During the past few years, forces at Dow--and, in fact, across American industry--have placed a premium on mentoring as a tool for increasing employee satisfaction and productivity. Like many other companies, we are faced with increased competition, reengineering, curtailed hiring, and the need to maximize the use of all our resources. These elements increase stress on employees. Active mentoring provides an organization with a way to deal positively with employee stress and competitive pressures (1).
Agricultural Chemicals Process Research (ACPR), a research laboratory of roughly 60 technical professionals at Dow, began to actively pursue development of a mentoring-rich environment about five years ago. The educational backgrounds of technical professionals in the department are split nearly evenly between chemistry and engineering; the remaining few are technologists, office professionals, and support personnel. Although ACPR was organized under one technical lab director, it was separated into two large units. One unit, staffed with a preponderance of engineers, was responsible for the engineering and operation of our pilot-plant scale-up facilities. The other group, primarily chemists, was involved with project activities ranging from small-scale, early-stage process development to support of existing manufacturing processes.
The two groups were separated physically--the engineering pilot plant was located several minutes away from the research laboratory. Personal interactions between the two groups were not incidental but intentional and related to necessary departmental administrative functions (e.g., project review meetings, project team presentations). Opportunities for the entire department to become better acquainted were limited to large social functions, such as annual holiday parties and summer picnics.
Disparities in age and experience existed within and between the two ACPR units. In the pilot-plant group, there were few senior, technically experienced role models for the group of younger, less experienced engineers. In the lab group, there were "camps" under two managers who occupied opposite wings of one building. One group consisted of established, experienced researchers, whereas the other was made up of recent transferees and new hires. Without a mechanism for people to get to know and trust each other, a few feet of hallway separating people in the same building posed as large a barrier as several miles between buildings.
In addition to departmental factors, broader issues in the company culture influenced attitudes about and acceptance of mentoring efforts. Some employees remembered a previous company-sponsored mentoring program, under which mentor-protégé pairings were assigned with limited attention to personal interests and needs, physical location, or structural organization. Suggestions for initial contacts were given, but little guidance was provided regarding expectations for or further development of the mentoring relationship. Most participants agreed that this type of "shackled mentoring" program met with limited success.
This is the atmosphere in which ACPR began planning a new mentoring program. Our motivation came from a workshop, spearheaded by a group of senior technical leaders in the Midland research organization, that focused on the elements of successful mentoring. This group identified barriers to mentoring at Dow, advantages to individuals and to the company, and expectations for a mentoring process. After the workshop, ACPR management encouraged individuals to address mentoring issues raised in our department. This initiative in early 1991 led to the formation of the ACPR Mentoring Task Force.
Mission: To foster and promote an environment in which mentoring is used to increase the effectiveness and personal satisfaction of employees at every stage of their careers.
Vision: Mentoring is second nature in ACPR. It
- catalyzes the free exchange of ideas and experience,
- is recognized and rewarded,
- is mutually beneficial and satisfying,
- is a common expectation, and
- grows new employees into leaders.
Defining needs
The original ACPR Mentoring Task Force consisted of a diverse group of 16
volunteers from the department. Volunteer participation has remained an
important element of this program. Since its inception, the task force has
experienced a modest turnover in membership, averaging 10 members annually.
One might expect that the large size and periodic turnover could be
detrimental to this kind of group; however, these characteristics provide
several advantages. The task force discovered that an individual's
perception of the department depends on many elements, including training,
gender, age, ethnicity, and experience. ACPR is a relatively large
department with varied demographics, and we realized, in retrospect, that a
smaller, fixed group of people would have been incapable of understanding and
representing the breadth of concerns of the department. New faces in the
group also provide fresh ideas and prevent the task force from becoming
stagnant.
In the beginning, it quickly became apparent that the task force required a clear definition of purpose. Management hoped that we would "make mentoring work better" in ACPR. Members of the task force brought many perspectives on what needed to be improved and slightly different definitions of mentoring; the team lacked direction. To create a shared understanding of the group's purpose, we developed mission and vision statements. These statements provided a unity of purpose for the task force and guided the development of programs for ACPR.
