;,Ggidelines The implications outlined above also suggest one additional area for consideration, viz., that the Pastor Church Relation Service consider the development of process guidelines to direct the mentorship program. Hhile one of the values of the program as presently experienced was the freedom that the participants experienced in structuring and monitoring their own relationship, frustration was also expressed when a mentor or mentee did not adhere to an unarticulated but real expectation. A mentor, for example, who did not take the initiative to structure meetings or who did not take initiative in moving the discussions into areas of greater vulnerability was often criticized for that failure. Hentees who resisted any element of superiority on the part of the mentor, although such superiority might properly be recognized on the basis of advanced experience and/or age, often thwarted the development of the relationship. The Pastor Church Relations Service might consider establishing certain guidelines within which effective relationships have been developed. These guidelines could contain such items as: a. The mentor will be responsible to initiate the relationship and propose a regular schedule of meetings. b. The mentor and mentee will meet no less than once per month for a meeting dedicated exclusively to the purpose of the mentorship program. 161 c. The agenda should focus on both of the primary aspects of the mentoring relationship, viz., career induction and psychosocial needs. Other guidelines could be added as deemed appropriate. These implications are specifically addressed to the Pastor Church Relations Service of the Christian Reformed Church since the population of the study was comprised of persons under their jurisdiction. Other structured mentoring programs should determine to what extent their programs conform to the one described here, and should make appropriate adjustments based on this research in order to enhance the effectiveness of their program. mxmm Every research project is, by its very definition, limited to a specific place, population and time. A good research project often results not only in valid conclusions but is heuristic in suggesting other areas of potential study. One area which remains a concern for researchers is the lack of common agreement with concern to the definition of “mentor.“ Although this research has moved that discussion forward by identifying the various component parts of a mentoring relationship and by identifying four mentoring styles based on a variety of combinations of concern for the psychosocial development and the career induction of the mentee, further clarification must be made in both the definition and consistent use of the term “mentor.“ Keele, Buckner and Bushnell (1987), for example, raise a warning about the use of an assigned mentoring program as a means of career induction. “In fact,“ they assert, “assigned 162 mentor-protege relationships may inhibit employee development rather than enhance it'' (1987361). They define a true mentoring relationship as one which is "relatively exclusive, intensive, mentor-controlled, and voluntary. Such relationships cannot be assigned" (1987:62). Keele, Buckner and Bushnell raise legitimate questions for a mentor-protege program within a corporation in which both the mentor and protege share joint responsibility and accountability in the same job setting. However, to make such assertions that 'such relationships cannot be assigned" fails to recognize that such assignments can effectively occur in other contexts. The population in this study focused to some degree on issues of career induction, but they differed significantly from the concerns raised in the Keele, et. al., study. These pastors did not share a common work place, nor were they mutually accountable within the same job setting. They each functioned with their own unique autonomy, and although the relationship was facilitated by an outside agency, each pair was relatively free to direct and guide their relationship as they saw fit. Further research, therefore, would be beneficial to study the effects of assignment on those who are sharing a common work setting in contrast to those who are in separate and independent work settings. Further research could also be profitably conducted into the dynamics of establishing a mentorship relationship for persons who are already in other special career or vocation oriented arrangements. Six of the mentees of this study were also members of a ministry staff within a local congregation. The mentor was always a person outside of the staff. But in nearly every situation, the mentee mentioned that some of the normal tasks that would normally be incorporated into the mentoring relationship had been addressed in the staff relationship. Can L63 one divide the psychosocial and the career induction aspects of mentoring so that the former becomes the agenda for the mentor while the latter is the focus of staff relationships? Night such a division of perspective also be suggestive of a manner in which management personnel could avoid a conflict of interest between mentoring a protege within their own department and attending to their psychosocial needs? Keele, et. al., (1987) also asserted that many mentoring programs were counter productive because of such a conflict of interest. The relationship had to be, by definition, focused primarily on career development. The provision of emotional and personal support, while present, often was secondary to the concern for career development (1981:62). Perhaps business and industry might consider establishing a mentoring program in which the participants did not share duties within the same division of the business but were still aligned closely enough to develop the necessary level of bonding. Research into this type of career related mentoring in business and industry in independent work sites would be beneficial to the entire field of research. A final area of possible research would focus on the psychosocial aspects of mentoring, especially the motivation that exists or fails to exist which causes persons to invest themselves in the relationship. Hhile research identified as a key characteristic for both the mentor and mentee the willing to invest in therelationship, the underlying motivation for the decision to invest has not been thoroughly investigated. Does such motivation arise primarily out of a desire for security on the part of the mentee? Are mentors motivated largely because they see the potential for generativity as they approach mid- life? Hight other factors be equally important in understanding the L64 motivations of both parties to participate in this relationship? what causes a potentially effect mentor to withdraw from a relationship? What precipitates an early demise to a relationship that evidenced some potential near the beginning? This present research began to address some of these issues, but these areas are far deeper and more significant than can be addressed in this present study. The area of motivation for and retention in the program is an area for profitable future research. M1 The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. Thirty-two ordained ministers in the Christian Reformed Church served as the population for the study. Through an open-ended interview process, data were collected in two discreet phases. The effective mentor possessed the characteristics of a willingness to invest in the relationship, an advanced career status relative to the mentee, self-confidence, and a willingness to reciprocate within the relationship. The mentor must be accessible to the mentee, be objective and be a good listener. The mentee was characterized as one who was also willing to invest in the relationship, recognized his novice position relative to the mentor, and was a critical learner. His duties were summarized as being willing to invest in the process, to seek teaching, to return in kind that which he received from his mentor, and to remain responsible for his own ministry. The relationship itself was characterized by commitment, intensity and structure. L65 The relationship had identifiable effects on the mentor. It became a stimulant for his own ministry, provided an occasion to develop