Roles in a mentoring relationship

Roles in a

mentoring

relationship

MASTER THESIS WITHIN: General management NUMBER OF CREDITS: 15 credits

PROGRAMME OF STUDY: Engineering Management AUTHOR: Martin Shamon

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank everyone who were involved in the process of conducting

this study. I am very grateful for the support, constant feedback, suggestions,

and guidance provided by my supervisor Dr. Jonas Dahlqvist. I would also like

to thank all the participants in this study, for their time, compassion, and

willingness to share their knowledge without getting anything in return. Finally,

I would like to thank Jönköping International Business School for a, in a

strangely manner, instructive year.

Martin Shamon

i

Master Thesis within General management

Authors: Martin Shamon Tutor: Jonas Dahlqvist Date: 2020-05-18

Key terms: Mentoring, Mentorship, Mentoring relationships, Role-based Mentoring, Matching Process.

Abstract

Background: Mentoring is used in a diverse range of industries and is a highly appreciated

process when one person wants to pass on their knowledge to another. In the field of entrepreneurship, mentoring is widely used when business owners are aspiring to climb the latter and reach the next level in their business. However, the research conducted in this area often tend to evaluate mentorship and its matching process from one side of things. By looking at mentoring relationships and their matching processes from bilateral perspective, contribution can be made.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify how the matching process can impact a

mentoring relationship and doing so by identifying common characteristics from both ends which would ensure a suitable match.

Method: This was a qualitative research which gathered its empirical data from interviews. 7

semi-structured interviews took place with mentors and mentees who had attended mentoring programs at some stage of their careers.

Conclusion: The findings indicated that the matching process itself does not necessarily lay

the foundation for the mentoring relationships fate. They further implied that the opportunity to cherry-pick a matching partner are often times not available. Despite downplaying the importance of the matching process, this study proposes guidelines on what can be done when the matching is not bespoke. Findings shows that by discovering individual roles in the

ii

Table of Contents

1.

Introduction ... 1

1.1

Background ... 1

1.2

Problem ... 2

1.3

Purpose ... 3

2.

Theoretical frame of reference ... 4

3.

Method ... 12

3.1

Research approach ... 12

3.2

Research Philosophy ... 12

3.3

Research Design ... 13

3.4

Data collection ... 14

3.4.1

Choice of respondents ... 15

3.5

Data Analysis ... 16

3.6

Trustworthiness ... 18

3.7

Ethical considerations ... 19

4.

Results ... 20

4.1

Interviews with mentors ... 20

4.1.1

Mentor M1 ... 20

4.1.2

Mentor M2 ... 21

4.1.3

Mentor M3 ... 23

4.1.4

Mentor M4 ... 24

4.2

Interviews with mentees ... 26

4.2.1

Mentee M1 ... 26

4.2.2

Mentee M2 ... 27

4.2.3

Mentee M3 ... 29

5.

Analysis ... 31

5.1

Theme 1: Assume a more active role in the

relationship ... 31

5.2

Theme 2: Act according to the needs ... 33

5.3

Theme 3: Focus less on the match ... 34

5.4

The importance of the mentee’s role in the

relationship ... 35

iii

5.6

Diminished importance of the matching process ... 38

6.

Conclusions ... 39

7.

Discussion ... 41

7.1

Relevance of study ... 42

7.2

Limitations ... 42

7.3

Suggestions for future Research ... 43

8.

Reference list ... 44

1

1. Introduction

______________________________________________________________________ The purpose of this part is to introduce the reader to what will be covered in the

chapter. This is presented at the start of each chapter and is adapted to reflect the content of the chapter.

______________________________________________________________________

1.1 Background

As the saying goes, “Behind every successful man is a great woman”. There is arguably some veracity behind this statement. However, through the lens of an entrepreneur a more adequate label could be “Behind every great entrepreneur is a great mentor”. There is a countless amount of mentor-mentee cases which solidifies the importance of having a mentor. One example is the rapid emergence of Facebook that forced the CEO Mark Zuckerberg to broaden his knowledge in the industry. What better way to acquire knowledge than doing it from Steve Jobs. Another widely known mentor-mentee case is the Warren Buffet and Bill Gates one (Mentorloop, n.d.). According to a study done by the non-profit organization Endeavor, companies where the founder is mentored by a top-performing entrepreneur is three times more likely of becoming a top-performer by their own means (Harrison, 2018).