With our direction clearly in focus, we began a series of data-gathering activities. Smaller subcommittees were given two tasks: to develop and implement a survey to determine the mentoring needs of ACPR members (e.g., what works, what doesn't, and how the task force might improve things) and to collect and review published information about mentoring.
The departmental survey provided insight into the situation in ACPR. For example, newer employees perceived that more experienced employees were not willing or available to serve as mentors. In contrast, the older, more experienced employees felt that the knowledge and skills gained from their experiences weren't valued. These perceptions represented one obstacle to forming mentoring relationships. Another concern was that the department had no mechanism to recognize and reward good mentors. People felt that the physical and organizational structure of ACPR created barriers that contributed to the development of different cultures, between functions and in the same building. Many employees said that mentoring programs should not be formal or rigid; some said that required mentoring was worse than no mentoring at all. Finally, managerial support of mentoring activities was critical. If the department's culture didn't support mentoring, programs would be destined to fail.
Many positive items also surfaced from the survey. Potential issues detrimental to formation and growth of mentoring relationships--such as stealing credit, ineffective cross-gender interactions, or the mentor's loss of productivity--were perceived not to exist. Many of the respondents (35%) said that they were being mentored; interestingly, older employees were as likely as younger employees to make this statement. An additional 40% of the respondents reported that they were currently serving as mentors.
The open literature at that time also provided insight to our fledgling committee. We found information on a broad spectrum of related themes, including the contribution of mentoring to career development, cross-gender mentoring issues, and mentoring in corporate environments. Perspectives ranged from benefit accrued to individual participants to value added to the organization. Many articles focused on formal programs; two addressed characteristics important to the success of formal programs (2) and some frequently occurring problems (3). Both articles were useful in designing some of our activities. Although we found a variety of opinions on how formal a mentoring program should be, we concluded that the distinction may not be relevant. Advantages and disadvantages exist with any program. We believe the key lies in meeting the objectives and desires of your group. An article by Skinner (4) provides an excellent overview of the many facets of mentoring and summarizes much of what we've learned during the past five years.
Formulating a plan
With the benefit of all this feedback, the task force began developing
specific activities to improve mentoring in ACPR. From the beginning we
recognized a desire to avoid rigid, formal mentoring programs. Assigning
fixed mentor-protégé pairs was not the desire of the department or
our group. In fact, an important concept resided in the opening words of our
mission statement: "To foster and promote an environment ...." We recognized
that the task force's most important role would be to help build a supportive
atmosphere conducive to mentoring and then let the mentor-protégé
relationships take care of themselves. Crucial to this objective was the
need to remain focused on the needs and concerns of ACPR. We believe this
simple, "inside-out" approach to establishing programs is central to the
successes we've enjoyed.
In the context of creating and sustaining a mentoring-rich environment, several important themes surfaced. We needed to give people permission to interact with one another. Many members of ACPR were willing to participate in mentoring activities but had found it difficult to begin. It seemed that some less experienced employees didn't know who had the appropriate expertise to be a good mentor. Others hesitated to approach a possible mentor because they didn't want to impose on that person. We wanted to make it easier for employees to begin mentoring relationships. We believed most of the responsibility for initiating the relationship should fall on the protégé. The role of the task force, then, would be to provide information and support so people could initiate and maintain mentoring relationships. Within the scope of these objectives, we developed several programs: the mentoring database, the buddy system, lunch groups, and technical consulting. We also sought to emphasize mentoring opportunities in normal job duties and to use existing reward-and-recognition methods to identify excellence in mentoring.
Mentoring programs
The task force introduced several programs, some short-lived with finite
objectives and some that have been more enduring. Here is a brief overview
of these activities and how they align with our objectives.