a friendship, and gave rise to his own personal and spiritual growth. The relationship had identifiable effects on the mentee. They were provided a consultant/resource person and a point of contact in order to develop a broadening perspective on the church. They were also provided a safety net for both their ministry and their person. The mentor served as a stimulant for their ministry as well as for their own personal and theological development. Four conclusions were suggested by this study. First, the relationship was, by its very nature, one that would lead to a decreasing involvement in career and professional concerns while precipitating an increased involvement in personal and psychosocial development. Second, the leadership or mentoring style of the senior partner must be adapted to and grow with the changing needs of the mentee. Third, the process of learning which occurs within this relationship was best described by the experiential taxonomic terms of internalization and dissemination. Finally, the effects of the assignment of mentors and mentees to one another was positive and bears further encouragement and study. This study represents a small window on one selected piece of reality. This piece of time is presented without the pretense that it summarizes anything other than what it describes. But the reader is encouraged to consider the picture carefully. In this description doubtless lies the foundation for further investigation and study. As we continue to seek to refine our understanding of human relationships, perhaps we will come to see that assisting the development of such relationships can, under careful circumstances, have salutary effects. N’PENDICES APPENDIX A INVITATION LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS APPENDIX A INVITATION LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS Dear {name}: I would like to express my appreciation for your willingness to talk with me about your mentoring relationship with (name). The development of the mentorship program within the church is an important and exciting development. The purpose of the interview is to gain some insight into the nature of the relationship which has developed between you and [name]. I am not conducting an evaluation of the mentoring program as it is structured by our denomination. Rather, I am conducting this research in conjunction with my Ph.D. program at Michigan State University. Through this project I hope to learn something about the nature of the mentoring relationship, especially as you have experienced it. The Pastor Church Relations Committee has been fully informed about the project and has given me their full consent and support in pursuing these objectives. I will focus our interview (which should last approximately 45 to 60 minutes) on a description of the mentoring relationship, the development of the relationship between the two of you, the benefits and possible drawbacks which you have experienced as a result of this relationship, and your projection concerning the future direction of the relationship. All the information shared with me will be confidential. I promise you complete anonymity; no one outside of myself will know that you have participated in this study. I will audio record the interview in its entirety and likely take a few notes as we talk. The tape of the interview will be used exclusively by myself to analyze and reflect more fully on the relationship. All of this information will remain confidential, and under no circumstances will the tape be released to any other party nor reported to them in any fashion that its substance could be directly associated with you or your ministry. lbéI L67 Therefore, while I would encourage you to participate in this study, please understand that your participation is completely voluntary. You may freely decline to participate. If you do participate, you are free to discontinue at any time without penalty. I am certain that you can appreciate my desire to collect the best data possible, and I judge this can be done by assuring you of these safe guards. Hay I ask that you sign and return the enclosed card to me prior to the time of our interview. This card will serve as my record of your consent to participate in this project. I plan to see you on (day, date, and time]. I look forward to seeing you again. Hith my gratitude, Bob De Vries APPENDIX B PARTICIPATION CONSENT CARD APPENDIX B PARTICIPATION CONSENT CARD DEAR BOB: I have read your letter describing the study which you are conducting on the mentoring relationship. I am willing to participate under the conditions you outlined in your letter. (signed) (date) 168 MIX C PHASE M AUDIO TN’E MKSI-EET APPENDIX C PHASE ONE AUDIO TAPE NORKSHEET Participant Code 03 Notes made on: / / Field Notes Category Code OOVO‘MJNN" USESIXBSS’N'RBUUBSGGSEZGSZS 169 APPENDIX D PHASE Tm AUDIO TAPE WSIEET APPENDIX D PHASE TH) AUDIO TN’E WSI'EET PNTIICIM CH O m I 1!. mm ATAG Ago Differential ATCS Contrast/Siailaritias betaaen ptticipants ATDF lemon of (reality ATDI loyal of intimacy ATDS Descriptors of RelatiImoIIip ITII Initiator of Relationship ITUI Liaits of Relationship am Reciprocity iII Relationship m E m WIS Iaginaing MIR (torrent MT Fotora 170 IEIT 1771 ‘EW! 0n congregation 0n eentee 0n eentor IIIW MEW latching of participants negative effects Positive effects Definition of Duties of Inalities of lights of Definition of Duties of Oaalities of Rights of S ILSD STID STPA 17723 Relatigfllil Lg Ecclesiastical Systeas Pastor Search Relations Services Significant Others mam Content of Agenda Pregnancy of interactions Location of Interactions Participants Process (including degree of intentionality) N’PENDIX E VIGPETTES CF RELATICNSHIPS N PHASE OIIE WE VIGNETTES OF THE HENTORINS RELATIONSHIPS IN PHASE ONE The characteristics of commitment, relationship and structure serve as the point of reference in assessing the relationships examined in phase one of this research project. In developing the vignettes of the following pairs of mentors and mentees, field notes, audio tapes and memos were used to reconstruct a description of each relationship. N. (mentor) and ANDY (mentee) Al has been a pastor since 1966, having served two other congregations prior to his present charge. He has been in his present church for the past fourteen years. The congregation is composed of approximately forty-five families in a suburban setting. Al is forty- five years old. Andy was ordained to the ministry in the fall of 1983 and had been assigned to Al as part of the mentoring program shortly after that. His congregation is nearly twice the size of Al’s and is located fifteen miles to the southeast in a rural community. Andy is thirty one years old. Both pastors are married and have children. Both Al and Andy describe their relationship in positive terms, most frequently referring to the friendship that has developed between them. Their commitment to each other is less for social interaction as it is an expression of a mutual respect for and assistance to the other in their 173 174 profession. Their commitment to the program is seen by the monthly meetings which have been held regularly throughout the duration of the relationship, often involving their wives. The degree of mutual commitment is very high. Hith regard to the relationship itself, Al is quick to point out that he has "gained as much as [Andy] did from the relationship.“ To be a mentor to a young pastor recently graduated from the seminary brings a new excitement to his ministry. Andy was especially appreciative that the relationship was started for him at the point of his entrance to the ministry. Almost immediately after taking over the charge in his congregation he ran into a leadership crisis. Al was extremely helpful to Andy by providing a sympathetic ear as well as some sage advice. Andy seemed almost apologetic looking back at the initial years thinking that he had received so much without giving very much in return. The relationship, says Andy, has I'leveled out now,“ and it is “much more give and take on an equal basis.“ On reflection Al would define the mentor as “an encourager, someone who’s been there and survived, and can help someone else through the early stages of ministry, especially when your own survival is an issue.