One survey involving more than 200 small businesses showed that 92 % of small businesses are positive mentors have a direct impact on business growth (Kabbage, n.d.). Sullivan (2000) recommends mentoring as an option when startups want to increase their survival rate as good mentoring increases chances of surviving. Nonetheless, not all apprentices and mentors are a certain match, quite the opposite. Three broad areas where mentoring may go wrong is: practical issues, relationship issues and Scheme and organizational related issues (Garvey, 2014). To further develop on this Atsan (2016) conducted a study that examined failure experiences of

entrepreneurs and found that the lack of mentoring is among the internal causes of failure. Not only was lack of mentoring a finding along with the other causes, it was also one of the most frequently occurring findings accompanied by partners, financial skills and lack of critical information.

The CEO and founder of The Mentor Method who actively works with mentor matching, Janice Omadeke disclosed in an interview that she was disappointed in the corporate mentor programs and their way of matching individuals together. More importantly, she felt that the lack of personal investment provided by the mentor programs was inadequate (Merod, 2018). A mentor program case study conducted by Klauss (1981) concluded that developing a compelling mentor-mentee relationship doesn’t happen by nature and requires care and personal investment to establish a great relationship.

2

Mentoring plays a great part in taking the next step as an entrepreneur, however a bad mentor-mentee relationship could be the downfall of the mentee. When a relationship like this goes wrong the damage inflicted could last a lifetime. (Llopis, 2012). Several underlying causes can lead to toxic relationships when mentoring. The lack of time the mentor and mentee dedicate to each other was identified as the most problematic cause for broken relationships (Ehrich, Hansford, & Ehrich, 2011). The same study proves that “negative mentee attitude / lack of trust / cooperation” considered as one collective category, and the lack of knowledge about the goals were the two following causes that eventually could lead to a broken relationship.

A vast amount of the literature existing today regarding mentorship is criticized for being biased towards the positive side of mentoring (Douglas, 1997). Nonetheless, Clawson and Kram (1984) conducted a sequence of case studies that highlighted the importance of cross-gender mentoring relationships. The authors argued that when a mentoring relationship becomes sexual the professional relationship between the two parties becomes jeopardized. When a mentor-mentee relationship enters this stage, the struggle of ending the relationships becomes increasingly difficult. This is due to the risk of the relationship break-up to end up in sexual harassment (Bordwin, 1994; Lobel, Quinn, St. Clair, & Warfield, 1994; Mainiero, 1989).

One study that analysed the negative side of mentoring from the proteges point of view concluded that 84 out of 156 proteges had at least one negative mentoring relationship (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000). The same study insists on the broadness of experiences, meaning the different ways a relationship could be perceived as negative by the protégé. Negative experiences can be significantly diminished when mutual respect and trust establishment is practiced (Cranwell-Ward, Bossons, & Gover, 2004). Mentoring relationships are less likely to succeed if the mentor and the protégé are unable to share their inner feelings and weaknesses with each other (Cranwell-Ward et al., 2004). There are cases where mentors tend to act to dominantly towards their mentee, where they constantly bombard their mentees with advice (Cranwell-Ward et al., 2004). Occasionally, mentors volunteer to become mentors for the wrong reasons, for instance in case of improving their own CV (Cranwell-Ward et al., 2004). Rather, the mentor should avoid directiveness and embrace continues learning by asking the mentee questions (Sullivan, 2000). Furthermore, the mentor should be present regularly in order to follow the mentees incremental development (Sullivan, 2000).

1.2 Problem

Current research has begun to examine how mentoring of others can lead to career prosperity i.e. promotion rates and salary increasements from the mentor’s point of view (Ragins & Kram, 2007). In defiance of this, Ragins and Kram (2007) are calling for

3

more studies that examines both ends of the spectrum. Hence, by evaluating what both the mentor and the mentee should look for when selecting their peer, a bilateral

perspective on the issue can be presented.

Considering the direction of the study it can also be classified as novel. The novelty of this study has its root in the way this study is designed and the problem it is striving to address. The background research indicates that there still is not a general clarity in this field regarding the relationship aspect of it as shown in the Merod (2018) article. The (Eby et al., 2000) study proves that there are several ways to perceive a mentoring relationship and by addressing both the mentor perspective and the mentee perspective contribution can be made to this field of study.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this thesis is to identify how the matching process can impact a mentoring relationship and if there any common characteristics from both parties that ensures a suitable match.