Mentoring database. One of the first activities of the task force was to provide a mechanism for allowing nonthreatening access to information about each other. A computer network-based bibliographic database of ACPR personnel was constructed. With this simple, easy-to-access database, department members have ready access to background information such as current project assignments, areas of technical expertise, and hobbies. Completely searchable, the format allows people to identify co-workers with shared interests, needed technical expertise, and so on. This tool remains a valuable asset to the department. It is updated annually and as people move into or out of ACPR.
I joined ACPR several months before the buddy system was implemented. As a recent graduate, I was unfamiliar with the business culture and general operation of Dow Chemical's research group. My supervisor was far too busy to provide the needed assistance.
Although I knew the key tasks and goals of my job, it was difficult to function successfully because I could not identify the contacts and resources available to more experienced persons. Instead of confidence, feelings of uncertainty and uneasiness arose. In my case, the buddy system probably would have reduced the frustration of new-hire status, helped provide a quicker start down my career path, and most importantly, improved my self-esteem.
I view the buddy system as a program that should help prevent new hires from having a similar initial experience while helping them to integrate more rapidly into the department.
Jeff Budd, research engineer
Buddy system. Adapted from a similar program developed in the Consumer Products Lab at AT&T (5), this activity helps orient and provides support for employees new to ACPR. Each new person is teamed up with a more experienced peer (buddy) for a finite period--typically, six weeks. Criteria for selecting the buddy, as well as our definition of responsibilities and expectations for this role, were adapted from the literature to meet our needs (6, 7). Whenever possible, the buddy has characteristics similar to the new employee (e.g., age, gender, functional role, or academic degree). The buddy serves as a resource for questions and guidance in addition to the individual's formal supervisor. The buddy system has provided a useful way to address questions that new employees might not need, or wish, to discuss with their supervisor. All new employees--new hires, transfers, and interim co-ops--are invited to participate. This initial informal support mechanism has occasionally been the basis for a long-term mentoring relationship.
Lunch discussion groups. The first lunch discussion group in ACPR preceded the formation of the Mentoring Task Force. Entitled "Cultural Exchange Seminar," it is a telling reminder of the atmosphere in ACPR several years ago. In this case, "cultural" referred not to ethnic, racial, or gender issues but to the divided physical and managerial structure of ACPR. The initial group consisted of six members: three scientists with offices in one hallway, reporting to Manager A, and three scientists in the opposite hallway, reporting to Manager B. This group provided a clear example of how organizational barriers had contributed to the development of two different cultures.
Lunch group activities have flourished with the support of the task force and represent one of ACPR's strongest mentoring activities. A typical lunch group meets once a month in a casual setting; members bring their own lunches and share conversation. The meeting usually includes a presentation by one member. Each group has a defined format, ranging from purely scientific topics (chemical journals, fluorine technology, engineering science) to completely nontechnical areas (personal investing, potpourri). Currently, seven lunch groups are active in ACPR. Membership in each group is intentionally kept low (six to eight individuals) and is dynamic. New employees of the department are encouraged to select a group with a theme that fits their interests.
The enduring nature and continuing evolution of lunch groups speak to their value for participants and for ACPR. When a follow-up survey asked, "What has gone well with the mentoring process in ACPR?" many respondents mentioned their lunch groups. The only immediate cost to the department is the employees' time. Lunch group meetings often last one and one-half hours (our official lunch period is 30 minutes). Our managers are not troubled by employees' use of time for these meetings--a small but telling example of the sincerity of management's support for mentoring activities in ACPR.
Early on, the junior member and I decided we would meet every two weeks at a scheduled hour rather than just get together "anytime." This approach has worked well for us for more than three years, and we both continue to look forward to that hour.
I believe mentoring/consulting is a two-way street. In our interactions it is not always obvious who is the mentor and who is the protégé.
As one who has been around Dow for a long time, I find it interesting and stimulating to interact with a younger person in this forum. Whereas I can share experiences and provide guidance, he or she helps me stay more up-to-date with current thinking in modern chemistry as well as what are the concerns affecting today's newer employees.