“ The relationship does not meet all of Andy’s professional and social needs, however. A difference of perspective on some basic theological perspectives exists between the two. Andy is more academically oriented and does not find that type of stimulation from Al. Andy has also turned to several other young colleagues in the ministry for social interaction. The relationship is, however, very solid. The relationship has developed and matured; each person is able to testify to various stages of development in the relationship. 175 A structure of monthly meetings with the wives has proven very helpful for nurturing the relationship. There is freedom for Andy and Al to express their own peculiarities without forcing the other to conform. But the relationship has remained primarily a professionally oriented relationship. Evidences are present of a willingness on the part of both parties to take personal risks with the relationship, but, as Andy said, “Al can’t be everything to me." Andy defined Al’s function as a mentor to be a "supportive presence with a large store of experience who acts as a sounding board for my own work.” He then added, "I said that quite carefully 4- every word is important." The relationship between A1 and Andy represents an acceptable relationship in the light of the criteria mentioned above. an (mentor) and RAD (mentee) Prior to the appointment of Bob as mentor for Brad, Brad was examined by the ministers of the regional district for admission to the ministry. Several delegates to that examination raised questions concerning Brad’s understanding of several theological points. Bob seemed to be the one pastor present who understood what Brad was attempting to communicate, and he intervened on Brad’s behalf. "I had some sympathy for him,“ said Bob. 'Haybe he wasn’t using the right language, but I stood up for him and defended him.“ Bob and Brad have developed a fairly strong friendship. The initial commitment to the program was fairly strong with both parties. But as seen below, the level of commitment and trust toward one another lagged behind, and there was little evidence of a growing relationship at the time of the interviews. There are only two years separating them in age, 17¢. Bob being 48 and Brad being 46. Brad returned to seminary and entered ministry as a second career. Bob is pastor of a large congregation in a town of approximately 100,000. Brad has begun his ministry in a small rural community twelve miles to the south. The relationship has been in existence for two years. Neither of the participants seemed to indicate that the relationship has grown beyond that of a casual but positive acquaintance. Brad, as a matter of fact, commented that he never called Bob for advice on any matter in his own church. If they talked about it at all, it would always be "after— the-fact.‘ 'Ne’re really quite different people,“ Brad remarked. “I’m open; he’s private.“ And then he added, ”sometimes I wish that Bob would open up with me more, but that’s his loss.” Brad also indicated that he strongly resisted initial overtures from Bob to be of help to him in the beginning. Brad interpreted those as being paternalistic and condescending. In asking Brad to define the word mentor, he could not offer much of a definition other than to insist that “if it means an older person taking care of a younger person, then I’d buck it." The real benefit of this relationship for Brad appears to be that it has given him an approved social outlet, a person of roughly his own age with whom he can socialize. ”The program,” says Brad, ”prevents me from being a Lone Ranger.“ The relationship is relatively unstructured, with little evidence that either party wishes to introduce more structure at this time. Although they meet with some regularity, it became evident in the interviews with both of them that they never form much of an agenda and often meet when and where other activities can dominate. It is always “pretty informal“ according to Brad. They will frequently meet for a 177 round of golf or take their wives out for lunch. But this relationship has not developed very much in a number of the crucial areas. Although there is some mutual commitment to the relationship, there are signs that the relationship is not a high priority for either party. The relationship leveled off rather quickly, especially when Brad began to resist any of Bob’s overtures to assist him directly through probing questions or offering advice. CARL (mentor) and CLARE (mentee) The relationship that has developed between Carl and Clare quickly emerged in the process of data gathering as one of the most intriguing and likely most effective. The high level of commitment both to the program as well as to one another is immediately evident. Carl is a pastor who has been in the ministry only five years longer than Clare, although he is already fifty years old. He entered the ministry as a second career. He is still serving his first congregation located approximately forty miles from Clare. Both congregations are of medium size (approximately 150 adult members) and are located in urban settings. Carl and Clare meet regularly and always with their wives. In addition to the regularly scheduled monthly meetings, the two maintain fairly close contact on the telephone. Each takes the initiative to contact the other. Carl, functioning as mentor, finds Clare’s insights and perspectives on the ministry to be ”thought provoking and stimulating.” Clare, on the other hand, finds the relationship “helpful, illuminating and encouraging.” One can sense in talking with each one individually that a certain form of bonding or “kinship" has occurred between these two. Clare stressed the need to select mentors who have “integrity“ in 178 their own ministry. Clare obviously respects and admires the work of Carl. Clare surprised himself with his own willingness to be vulnerable with Carl, to share some of the deeper frustrations and feelings that arose early in their ministry. At their initial meeting, Clare I'unloaded" on Carl concerning some of the early frustrations in ministry. That, said Carl, formed the basis for their relationship to grow into "a real friendship.” The relationship is mutually satisfying. Carl finds the theological stimulation appealing. 'I’ve never had that with any colleague yet.” The conversations between the two force Carl into articulating and verbalizing his own positions on ministry. Clare, on the other hand, loves the attention. ”He watches over me. He mothers me, and I love it! He makes me vulnerable.“ The relationship had been in place for approximately eighteen months at the time of the interviews. One indication that the relationship was still growing came in the expressed desire of both of them for a deeper spiritual bonding. Clare indicated that there was “steady progress in intimacy and trust,“ but they had only just begun to pray together. “I think that Carl is a little threatened by the spiritual side of sharing together.” This relationship, however, exhibits many of the characteristics of an effective mentoring relationship. The commitment to making the relationship work is high for both parties. They are deeply invested in it. They also recognize that the relationship needs time to develop and grow. They both anticipate the future when they will feel freer to share with one another on deeper and more significant levels. But they are able to be vulnerable and to participate in each other’s lives on a more intimate basis. Neither party attempts to dominate the other, nor 179 necessarily force one into the ministerial mold of the other. There is freedom to develop and grow. Carl especially stressed the importance of developing a relationship in which there is freedom to develop your own ministry style. They provided adequate structure without being overwhelming to the relationship. DAVE (mentor) and DICK (mentee) At the age of 52, Dave had served two parish ministries before becoming a denominational executive responsible for administering new church development in one geographic region of the denomination. He has occupied that position twelve years. Dick, who is 29 years old, was ordained to the ministry just one year prior to our interview. He is serving a new congregation which just began with his ordination. The church has grown quickly under his leadership, though the first year was not without internal problems and strife. Dave and Dick quickly developed a relationship together. Being more in administration than the typical pastor, Dave was very open to serving in this denominational capacity as a service to a young pastor. But there was a note of joy and surprise in his voice when he learned that Dick had expressed a preference of him to serve as his mentor. As Dave became better acquainted with Dick, he also gained respect for him both personally and professionally. 