4

2. Theoretical frame of reference

______________________________________________________________________ The following chapter starts with explaining the theoretical frame of reference.

Following this, introduces the relevant literature within this field and analyse it. The theories presented in this chapter are considered relevant to answer the research questions and frames the investigation to address the research purpose.

______________________________________________________________________

2.1 Introduction to frame of reference

When conducting the literature review the author followed a six-step development process to frame the content included in the review (Efron & Ravid, 2018). This

approach was included mainly to simplify the elimination process consisting of what to include in the literature review and what not to. As per Efron and Ravid (2018) one should firstly choose a research topic, followed by locating and analysing the literature found in this topic. When this is done, the reviewer may organize the literature and identify common patterns. Henceforth, the author proceeds to develop a theme to avoid plagiarism and provide a better review in general. Finally, the author may summarize and compare the literature in the actual writing process.

In addition to this six-step development process, this literature review systematically narrows the topic from broad to specific the longer the review goes. This is partly to prove that the research topic is not to broad (Dawidowicz, 2000), but also to structurally go from broader terms to more narrowed throughout the literature review. To specify the narrowing process in this study, it starts off by explaining the emergence of

mentoring while considering the establishment and adaptation of the term in the North American and European market. The next subchapter breaks down the differences between the terms mentor and coach. While still broad, this subchapter is written due to the common misconception between the two terms. This contributes with the necessary information for the reader to conveniently understand the single most important term of this study, that is, mentor. The next two subchapters consider most common ways of mentoring and other ways of managing mentoring relationships. By having these two subchapters, the reader gets a more considerable viewpoint on this topic, resulting in a smoother reading experience when reaching the later stages of the thesis. The last two subchapters of the frame of reference considers the matching and the relationships process. This essentially ties together the frame of reference with the research questions in this study.

To conduct a trustworthy literature, review the author choose to explicitly include established books in the research area, sources used in these books, and peer-reviewed

5

articles and journals. With these sources as a basis for the literature review, one can look further into the provided theories and thereafter compare them with one another. The search process was done using the databases Google Schoolar, Research Gate, and Web of Science to find peer-reviewed articles and journals. Furthermore, Google Books was mostly used to find established books (e-books), along with a handful of physical books. The keywords used in the databases to initiate the search process were mentor “AND” protégé, also mentor “AND” mentee. These terms in combination gave, as expected very broad search results and needed to be narrowed down even further in order to find relevant results. To further narrow the results, the terms mentor “AND” protégé/mentee were used along with “matching”/” matching process” OR

“relationship”. When using the latter terms, the search results significantly reduced and out of these results articles for the literature review were selected. In total 50 articles were reviewed, in addition to books and other journals. Their aggerate content was used to form the literature review.

2.2 The emergence of mentoring

In order to find the first traces of mentoring we shall go back to the days of the legendary author Homer and his classic epic poem Odyssey. The friend of Odysseus, “Mentor” was designated to teach and oversee Odysseys son, Telemachus. Mentors role was to serve as a guide and role model when Odysseus was away battling in a war for over 20 years. Thereby, the word “mentor” was globally adapted and is used across different settings and industries today (Scoggins, Pollock, & Pawlik, 2018). The term mentoring as we know it today can be linked to North American business along with the social movements which initiated in the 1960s (Scoggins et al., 2018). Furthermore, the term has been implemented in the human service field describing the association

between an experienced adult and a younger student in a relationship that has no biological connection (DuBois & Carcher, 2005). DuBois and Carcher (2005) means that the mentor’s role in this relationship is of great importance for the development of the protégé and involves encouragement and guidance of the mentee towards the right direction. Though, not until Kram (1983) that the international breakthrough and adaptation of mentoring took off. Her study considered how to design a mentoring programme in the United States from a corporate point of view. Regarding Europe’s adaptation of mentoring, it was Clutterbuck (1985) who introduced the concept to the European market with his book “Everyone needs a Mentor”. The book was built on his experiences in the United States (Clutterbuck et al., 2017).

