Mentoring
Mentoring
is an important aspect of the Partnership paradigm. "Mentoring
constitutes a unique and personal relationship between
two people: one who has achieved a certain level of experience
and one who is aspiring to a higher level. In what is
defined as a classical mentoring relationship, the mentor
provides opportunity for the protégé and
is rewarded by his or her achievements. The type of mentoring
we suggest for the partnership paradigm, however, is more
personal, broad and informal. We use some elements of
mentoring, but the initial assignment of students to professors
in the MPA program (made by the Program Director based
on needs and interests of faculty students) precluded
us from seeking each other out based on mutual interests.
Bruce Berger, in his article, Mentoring Graduate Students,
describes some ways to create what he calls a "dynamic
reciprocal relationship. "First, expectations must
be discussed, and the student must be treated as a valued
colleague. Then both must work together to create a context
or environment for growth. In order to create this context
for growth, the mentor and protÈgÈ must
develop a collegial relationship in which there is shared
responsibility. The dynamic reciprocal relationship involves
a balance between personal and professional issues. Discussing
non-work related issues and spending time together on
a social basis helps to develop a more personal relationship.
Our social interaction outside the office included having
lunch and dinner together occasionally, introducing each
other to our friends and colleagues, and participating
in an MPA-sponsored team building exercise on a ropes
course. We found that expanding the relationship beyond
the professional realm helped us to create mutual trust,
another important component of the dynamic reciprocal
relationship. By creating trust, Berger suggests that"
people can be confronted about problems they are avoiding
or not attempting to solve.' Confronting problems and
engaging in self-examination are difficult in general,
but are almost impossible to do effectively without a
commitment to build mutual trust.
Shared interest in a specialized area of study in another
component of mentoring. In typical mentoring relationships
the professor has an expertise in a particular area and
the student desires to specialize in that subfield. At
UNC, the MPA Program Director matches students and professors
according to interests, but very few pairs can be perfectly
matched. Meredith had some interest in John's field (public
dispute resolution), but it was not her primary interest
in public administration. The shared interest was high
enough, however, to be compatible with the tasks of the
assistantship. The absence of initial choice in our relationship
and level of interest are two key differences between
what the literature describes as mentoring and our working
relationship.
Another aspect of the mentoring relationship we examined
was a concern about gender factors in mentor-mentee relations.
The very characteristics that make the mentoring relationship
effective involve a degree of vulnerability and informality.
Some people may avoid a mentoring relationship with someone
of the opposite sex in order to avoid potential misunderstandings
or problems, ranging from unfounded rumors of romantic
interest to sexual harassment. We argue that if the relationship
has open communication and mutual respect, issues can
be raised and handled in a professional manner. For instance,
we both receive humorous e-mail messages from friends
and wanted to pass them on to each other. Since some of
the humor could be considered unprofessional, we discussed
whether either of us would feel uncomfortable receiving
"racy" e-mail messages. By being conscious of
the appropriateness of how we interacted, we have been
successful in creating a working relationship that was
comfortable for both of us.
Creating
a Partnership
In
creating our partnership, we addressed issues of power,
expectations, decision-making, evaluations, and other
aspects of working relationships. Although there are some
aspects of mentoring in our relationship, the research
assistantship's predetermined structure, including a focus
on money and required hours of work, is a clear distinction
from traditional mentoring. We found this structure both
challenging and freeing for our work to conceive, develop
and evaluate a partnership paradigm. Whereas mentoring
is focused on the development of the junior person (student
or faculty), our model is focused on mutual development.
Most research assistantships have a clearly hierarchical
structure. If any evaluation occurs, it is an evaluation
of the student's work by the professor. John- was interested
in changing this power structure, believing that mutual
feedback would be more effective. Our partnership might
not have happened without John initiating the idea of
creating a structure different than that of a typical
faculty-directed relationship. This effort was not difficult
for John because he was a new faculty member with many
potential projects for Meredith, and many possible projects
were not governed by short-term deadlines.
In order to create a partnership, John had to empower
Meredith with the right to contribute to decision-making,
raise problems or issues, state her interests, and question
John's judgment. To shift away from a hierarchical structure,
we attempted to create an environment where communication
and coordination were more reciprocal and more equal.