'Its already developing in a kind of love relationship,“ says Dave. “The relationship has grown beyond the formal. There is now freedom to allow that development.“ Dave also noted that the agenda of their conversations is fairly evenly divided between personal and professional issues. The qualities of mutual commitment and a dynamic relationship are both very evident. There is room for further growth. 18C) Both admit, for example, that they have not reached that point where they are comfortable praying together, although both indicate that as a desirable activity for the future. Dick also expressed a desire that the relationship could expand to include his wife to a greater degree. The wives participate in the meetings together, but apparently their concerns or interests have little effect in shaping the agenda. Dick admires Dave as a mentor because he not only provides a structure which aids the relationship, but he provides Dick with space to grow. ”He doesn’t try to force his solutions on my problems,“ says Dick. But Dave is not adverse to pushing him somewhat. “I keep pressing him on his vision for the church. Hhat does he think the church ought to be and do? I keep coming back to that.“ Dave and Dick both see themselves as being on the progressive side of the theological spectrum in this denomination. Dave identified that by saying that they were “kindred souls“ in their theological perspective. But, he added, “I would not want to share anything with him that would jeopardize his own struggle, his own faith walk, or his relationship to his congregation.“ ED (mentor and ERIC (mentee) Ed and Eric represent the first relationship which has not developed at all. Ed is somewhat frustrated by that fact. “I know Eric’s personality type,“ says Ed, “and I know that he’s got to be hurting.“ “But I can’t force him to be vulnerable.“ Eric does not disagree. Though Eric testifies that he’s convinced of the need for a mentoring program, he readily admits that neither of them have invested themselves very much in developing the relationship. “I’m just not very deeply involved in it.“ Ed, who is 35 years old, is pastoring his second 181 congregation. Eric, who is only two years his junior, was ordained three years prior to the time of our interview. He had worked in staff ministry for a number of years, however, prior to seminary. In analyzing this situation, one might conclude that there are a number of factors that prevented this relationship from taking root and growing. One is the close proximity in ages as well as in experience. Another significant factor is that both Ed and Eric are members of a larger staff ministry in their respective churches, a relationship which carries with it its own supportive structures. But there seems to be other, perhaps more significant reasons. Ed judges that Eric likely does not turn to very many people at all for support and help. when asked directly whether Ed thought Eric was developing a supportive relationship with someone else, he responded3 “No, not really. Eric has enough personal and professional skills to pull it off. He has pretty well determined not to be vulnerable. I think that he's just decided to tough it out on his own.“ Eric added some credence to this theory when he said that he hesitated in talking to Ed or any pastor colleague in the area out of a fear that if he shared anything too risky it might "leak" and get “blown out of proportion.“ This is not to say that Ed and Eric do not have occasions to meet together. They have gotten together a total of nine times over the course of three years. Eric says that Ed ”leavens me,“ a reference to a New Testament metaphor indicating that something enlivens or invigorates another. Ed, on the other hand, admitted that he might not be the type of mentor suited to Eric’s needs. “Perhaps we’re a miss-match,“ he said. “I’m a scrappy thirty-five year old pastor. I may spark a certain competitiveness in him due to my age and personality. 1822 Maybe he needs someone older, a grandfather type -- anyone who could safely share with him.“ The relationship obviously never grew. The causes of this are multiple, no one single cause being identified as primary. FRAIK (mentor) and FRED (mentee) At the time of the interview, Fred was celebrating one year in the ordained ministry. He is a staff ministry pastor in a church eight miles south of Frank. They are both serving congregations in a large metropolitan area. Frank is the senior pastor of a large congregation of approximately five hundred adult members whereas Fred is a Youth Pastor in a church about half the size of Frank’s. Frank is 56 years old; Fred just turned thirty. Frank and Fred meet fairly regularly, averaging approximately once a month. At the beginning Frank took most of the initiative to call Fred to arrange for a meeting or to check in how he was doing. Fred is showing more initiative now. The fact that Fred is in a staff ministry relationship takes some of the pressure off this relationship, as Frank sees it. “He doesn’t depend on me as heavily as he might,“ Frank observed, “especially since he is unmarried. There’s the potential for him to become heavily involved in this type of relationship if he weren’t in a staff ministry.“ But Frank has taken special interest in Fred. His interest, because he has been assigned by the denomination as mentor, goes beyond what he would normally have taken in a young pastor entering the area. Hhen asked how much of the relationship might take on the qualities of being a surrogate father, Frank admitted that there might be something to that. But he quickly added that he thought that he saw Fred 183: more as a surrogate son than vice versa. To this he added, “it’s fun to have someone who’s open to your wisdom.“ Frank did not anticipate the relationship developing and lasting very long, however. There was real need for it during the first year of Fred’s ministry, but Frank guessed that during the second and third years of his ministry the “blush would be off.“ “Normal business would intrude“ on the relationship. Fred would like to develop more friendships and relationships within his own congregation. Fred would also begin to feel “more comfortable with what he was doing and wouldn’t sense the need to talk as much." Fred’s perception of the relationship is similar. Fred appreciated the fact that the agenda had begun to move away from exclusive attention on him. “Frank,“ he said, “is beginning to open up to me more about what’s going on in his church.“ Hhen asked about the impact of being in a staff ministry setting on the mentoring program, Fred quite quickly responded that it was very necessary to have an “outside point of reference.“ “He can temper my reactions, and he might not have the emotional baggage that my colleague has.“ Nhen asked to summarize his impression of the relationship, Fred offered this observation: “it’s an organized way of meeting a need that would come up anyway.