I am pleased with the flexibility encouraged in these relationships. People can get together and discuss whatever they like. In some cases, the main topic relates to technical issues, whereas in others the focus is more related to career development, life at Dow, etc.
Karl Krumel, senior scientist
Technical consulting. Technical consulting was introduced in ACPR because many individuals were hesitant to approach a possible mentor. Perhaps closest to the common concept of a mentoring relationship, this program teams a less experienced employee (junior member) with a member of the senior technical staff (technical consultant). Available technical consultants identify themselves via the mentoring database. The junior member initiates the pairing directly or with the assistance of a task force member who provides ongoing program support. The only guidelines for participation are that the pair agree to meet regularly and that they both realize the relationship can be ended by either party with no hard feelings.
When technical consulting was first developed, the purpose was to discuss the progress of the junior member's technical project. This objective unquestionably benefits personal development and departmental productivity (a palatable use of time from management's perspective). Nonetheless, we recognized that true mentoring often involves more than shop talk. One of the task force's goals was to facilitate personal interactions in a nonthreatening manner. We agreed that this initial focus on technical issues would provide the most comfortable way to begin the relationship. We anticipated and hoped that the technical consultant pairs would foster more involved mentoring relationships.
The voluntary technical consulting program has evolved; originally, it was designed as a formal mechanism to promote interaction in the group. The program was introduced by polling departmental members to determine interest in participating. Junior members were encouraged to browse the mentoring database and submit names of people they thought were potential matches as technical consultants. The program facilitators used this feedback to create technical consulting pairs. Our initial concern that all junior members might want to be matched with the same technical consultant was unfounded: In nearly every case, junior members were matched with their first-choice technical consultant. After a six-month trial program with 15 active pairings, virtually all matches continued to meet regularly. After this formal pairing procedure was repeated again, the program was left to evolve with minimal intervention from the task force.
Today only a few pairs meet on a regular basis. We aren't concerned by this course of events but instead find it encouraging. The ultimate purpose of the technical consulting program was not to create pairs but to break down communication barriers by encouraging interaction among ACPR staff. In this regard, the technical consulting program has succeeded and, in essence, becomes obsolete by helping to create an environment where this type of interaction occurs informally and spontaneously.
Miscellaneous activities. The Mentoring Task Force has provided guidance in other areas, particularly in training opportunities and the emphasis on mentoring as a job responsibility. Elements for ongoing training center on technical development and topics specific to mentoring. The task force provides support for employee development through internal and external training courses, technical seminar series, attendance at scientific meetings, and intracorporate technical exchange programs. The group has identified and sponsored departmental training for mentoring-specific topics such as active listening, nonverbal communication, and cross-gender issues. [One helpful training resource is the Uncommon Individual Foundation, Two Radnor Station, Ste. 208, 290 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor PA, 19087; 610-995-0845.]
Regarding job-related activities, the task force has encouraged ACPR management to consider mentoring opportunities when making project assignments. Achieving an appropriate mix of age and experience is considered when forming new project teams. For example, an embarrassingly obvious step was taken to help eliminate the early physical barriers to interaction in ACPR: One of the two senior scientists in Manager A's group agreed to move his lab and office to the other hallway. Now the less experienced employees in that hall walk by his office several times a day and often ask for his advice.
I like the flexibility and the breadth of our mentoring program. By laying out such a range of choices to our group members, we make it possible to customize which types of mentoring we'd each like to have or give. I've particularly enjoyed the lunch groups, for example, and participate in several.
There's a deeper message with this approach as well. With a changing work environment--fewer levels, less security, dramatically shifting job responsibilities--we need employees to take responsibility for shaping their own careers. This mentoring program is a powerful means of nurturing that kind of growth.