2.3 What differentiates a mentor from a coach?

A topic that is widely debated among researchers in this field is the ambiguity the terms “mentor” and “coach” has and how these two distinguish from one another. Recently,

6

the similarities between a coach and a mentor has become more obvious than ever before, and thus are in need of further clarifications (Cranwell-Ward, Bossons & Gover, 2004). According to (Cranwell-Ward et al., 2004) coaching is perceived more as skill-based with outcomes that are more related to the individual’s capabilities. In the technology company Avaya, their managers are commonly referred to as “coach”, the use of the term “mentor” cannot be applied in the same setting. On the other hand, the term mentor is more about the persona and image that a person holds. A manager in this case shall not be used as a mentor since the manager has company deliverables to meet. (Cranwell-Ward et al., 2004) means that because of this, a manager might not be able to hold genuine mentoring conversation, considering his own interest and job is at stake if the company were to miss a deliverable. (Cranwell-Ward et al., 2004) concluded that coaching is more about “how” to do things whilst mentoring is more about “why” to do things. They used a focus group to further investigate this issue and concluded with a table specifically what differentiates mentors from coaches (see table 1).

Coaching (the how) Mentoring (the why)

Specific i.e. development/education Holistic

Short term Longer term

Develop in attitude, behaviour, presentation

Larger – develop in broader ways of thinking

directive Guidance

Help achieve goal “how things work around here”

Doesn’t need to be an expert Focus on retention and alignment, business performance

Works on improving what already exists

Training (new) à coaching Training (improvement) à mentoring Address specific issues, more frequent Larger, less frequent

Table.1. Illustrates the differences between Coaching and Mentoring. Source (Cranwell-Ward et al., 2011).

2.4 Most common forms of mentoring relationships

When discussing mentoring theory, generally there are two forms of mentoring that are used to describe the relationship, namely formal and informal mentoring (Allen & Eby, 2003). In today’s literature, there is a lack of clarification regarding a consensus

understanding on what type of mentoring is considered formal and what type of mentoring that is considered informal (Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). One theory argues that by dividing the relationship into four different components, the path of identifying what differentiates formal from informal becomes clearer (Chao, 2009). According to Chao (2009) the first step in the process is that informal mentoring possesses a higher degree of intensity as opposed to formal mentoring. The latter form

7

of mentoring has an inadequate level of intensity due to the lack of extrinsic motivation from both the mentor and its protégé. Chao (2009) describes the second dimension as the differences in visibility. He argues that informal mentoring relationships tends to lack the amount of visibility that a formal mentor relationship would possess. In this case visibility is used to describe how coherent a mentor/protégé relationship is. When looking into the third dimension of the proposed theory in Chao (2009), the author stresses the importance of building up a mentee in a formal relationship. In this type of relationship, the mentor is having the responsibility to instruct and educate the protégé in order for the latter to develop into a greater asset for the organization. When

evaluating the other side of the spectrum, meaning in the case of an informal

relationship, the build-up process is leaning towards duplexity and wanting to engage both parties. Based on Chao (2009) the fourth and final dimension covers the duration of the relationship. Chao (2009) states that when concerning an informal relationship, the durability of a relationship is not set. A formal relationship on the other hand, is usually developed with a start and an end date in mind.

Kram (1988) also use a four-step process to describe a mentoring relationship. However, compared to Chao (2009) Kram (1988) looks to describe a mentoring

relationship process over time (see figure 1.). According to Kram (1988) the first step is initiation, where the mentor and the mentee familiarize with one another. Ideally, both parties should be dedicating time together to become acquainted with each other. The next stage is cultivation, where the protégé is described to complete an extensive

amount of learning. Kram (1988) outlines that this moment is expected to last from 2 up to 5 years. When this stage is completed, a significant change in behaviour is very common and naturally leads to the third stage of the process: separation. By now, the changes are highly noticeable among the protégé, and the mentor is doubtful if their guidance is needed any further. The final step is redefinition. This step describes the phenomena where a mentor-protégé relationship becomes a regular colleague relationship.

Figure 1. Illustrates the process described in this chapter, also known as the official mentoring process, used by the American psychological association. (Source: Euromentor.eu).

Cultivate Stage

Seperation

Stage Redefintion Stage

Initiation Stage

8

2.5 Other forms of mentoring relationships

Less common forms of mentoring include, but are not limited to, peer mentoring, group mentoring, and step-ahead mentoring (Ensher & Murphy, 2009). Peer mentoring is the name used to construe a way of mentoring where the mentor is at the same level career-wise as the mentee. Although the similarity in terms of professional accomplishments, the person with more experience, whether if it’s within an organization or running a start-up shall support the one with less experience (Eby 1997, Kram 1988). Peer mentoring also portrays benefits that are unheard of when comparing to traditional mentoring forms (Eby, 1997), whilst maintaining core benefits that comes with traditional mentoring such as socio-emotional support and career-related functions (Ensher, Thomas & Murphy, 2001). Kram and Isabella (1985) brought a formularized explanation towards justifying the beneficial effects of peer mentoring. They state that open-communication, mutual support, and collaboration can much easier be achieved when using peer mentoring compared to traditional mentoring.