“ The relationship between Frank and Fred has taken root but has grown only modestly. Hhile there is a mutual commitment to the relationship, neither have invested themselves deeply into it. Hhile there are signs of development and a deepening of the relationship, these signs are weak and Frank anticipates that the relationship will dissolve within the next few years. The amount of risk taking is minimal, and Fred was able to point to several other relationships which he judged to function on a 184 deeper level of intimacy. Each respects the values and judgments of the other. There appears to be room for the development of one’s own values and beliefs. Overall, however, the relationship appears to be functioning only marginally and will not last long. N’PENDIX F VIGIIETTES CF RELATICNSHIPS CF PHASE m m5 VIGNETTES OF THE HENTORING RELATIONSHIPS IN PHASE THO The purpose of phase two of the data collection process was to examine in greater detail the categories suggested by the data of phase one relative to the characteristics of the mentor, the mentee and the relationship between the two parties. Six characteristics were identified with respect to the mentor. He should be willing to enter into the relationship, willing to give himself to the relationship, possess career experience greater than that of the mentee, possess self confidence, allow for interdependence to develop within the relationship and be non-defensive in the relationship. The mentee, on the other hand, should also be willing to enter into the relationship, be willing to commit himself to the relationship, recognize that he is a novice in the profession and in some ways emulate the mentor. The relationship itself should be marked by the qualities of mutual commitment, intensity and structure. The vignettes that follow will be in narrative form, will attempt to capture the spirit of the relationship, but will also form the background from which the reader will be able to reach some conclusion with respect to the descriptors mentioned above. lEflS 186: GEIRGE (mentor) and GREG (mentee) Although Greg was ordained into the ministry two years prior to the interview, very little has transpired in the development of a mentoring relationship with George. Neither party would admit that their relationship was a failure, although both apologized that theirs was “not like the way it was designed.“ George and Greg were both willing to participate in the program, but neither George nor Greg seemed to go out of their way to introduce any structure, regularity or accountability into the relationship. Both testify to the fact that some form of kinship has developed, but Greg admitted that it was a superficial relationship. “He’re really not close friends. Haybe it could be closer if we put forth effort.“ Later Greg expressed additional regret that the relationship had not developed further. “There were times during this past year when it would have been nice to have him around to help me through some spiritual struggles.“ There is very little evidence to suggest that Greg would turn to George merely because George was older or more experienced in the ministry. Greg exhibits a high level of self confidence and did not indicate that there was any need for him to be “dependent on“ another pastor. The relationship, then, is barely existent. George and Greg see themselves primarily as neighboring pastors and are willing to assist each other in the same manner any other pastor might. Nhile they provide each other with occasional support, little place is given in their life or ministry to the development of this relationship. 187 HARELD (Hentor) and IEMY (Hentee) The description of the relationship between Harold and Henry is contained in chapter four of the dissertation. IKE (Hentor) and ISAAC (Hentee) The description of the relationship between Ike and Isaac is contained in chapter four of the dissertation. JACK (Hentor) and JED-N (Hentee) Although eleven years separate these two in terms of age, one gets the impression that the roles might well be reversed in this relationship. The young pastor, John, has entered as his first ministry a challenging and rapidly growing church. One immediately receives the impression that this young man is fully in control of his life and his ministry. He is confident and apparently competent. He seeks help, advice and support from appropriate people at appropriate times. Jack, on the other hand, seems to have held back on the relationship. Although he was happy to take on the role of mentor, Jack said that he and John had agreed from the beginning that “this wouldn’t be a formal thing.“ They play volleyball with a group of clergy on Hondays and would often limit their contact to a few minutes of chatting in the shower room afterwards. Jack then began to experience some health problems and cut back on many of his responsibilities. Hhen asked directly whether Jack was a mentor to John, John replied, “No, he’s more of a colleague. It’s kind of a borderline friendship. He share some mutual concerns for ministry, but it really doesn’t go much beyond that.“ Nhen asked to describe the ideal mentor relationship, John replied that IBEI it should possess three qualities: (a) a common perspective -- a kinship in ministry, (b) a mentor that would provide a structure for the relationship, and (c) a mentor who believes in himself and is free enough to share. “He have the first of these three,“ said John. “The other two are lacking, and that’s why it hasn’t gone anywhere.“ The commitment to the program was ostensibly high for both, but the personal commitment to each other within the relationship has seemed to lag behind. The relationship, therefore, lacks any intensity. Hhen asked about the future of the relationship, both agreed that it probably would go on about the same until one or the other of them left the area for another church. The relationship is devoid of any conscious structure, a thing for which John holds Jack fully responsible. KEN (Hentor) and KEVIN (Hentee) Kevin describes his relationship with Ken as “good, nearly a friendship, and open.“ The relationship is not very structured and could best be described as an assigned resource person. There is not much reciprocity in this relationship. Kevin was not certain if Ken was receiving any benefits from his involvement in the relationship. “It’s pretty much a one way street.“ The real key to the fact that the relationship lacks the necessary degree of personal investment came when each party was asked what they thought the future of the relationship might be. Ken candidly said that Kevin would grow more independent. “After all, isn’t that the purpose of the program?“ And Kevin said that it did not matter to him “if we would drift apart. There’s no deep need to continue it. I’ve developed a fairly good support group within my own church.“ 189’ One of the reasons why this relationship never took root seems to lie with the mentor who is a busy pastor in a rural community. Ken is active in evangelism and projects both by his actions and by his circumstances that he is overly committed. Kevin, on the other hand, found other persons who were more readily available to him. Although he was confident that Ken would be there whenever he really needed him, he did not feel as free to intrude into the ordinary week with the minor matters that might occupy his agenda. Therefore, although they met regularly once a month, which is the average for most mentoring couples in this study, there seemed to be little continuity or investment from Ken. This relationship, therefore, has the quality of a structure but lacks the personal commitment to one another that seems so vital in other more satisfying relationships. Kevin seemed to be someone in search of a friend within the ministerial profession. “But it hasn’t happened with Ken,“ he lamented. Kevin continues to respect Ken for his work of ministry but has evidently found other relationships more satisfying to his personal needs. LARRY (Hentor) and LEN (Hentee) There are several issues that make this relationship extremely unique. Of all the participants in the study, the age differential between Larry and Len is the greatest. Larry is sixty three years old and plans to retire within the next nine months. Len, on the other hand, is just beginning the ministry and entered the profession, admittedly, as one who was relatively self assured and confident of what he was going to do. 19C) Previous relationships between Larry and Len further complicate this relationship. Larry had served as Len’s pastor when Len was a teen-ager. Len’s parents continue to be members at Larry’s church, located only one mile from Len’s congregation. The churches are closely related, and Larry has long served as an unofficial advisor to Len’s congregation. In talking with Larry about the relationship, he several times referred to the dilemma he faced. On the one hand, the policies of the church indicate that one pastor must not “lord“ over another. All pastors are equal in terms of authority and standing within the denomination. Yet Larry was quick to point that the mentoring relationship certainly was not an equal relationship. He seemed to have a hard time resolving this apparent dilemma. Larry reflected some of his frustration with Len when asked to describe the ideal mentee. He should be someone “with a reasonable measure of humility“ and someone “who doesn’t have all the answers.