This resulted in a structure with an exchange of power.
An exchange can only happen when both parties are getting
things that they need. In our case, John was getting help
with research and writing work and gaining experience
that was both collaborative and social in nature. Meredith
was learning about mediation, improving her writing skills,
and experimenting with a partnership management situation
while being paid.
Initial
Discussion of Expectations
Having an initial
discussion of each person's expectations of the working
relation ship decreases misunderstanding and is an important
element of the partnership paradigm. In our first few
meetings, we discussed goals, interests, modes of communication,
priorities of the job, and our level of flexibility in
the hours and the locations for carrying out the work.
These initial discussions to set mutual expectations were
important in establishing an open working environment
and setting the tone for shared decision-making. We should
also note that the MPA Program Director told us about
the strong accomplishments of one another before we met.
Therefore, we had high expectations for the relationship
from the outset.
In addition to discussing expectations, it is also important
for both the faculty member and the RA to understand each
other's expertise and capabilities. At the first meeting,
as part of John's interest in providing background reading
to Meredith on public dispute resolution, he asked Meredith
to summarize an article. John wanted some way to gauge
Meredith's analytic and comprehension skills, and her
level of writing. It was important for John to determine
the level of Meredith's ability for appropriate projects
and responsibilities. In retrospect, neither of us could
recall if John shared all his reasons for this Assignment.
In a partnership/mutual learning model, John would have
shared all of his interests, and said that the request
was not a make-or-break test, but one way of learning
more about Meredith's knowledge, skills and abilities.
Mutual
Evaluations
One major way we
attempted to change the power structure towards a partnership
model was to have mutual evaluations rather than just
the required formal evaluation of the student by the professor
at the end of each semester. This process allowed us to
express our opinions about our own work, each other's
work, and our joint work. We decided on several elements
for the evaluations: (1) we would each determine the criteria
by which we would be evaluated; (2) specific times would
be set aside for evaluations; (3) evaluations would occur
several times throughout the semester; and (4) the evaluations
would be conducted through a dialogue rather than a written
document.
Rather than evaluating each other using the same criteria,
we decided to each draft our own lists of skills and competencies
by which we wanted to be evaluated. We each had different
things that we wanted to work on that were specific to
our role in the partnership. Together, we created the
criteria for judging our joint work.
We scheduled distinct sessions for our mutual evaluations.
When we encountered special difficulties or successes,
we noted them at the time they occurred. Even though we
had a comfortable relationship and provided informal feedback
regularly, a planned meeting with specific preparation
was an important guide to our work. It was also a deliberate
part of enacting the partnership paradigm. A designated
occasion for feedback encourages reflection on overall
progress o' projects and the working relationship. Perhaps
most importantly, a scheduled feedback session sets a
point for both the student and the faculty member to inform
each other how they could alter their expectations or
behavior to make the relationship more effective. Ongoing
informal feedback tends to focus on short-term, content-specific
information, whereas a specific time for mutual feedback
is more conducive to analyzing patterns and processes
of work for long-term improvements in effectiveness.
Rather than having just one formal evaluation at the end
of the assistantship period, we scheduled several informal
evaluations each semester. For August-December 1996, we
set three dates for evaluation sessions. We found the
first one, approximately six weeks after the start of
our work together, was very helpful. The subsequent two
were less helpful. We attributed the difference to less
contact and fewer observations of behavior and work products
on which to alter our first assessment. The second and
third evaluations explicitly addressed how to mutually
evaluate our joint work. As a result of our learning,
we scheduled only two feedback sessions during January-April,
1997, both of which were useful.
We determined that feedback from outside our working relationship-
faculty colleagues reviewing drafts of case studies, for
example would be helpful. Unfortunately, we had few opportunities
to pursue outside perspectives on our joint work. We did
have positive informal feedback from both students and
professors after a seminar we presented on the partnership
paradigm. Most seemed intrigued by our ideas and by the
steps we had taken to achieve a partnership.
Finally, our mutual evaluations were conducted through
discussions rather than formal written documentation.
We have found that a discussion allows us to be more thorough
while at the same time remaining informal. A brief written
evaluation was, however, completed by John at the end
of the first and second semester as required by the MPA
program.
