The concept of a “mentor” goes all the way back to ancient Greece. Before going off to war, Homer's Odysseus asked his trusted friend Mentor to prepare his own son Telemachus to become king. If the tale were told today, would Odysseus have bypassed his buddy and simply used email to nurture the heir apparent?

Well, maybe, but that doesn't mean the immediacy of a face-to-face relationship between an established leader and an ambitious newcomer is outmoded in today's workplace. By no means, according to Suzanne Forsyth and Michele Fantt Harris, who spoke last week at the Society for Human Resource Management's Workplace Diversity Conference.

Mentors are as important for the second information age as they were in antiquity, Forsyth and Fantt Harris say, because they contribute to the acculturation of new employees, nurture good talent and support retention. Moreover, they say, a good mentor can help counteract disadvantages associated with being outside the dominant group -- which, in the American workplace, is still white males.

For those reasons and more, say Forsyth and Fantt Harris, mentoring is better not left to chance. They lay out a framework for a formal mentorship program that involves benefits for both the mentor and the protègè.

Analysis and infrastructure

Suzanne Forsyth has had a long career in human resource management and consulting in the field of higher education and is now principal in Suzanne Forsyth Associates in Washington, D.C. Also based in Washington, Michele Fantt Harris, is vice president, human resource manager for Marsh USA Inc., secretary/treasurer to the SHRM Board of Directors and a leader in the formation of the National Association of African-Americans in Human Resources.

These two seasoned HR executives recommend a steering committee to design and launch a mentorship program and a coordinator to maintain the program over the long haul. The coordinator role is likely to be just a part of someone's job. Neither of the speakers has ever heard of it becoming a full-time position.

Some key tasks for the steering committee are to examine the relationship quality of the organization (permeable across functions versus boundary driven), establish a reward system for both parties to the mentor relationship, and make a connection between mentoring and performance evaluation.

The steering committee also should establish an application process (for both mentors and protègèes) and a problem solving mechanism that kicks in if the mentor relationship goes awry. Although a mentor might help most at the earliest stages of an employee's tenure, most companies will want to protect their investment in the program by setting a waiting period before allowing an individual to apply. Eighteen months or one performance appraisal cycle would be a reasonable timetable in many organizations.

Forsyth and Fantt Harris say a mentorship program also should include training for both mentor and protègè, periodic evaluation, and a written mentorship agreement that sets forth the terms of the program and what each party should expect.

Mutual benefits...or not?

The potential benefits of a mentorship to a protègè are fairly obvious: the individual can use the mentor as a sounding board, to support career planning, and to help identify skill development needs. The benefits to the mentor, while more subtle, may be just as significant say Forsyth and Fantt Harris. The mentor, for example, develops skills in coaching, relationship building, consulting and teaching.

The relationship validates the mentor's skills and experiences and the organization recognizes the mentor for his or her contribution.

But the relationship involves challenges and risks for both parties. For the mentor, the relationship may demand too much time and energy or may turn out to be a negative experience if the protègèe is a poor match. The mentor may lose face if the company's expectations for the mentorship are too high.

The protègèe may come up short if the mentor lacks enough time for the relationship or turns out to be too controlling. What's more, the employee's supervisor may undermine the mentor relationship.

One size does not fit all

The qualities of a good mentor go far beyond merely being a successful, long-term employee. Forsyth and Fantt Harris suggest using a mentor self-assessment to identify those more likely to succeed in the role. One example is found in Mentoring for Success by Elizabeth Weinstein. That instrument asks potential mentors to rate themselves as coach, consultant, teacher and partner or colleague. The higher the score, the higher the degree of potential skill as a mentor.

Potential protègèes should look within as well. A checklist from The New Mentors and Protègèes, by Linda Phillips-Jones, asks potential mentees to rate themselves in areas such as "I know the kind of mentoring I want," and "I'd be willing to speak up (diplomatically) if I disagreed with a mentor."

Forsyth and Fantt Harris also counsel protègèes to observe scrupulously simple rules of etiquette such as listen all the time, behave in a strictly professional manner and never bad mouth your mentor. A mentor on the other hand, must never use superior status in the company to manipulate or harass a protègèe.

Still, even after the most honest soul-searching and best behavior on both parts, a mentor relationship may not work. The program coordinator should maintain an open door policy and make it possible for either party to back away from the relationship as gracefully as possible. There's a lesson even in that.

This article is courtesy of HRWire. All rights reserved.

.