“ “Len is a little headstrong,“ he added. Len, on the other hand, had prepared a list of items which he wanted to cover in the interview. Of all those items, when asked which was the most important, Len said that he though the mentor must take responsibility to imitate and structure the relationship. Even when Len attempted to reach out and express a need, he perceived Larry as brushing it aside. “And he never followed through on anything.“ Len complained that even when he would reach out to Larry, Larry would never call back at a later date to find out how things were going. Larry appears to Len as someone who is not willing and/or able to give himself to this relationship. Either because of his age and impending retirement, or because of his previous relationship with Len 191 and his congregation, Larry apparently had decided to maintain a low profile. However, Larry also felt that Len was not willing to truly give himself to the relationship. His “cocky“ attitude had been the cause of problems before and Larry was concerned about other aspects of Len’s personal life. But Len, according to Larry, rarely responded to his suggestions or advice. This relationship was not very satisfying to either person involved. Len has found other outlets for his own personal and professional needs. Other pastors in the area were ready to help him with professional advice. He had developed a close personal friendship with a young couple in his church. He felt that his needs were being met. He only regretted that the mentoring relationship had not worked out in a more satisfactory “ONO?- HARK (Hentor) and IERLE (Hentee) The relationship between Hark and Herle is best expressed as one which is intentionally structured and very satisfying. From the very beginning there was mutual commitment to the relationship and the program. Herle said that from the very beginning Hark, who was older and far more experienced, nonetheless made it a point to equally invest himself in the relationship. Hark was able to clearly articulate the benefits of the relationship for him. He not only found another friend, but the conversations allowed him to gain a more objective perspective on his own ministry. Herle acted as a sounding board for new ideas and programs. And in return, Herle’s ministry forced Hark to analyze and re- evaluate his own ministry. “You know, sometimes when Herle would ask me 192! 'why’, I’d really have to think pretty hard about why I was doing something in a particular way. Hark and Herle also found kinship together in the fact that each had, in his own way, suffered physical consequences of stress in the ministry. These parallel experiences tended to bond them together. They became a mutual support system. Each person was also acutely aware of the limitations of the relationship. Hark drew the line when it came to being Herle’s therapist or counselor. He also drew the line at taking responsibility for Herle’s ministry. “I’m not an advocate for him within his own ministry. He can get my advice, but he still has to make his own decisions.“ Herle agreed. “I wouldn’t want a mentor who tried to make my ministry his own. I want someone to be a sounding board, but I don’t want him to have a vested interest in my ministry.“ Both Hark and Herle were especially eloquent in describing the ideal mentor and mentee. One was also left with the impression that they were describing their partner. For Hark, the ideal mentee would be a person who was self-assured enough that he wouldn’t run to you for every little detail. He should have a clear and solid sense of calling to the ministry. The mentee should be a person who was open to raising questions and would not respond to every new situation or circumstance with the response: “Yes, I know that.“ He should see himself as a brother who can be nurtured while giving nurture to someone else. He also had to be enough of a Christian to admit that he couldn’t run his ministry on his own. Theological compatibility would also be an important factor. Herle, in describing the ideal mentor, said that he should be someone who was “in touch“ with the ministry regardless of his age. He I93 should be compassionate and open. Above all, he should not be one who is easily threatened by someone pressing him about his own ministry. The relationship between Hark and Herle indicates a high level of commitment both to the program and to one another. There is a certain personal intensity to the relationship, though contacts are limited to monthly meetings and occasional contacts between those meetings. And the relationship is structured. Hark and Herle structured the relationship from the beginning, even to the point of deciding what issues they would talk about at their next meeting ahead of time. The nature of the relationship, however, is likely captured the best in Herle’s comment concerning his mentor when he said, “I really care about the guy.“ NATHAN (Hentor) and (HRH (Hentee) Nathan and Norm are both senior pastors of congregations which are located in urban contexts. Both congregations had been prestigious churches in their history, but as the neighborhoods changed the memberships fell. They now face similar challenges of rejuvenation. Nathan is an experienced pastor. Norm was called to the senior pastor position of his congregation straight out of seminary, a sign to some of the congregation’s desire to change its direction and meet the new challenge. Nathan accepted the appointment as mentor to Norm, although he admits that he had very little idea of what was involved in this program. As the conversation progressed, Nathan began to leave the impression that his conception of being a mentor was to be present in the event that the mentee ran into problems in his congregation. “But in the case of Norm, 194 the task is superfluous. He has no problems. He does ask me for some advice now and then.“ They have been meeting once a month, basically to talk about anything Norm might feel like bringing up at the meeting. Their interactions are limited to a few issues of ministry, and exchange of experiences, and prayer. Recently Norm asked Nathan to read a sermon he had recently written and make some comments about it. Norm described the relationship as “occasional.“ By that he meant that the relationship is there during the “occasion of the meeting,“ but that “there is nothing there otherwise.“ “As a matter of fact, Norm said, “I’m getting a little tired of it. Nathan seems to be taking all of his agenda to the meeting. I think that he needs this relationship more than I do. I’d find it more satisfying if we could talk about me and my ministry.“ Norm was also able to describe some important differences between Nathan and himself. Nathan is very non-assertive. “He’s likely very lonely in the ministry,“ said Norm. “This is probably the first time that he’s had occasion to talk about ministry with one of his colleagues in a non threatening situation.“ In the meantime, Norm has found others to meet his needs. A number of other young pastors, recently graduated from the seminary, minister in the area. They meet regularly for volleyball and, in the meantime, do a lot of sharing together about the ministry. Norm has also developed a close and professionally helpful relationship with the person who is chairman of his church council. Norm also sought Orren out for advice, although Orren admitted himself that he did not function well as a mentor to his mentee Oswald. L95 Nathan and Norm have not developed a significant mentoring relationship. There is a verbal commitment to the program, but a personal commitment to each other has not developed. Norm holds Nathan largely responsible for this in that Nathan has not taken the initiative to work at the relationship. Nor has Nathan insured that Norm’s needs and concerns form the agenda for their meetings together. In view of the fact that they have met on only three occasions during the thirty months of the relationship also indicates the lack of intensity in this relationship. Norm reveals his regret about the lack of development in the relationship when he described an ideal relationship as one in which “the mentor would be willing to work at the relationship - to invest himself in it.