George Tyson, manager
The topic of reward and recognition--in general and as related to mentoring--has been addressed by the task force. Management now includes mentoring in the formal performance review for senior employees. Employees who make outstanding mentoring-related contributions to ACPR are awarded special recognition. An annual event, Patent Day, previously centered exclusively on recognizing individuals for patent disclosures, issued patents, and trade secrets. This event was changed to Technology Day, and recognition was expanded to include not only the traditional inventive activities but also significant project team accomplishments, outside talks and publications by individuals, and successful improvements to our work processes by the office professional staff.
What we've learned
Mentoring is a close, voluntary working relationship between two people that
results in added benefits for them and their organization. We believe
mentoring is more than the stereotypical mentor-protégé
relationship. For example, the interaction can be short term, it can occur
upward as well as downward along the existing corporate hierarchy, and the
roles of mentor and protégé may frequently reverse through the
course of a relationship.
It has been our experience that knowledge and trust are prerequisites for these relationships. We believe that one of the most successful parts of the ACPR mentoring process is the lunch discussion groups. This type of interaction helps people become comfortable with each other. Large group social events and our departmental biographical database also are valuable ways to accomplish the same goal. However, eating lunch and sharing discussions with a small group of people regularly fosters acceptance and understanding.
Any mentoring process must be flexible. Whereas the importance of some aspects will diminish with time, new needs and issues will arise. For example, we initially had a significant proportion of our department involved in mentor-protégé pairings via the technical consulting program. Over time, most of these mentoring relationships have matured; protégés; have developed their own capabilities and experience. Many of these relationships may now be more of a sharing among equals on a less frequent basis and with more emphasis on career development than on technical issues.
The key tool for introducing mentoring-related activities to individuals new to ACPR is our departmental New Employee Orientation Packet (NEOP). This packet contains standard material (safety training, security information, computer access data) that must be reviewed by all new hires or transfers with their immediate supervisor. It contains one section devoted to ACPR mentoring activities, including short descriptions of all programs and names of key contacts for each. Detailed information for programs is located in a shared-access computer file server with our mentoring database; access instructions are included in the NEOP. Also, as part of the NEOP checklist, the supervisor must introduce the new employee to a task force member, who, in turn, reviews programs and ensures that the new hire has access to all activities of interest. Thus, this document serves as the primary triggering mechanism for introducing new individuals to our mentoring activities.
Finally, a crucial enabling factor for success in ACPR's mentoring process has been the continuous endorsement by management. Support has extended from upper R&D management to immediate supervisory levels. On occasion, active involvement or direction from management has been helpful, but this support has primarily been the permission to continue onward. We have been allowed to clarify and challenge unwritten rules as we develop our overall effort.
What are the key elements to success that we have experienced in dealing with mentoring? Perhaps the most important factor is our inside-out approach. It is important to ask the people involved what their concerns and interests are and then tailor objectives to those needs. We've tried to be cautious in applying designed formal programs or required training. Periodically surveying the department as to what is working and what should be changed has been especially helpful. We've found that you can't make mentors, and you can't make mentoring happen--but you can create a mentoring-rich environment.
Future directions
ACPR has evolved considerably since 1991. We are well on our way toward
achieving the proposed vision for our department. Many previously existing
barriers to effective interactions are gone. Lunch discussion groups, the
buddy system, and technical consulting have contributed to an open,
interactive environment. Nonetheless, our department is dynamic. New faces
join ACPR, and the needs of existing members change--we have not lost sight
of this fact. The Mentoring Task Force continues to meet periodically to
assess the status of existing activities while looking for ways to further
promote a mentoring-rich environment.
What lies ahead for the task force? From our experience, it is obvious that key elements such as trust, sharing, communication, and feedback remain important. New challenges are related to a minimal influx of new employees into ACPR (as a result of recently curtailed hiring) and a considerable flattening of our organization. These corporate changes have decreased opportunities for mentoring of less experienced people. One potential solution is to practice "mentoring up" as well as the traditional "mentoring down," because everyone can benefit from some aspect of another's expertise. In addition, structural plateauing will help us find ways to keep people motivated and productive in their careers in a flat organization (8). We hope that mentoring will help to meet these new challenges.
ACS Home Page