Mentorship
Most of us have been asked to mentor in some form or another and/or to find mentors for our own development. The problem with mentorship is that many of us have differing assumptions about mentoring and the definition of mentorship itself. For most, the idea of mentoring implies an ongoing relationship of some type. Perhaps its a superior-subordinate relationship in which the junior provides sufficient deference to the senior. Perhaps it's more like a friendship based on a similarity of professional backgrounds and goals. Perhaps it's forced upon both parties by leadership. In any case, how can we do it better, if at all?
Questions:
- What happens when you don't have any chemistry with your mentor? What if your mentor doesn't have your best interests in mind?
- Where do you go if your mentor doesn't have ALL the answers? Should they?
- How does one manage the mentoring relationship? Is it a relationship? Is this relationship based on a sincere desire to relate or is it more of a manipulation?
- How does one align expectations between mentors and mentees?
- Do we need a formal mentoring program? How should we craft a mentoring program? What should we include?
- Should mentors be held accountable for the performance of their mentees?
Proposition: Mentorship is less about relating and more about asking specific questions from a network of knowledgeable sources. Anyone can be a mentor, and everyone can benefit from being mentored at any stage of their career. It's not about relationships -- we're not dating; we're not matching -- it's about building a cadre of professionals with YOU at the center. Strike mentorship as we know it from the lexicon. Let's think about mentors differently: collaborators, sponsors, role models, peer reviewers, the honest feedback loop!