“ CRREN (Hentor) and OSNALD (Hentee) Over the course of the three years since Orren’s appointment as mentor to Oswald they have met only two times. At these two meetings there was no agenda and the conversation drifted casually wherever Oswald wanted to take it. Neither Orren nor Oswald seemed to indicate interest in beginning or developing a relationship. Although they were in similar ministry situations, both were also in team and/or staff ministries and felt that their needs were being adequately met there. Orren said, “I guess it was really my job to get this thing going, but then Oswald never called me to say that he wanted to meet either.“ PAIN. (Hentor) and PETER (Hentee) Paul and Peter have been working at their relationship for two years. Paul was very candid in indicating that the next several months l9é: would be critical for the future of the relationship. Peter and Paul are quite dissimilar with respect to their views of the church and ministry. Paul, who has been in the ministry for twenty four years, is a person oriented pastor who is concerned with strengthening the faith of the members of his congregation. Peter, although young and recently graduated from the seminary, is very concerned about a perceived spread of liberalism in the denomination and is wary of every new movement. He was even concerned about the initiation of the mentor program, fearing that this was another sign that the local congregations might be losing control of their own ministries. Nonetheless, Peter entered into the relationship and selected Paul as his mentor primarily because he was not one of the more conservative pastors in the region. “He’d help give me another perspective on things. I do get a little frustrated by these differences between us,“ said Peter, “but on the whole it is not a barrier.“ Paul indicated that the future of the relationship rested on Peter’s decision about his own future. Hould he continue to harden in the more conservative mold? If so, then the relationship would likely slacken and die. Or would he begin to break ties with this movement and become more open to new and fresh ideas? Is so, “then there is great potential for us together.“ In spite of this obvious strain on the relationship, both have found their time together to be satisfying and fulfilling. They meet regularly, usually every six weeks. Paul normally takes the initiative for setting up the meetings, although the general time line is agreed to at each meeting. The agenda has been left open for Peter’s control. Over the term 0+ their relationship, it has, moved from the ministry 197 oriented issues to more personal issues. The fact that Peter felt safe in confiding in Paul some of his hesitation about his theological direction indicated the level of trust that has developed between the two of them. The commitment to the program and to each other is relatively high in this situation. The relationship is fairly intense and well structured. The future of the relationship rests now, however, on Peter’s own personal odyssey. “I’m not the kind of guy that opens up to others too quickly,“ admitted Peter, I'but we have gotten to some personal issues in my relationship with Paul. That’s good. I hope it continues." BIBLICBRAPHY Bibliography Argyris, Chris. Hggggggggt gng_ggganigational Behgvior. New York: HcGraw-Hill, 1971. Blake, R.R. and Houton, J.S. In; m Hanggi; Grid Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1978. Blumer, Herbert. §xgbolic Interactionig: nggective gp__d H_e_t,hod. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1969. Blumer, Herbert. In Human Behavior ggg_Social Procesge . Arnold H. Rose (ed). Boston: Houghton Hifflin Co., 1962. Bogdan, Robert and Biklen, Sari. Qualitative Research fig; Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc, 1982. Bolton, Elizabeth B. “A Conceptual Analysis of the Hentor Relationship in the Career Development of Homen.“ Adult Education, V30, N4, 1980, pp. 195-207. Bova, Breda Hurphy and Phillips, Rebecca R. “The Hentoring Relationship as an Educational Experience“. Paper presented at the National Conference of the Adult Education Association of the USA, San Mtonio, TX, November, 1982. Bova, Brenda Hurphy and Phillips, Rebecca R. “Hentoring As a Learning Experience for Adults.“ Journal gf_Teacher Education. V35, N3, Hay-June 1984, pp 16-20. Bova, Brenda Hurphy and Phillips, Rebecca R. “The Hentor Relationship A Study of Hentors and Proteges in Business and Academia.“ An unpublished paper, University of New Hexico, 1981. Bradley, A. Paul, Jr. “Hentors in Individual Education,“ Improving lelggg gag Univggsitx TeachingI V 29, N3, Summer, 1981, pp 136 - 140. Brink, Hilliam and De Ridder, Richard. Hggdbook g; EOE Chrigtian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids, HI: The Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1979. Brister, C.H., Cooper, J.L., and Fite, J.D. figginning 19!; Hinistry. Nashville: Abindgon Press, 1981. 1963 199 Burton, Arthur. “The Hentoring Factor in the Therapeutic Relationship,“ 9 Ibs.Esxcneanslxtic assign; V66. N4. 1979. pp 509-517. V Clawson, J. “Hentoring in Hanagerial Careers,“ HorkI Fggily ggg tn; yr Carm. Brooklyn Derr (ed). New York: Praeger Press, 1980. ppm 1“-165e Cook, Judith Thompson and Bonnett, Kendra R. Hentorshig: Ag Annotatgg Bibliggrgghy. The National Institute of Education, Nashington, DC. July 1981. Cusick, Philip A. In; Egalitarian Ideal ggg ID! American Higg §ghoo . New York: Longman, 1983. Daloz, Laurent A. “Hentors: Teachers Hho Hake a Difference,“ an e b/ V15, N6, SOPCOdlflf’, 1983, pp 2“'27e Dalton, G.N., Thompson, P.H., and Price,R.L., “The Four Stages of Professional Careers - A New Look at Performance by Professionals,“ Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 1977, pp 19-42. Dewey, John. Democracy ggg Education. New York: Hacmillan and Company, 1916. Dewey, John. Education ggg_Exgerience. New York: Collier Books, 1938. Elmer, Duane. Qggeer Data g; Indicators fg§_Curriculum ngelggment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hichigan State University, 1980. Erikson, Erik H. Childhood g_n_c_l_ Society. New York: N.N. Norton and Company, Inc., 1950. Fagan, H. and Halters, G. “Hentoring Among Teachers,“ ggggnal gt Eggcational Research. V76, N2, 1982, pp 113-117. Festinger, Leon. A Theory 91 Qggnitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957. Fitt, Lawton Hehle and Newton, Derek A. “Hhen the Hentor is a Han and the Protege a Homan.“ Hggyggg Business ngiew, Harch-April 1981, pp. 56P60. Freire, Paulo. Eggggggy_gi ED: Qgggggggg. New York: Seabury Press, 1978. Galvez-Hjornevik, Cleta. “Hentoring: A Review of Literature with a Focus on Teaching.“ An article written for the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, Austin, TX, April, 1985(a). Galvez-Hjornevik, Cleta. “Teacher Hentors: A Critical Review of the Literature.“ The National Institue of Education, April 1985(b). George, Penny and Kummerow, Jean. “Hentoring for Career Homen.“ lrginingfl-IRQ“ February 1981, pp. 44-49. ZCK) Glaser, Barney C. and Strauss, Anselm L. Agarengs fl. fling, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1965. Glaser, Barney C. and Strauss, Anselm L. 11;; fig; Dying Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1966. Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anselm L. In; Discovery g£_Grounded Thgggy: Stratggies fig; Qualitative Rgggarch. New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967. Glaser, Barney G. Theoretical Sensitivity. Hill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press, 1978. Halcomb, Ruth. “Hentors and the Successful Noman,“ figgggg,ghg_§gard, February 1980, pp. 13-18. Hammersley, Hartyn, and Atkinson, Paul. Ethngrgghy: Principles ;_I_I_ Ergctige. New York: Travistock Publications, 1983. Harmon-Bowman, Hona, and Elmore, Richard T., Jr. “The Role of Hentoring in the Development of Professional Psychologists,“ Paper presented at the Annual Heeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Harch 24-27, 1982. Harris, John C. Stgggg, Egggg,ggg Hinistry. Nashington, DC: The Alban Institute, 1977. Hawkins, Roger. “Primary Hentoring as a Teaching Strategy,“ eaghing, Lgarning ggg,Develggment; Volume 11 De Caro, James and Areson, Ann (eds). Hechinger, Grace. “A New-Girl Network for Trustees.“ Change V11, N6, September, 1979, pp. 21-22. Hennig, Hargaret and Jardim, Anne. “Homen Executives in the Old-Boy Network.“ 812929.129: Mex... January. 1977. pp- 77-81- Holt, Ray. “An Alternative to Hentorship.“ egg; Egucation (London), V55, "2, mtmrg 1982’ ppe 152-156e Homans, George C. T_I;e_ HIM. ([929; New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1960. Homer. M1212 Odysm. H.B. Cotterill (trans.), London: George G. Harrap and Company, 1911. Janesick, V.J. Ag Ethnggrgghic Study 91 g Teachgg’g Classroom Eggggggtiygg Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hichigan State University, 1977. Kanter, Rosabeth H. flgg ggg,Homen gi_ggg Corgoration. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1977. 1201 Keele, Reba L., Buckner, Kathy, and Bushnell, Sheri. “Sidetracked Employees: The Down Side of Hentoring Programs,“ ID! nginer’g m Hay 1987. pp- 61-64- Knowles, Halcom. In; Hggggg Pragtigg gi_Adglt Eggggtigg; New York: Association Press, 1970. Knowles, Halcom. §g11;21§g§§ggyggarning. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company, 1975. Kram, Kathy E. Hentgging ;; Qggky Develgggggtal Rglationshigg yg tgggizational Life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1985. Kramer, Gary L. and Hhite, Herle T. “Developing a Faculty Hentoring Program: An Experiment“ NACQm Journal, V2, n2, November, 1982, ppm 47-58e Krupp, Judy-Arin. “Hentoring: A Heans of Sparking School Personnel.“ Journal gfi Counseling g ngglggggggg,V64, N2, October, 1985, pp 154- 155. Levinson, Daniel J., et. al. “The Psychosocial Development of Hen in Early Adulthood and the Hid-Life Transition.“ L111,His§ggy figgggggg 1g Psychggathglggy, (Vol 13), Ricks, D.F., Thomas, A. and Roff, H. (eds). Hinneapolis: University of Hinnesota Press, 1974, pp. 243-258. Levinson, Daniel J. et. al., IDS Sgagong g1 g Hgg’g Liigg New York: Alfred A. Knof, 1978. Lindemann, Eduard. IDS Hganing gt Adglt Egucgtion, New York: New Republic, Inc., 1926. HcGee, Hark. Promotional materials from The Hentor Institute, Aurora, CO., 1986. Harienau, C. and Chickering, Arthur H. “Adult Development and Learning,” Builgigg_gg Exggcjggggg Lg Adult Develgggggt. Betty Henson (ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1982. Herriam, Sharan. “Hentors and Proteges: A Critical Review of the V// Liter-tun“ Mull 592.com mm. V33. N3. Sprint). 1983. pp- Herriam, Sharan B. and Simpson, Edwin L. A Ggide 19 mg; 11 Eggcators ggg_1rginers gi_Adults. Halabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., 1984. Hiller, Gerald R. and Nicholson, Henry E. Qommunigation Inguiry; e Egcggggtiyg,gg,g Eggggggg Reading, HA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1976. Hisserian, Agnes. T__h_g 995227—351 Cmnectigg. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982. ZCKE Hoore, Kathryn H. “The Role of Hentors in Developing Leaders for Academe“. Oswald, Roy. Crggsing tn; ngggggy. Washington, DC: The Alban Institute, 1980. Phillips-Jones, Linda. Hggtggg,ggg,Prgtgges, New York: Arbor House, 1982. Phillips-Jones, Linda. “Establishing a Formalized Hentoring Program,“ lamina m Mascot M71114. V37. N2. 1983. pp 38-42- Piaget, Jean. megs W1; Duckworth, E. (trans.), New York: N.N. Norton, 1970. Pins-t. Jun- mummmwdtmm New York: Viking Press, 1971. Piaget, Jean. 5;; ngchglggigal Stggigg. Elkind, D. (trans.), New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1967. Finest. Jun- 19 Mend is to Immune EHSJIL! 91 musician.- New York: Penguin Books, 1973. Payne. Stanley L- II.I: act 9!. mm antim- Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979. Price, H. “Corporate Godfathers,“ lggggtgy 53:5; V209, 1981, pp. 71-74e Richards. Larry 0- a means! of. m Elm Grand Rapids. HI: The Zondervan Corporation, 1975. Schlechty, P.C. “A Framework for Evaluating Induction in Teaching,“ A paper presented at “Policy, Practices and Research in Teacher Education“, a national conferences of the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin, Tx; October, 1984. Sch-all. Beverly Jun- Imam-3.3mm” mmmmmmmmm An unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hichigan State University, 1981. SCUPE. Promotional materials from the Seminary Consortium for Urban Pastoral Education. Chicago, IL: 1987. Shapiro, E., Haseltin, F., and Rowe, H. “Hoving Up: Role Hodels, Hentors, and the ’Patron System’,“ Slggg Hggggggggt,ggview, Spring 1978, 51-58. Shawchuck, Norman. Hg! 19 B; 8 H95; Effggtive Churgh Lgader. Downers Grove, IL: Spiritual Growth Resources, 1981. 2333 Sheehy, Gail. Pasfles, New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., 1976(a). Sheehy, Gail. “The Hentor Connection: The Secret Link in the Successful Homan’s Life,“ Ngg,Yg§k, April 5, 1976(b), pp 33-39. Short, Brant and Seeger, Hatthew. “Hentoring and Organizational Communication: A Review of the Research,“ A paper presented at the Annual Heeting of the Central States Speech Association, Chicago, IL, June 1984. Steinaker, Norman and Bell, H. Robert. Igg_Exgeriential Taxonomy. New York: The Academic Press, 1979. Thompson, J. “How to Find a Hentor,“ nag, Vol 10, Feb. 1976, pp. 26-32. Haters, C.L. and Hyatt, T.L., “Toledo’s Internship: The Teachers’ Role in Excellence,“ Eh; 921;; Kgggan, V66, 1985, pp 365-367. Heber, C. E. “Hentoring,“ irggtggg ggg,§gg;ggg_V5, N3, 1980, pp 17-24. Heber, Hax. ID; Hgthodolggy gi_§ggy§g§1gl Sgiggggg. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1949. Hoodlands Group, “Hanagement Development Roles: Coach, Sponsor, and Hentor.“ Personal Jggrnal. November, 1980, pp 918-21. Zey, H. G. In; Hentor Connection. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irvin, 1984. A DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF ASSIGNED NON-STRUCTURED HENTORING RELATIONSHIPS IN INDEPENDENT WORK SITES BY Robert C. De Vries AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted to Hichigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1987 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF ASSIGNED NON-STRUCTURED HENTORING RELATIONSHIPS IN INDEPENDENT WORK SITES By Robert C. De Vries The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the nature and quality of an assigned mentoring relationship. The participants were thirty-two ordained ministers in the Christian Reformed Church who had been assigned to mentoring relationships. The data were collected in two discreet phases. Phase one produced an inclusive categorization system for analyzing mentor/mentee relationships. The second phase continued the study by focusing on the characteristics of an effective mentor, and effective mentee, and an effective relationship. An effective mentor possessed the characteristics of a willingness to invest in the relationship, an advanced career status relative to the mentee, self- confidence, and a willingness to reciprocate within the relationship. An effective mentee was characterized as one who was willing to invest in the relationship, recognized his novice position relative to the mentor, and was a critical learner. The relationship was characterized by commitment, intensity and structure. Four conclusions were suggested by the study. First, the relationship was one which would lead to a decreasing focus on career and vocational issues with an increasing focus on the psychosocial development of the mentee. Second, the mentoring style of the senior partner must be adapted to and grow with the changing needs of the mentee. Third, the process of learning that occurred within the relationship was best described by the experiential taxonomic terms of internalization and dissemination. Fourth, the effects of the assignment of mentors to mentees was generally positive and should be encouraged. Implications of the study were identified in the areas of defining more clearly the roles of mentor and mentee, the selection of mentors, the training and support of the program, and the development of process guidelines for the administration of the program.