Group mentoring is an arrangement consisting of a small number of people devoted to encouraging and supporting likeminded people in achieving each and everyone’s individual goals (Kaye & Scheef, 2000). Kaye and Scheef (2000) describes the optimal group mentor as someone that values their own learning process whilst being a

contribution to the group as a whole. Critiques argues that group mentoring has not been defined in a homogenous manner, stating that depending on the setting it is utilized in, the definition varies (Karcher, Kuperminc, Sharon, & Cynthia, 2006). The outlook here on group mentoring is significantly different when comparing to Kaye and Scheef (2000).

A step-ahead mentor is a mentor who has achieved slightly more than their mentee career-wise and to some extent is possessing more experience in the field of work (Ragins & Kram, 2007). Ensher and Murphy (2001) presents this form of mentoring as the next logical step for the mentee to take. They provide the explanation that the mentor should be one step ahead of their mentee, which is in consent with Ragins and Krams (2007) definition. Another form of mentoring that recently is becoming more utilized is e-mentoring, which is a “computer mediated” relationship consisting of a mentor and a mentee. The relationship, which is described as boundaryless, is ought to contribute in terms of learning, supporting and encouraging along with other benefits (Bierema & Merriam, 2002) Furthermore, E-mentoring’s ability to totally excluded boundaries makes the linkage between people who are living in different areas much less complex than ever before (Starr-Glass, 2014).

9

2.6 The matching process

The matching process between a mentor and a mentee is described as one of the least appealing tasks a scheme organizer can have. According to Megginson, Clutterbuck and Garvey (1995) there are five criteria to meet when initiating a matching process. The first one is called “the criteria for matching” and is very important in order to determine what the mentor program is designed to do. The second criteria are “mentor and mentee rapport”, which essentially translates to developing an understandable and agreeable relationship that lasts in the long run. The third criteria also build upon the previous one in the sense that it covers the “the balance between similarity and difference”. Areas to evaluate when aspiring to achieve this criterion may be the individual styles between the mentor and the mentee and trust issues between the two parties. The fourth criteria are “choice” in terms of personal preferences when choosing a partner to work with. This criterion is developed due to the endeavour to enhance the level of engagement between the mentor and mentee when selecting. The final criteria are “troubleshooting” which is often implemented to assess whether an increasing or decreasing amount of choice would favour the matching process (Megginson, Clutterbuck & Garvey, 1995, p.11). Coll and Raghavan (2011) are also aligned with (Megginson et al., 1995) in regard to designing a matching process based on a predetermined set of criteria. However, Coll and Raghavan (2011) are leaning more towards selectable criteria’s in which the mentor and the mentee decide upon before initiating a relationship. The importance of rapport building when matching is also highlighted in (Scholosser & Gelso, 2001), stating that a personal relationship between the mentor and the protégé is vital. Nonetheless,

clarifying that while maintaining rapport, the relationships shall not enter a friendship state that could potentially cause harm to it.

2.7 The different roles of a mentoring relationship

Previous literature shows that other research areas such as medicine and youth-adult mentoring have studied the mentoring relationship processes in their respective fields (Lester, Goodloe, Johnson, & Deutsch, 2017; Perry & Parikh, 2017). The research variable used in the Lester et.al (2017) study was mutuality, where they concludingly defined it as a combination of two proportions: shared relational excitement and

experimental empathy. They defined the relational excitement part as when both parties in the relationship are willingly dedicating time and resources for the relationship to succeed. The experimental empathy concerned the mentor in the relationship sharing their previous experience to soften and standardize situations the mentee currently is experiencing. Lester et.al (2017) ultimately suggests that the chemistry between the two parties participating in the relationship is the impetus for a successful relationship. Perry and Parikh (2017) discuss both the qualities of a mentee and a mentor along with

10

strategies they propose for a healthy mentoring relationship includes accurate pairing, a confidential relationship, defined deliverables in the relationship, and both parties voluntarily engaging in the relationship. According to the same source, when looking at the mentor-mentee aspect of the relationship each participant must do an equal amount of work but from different angles. Perry and Parikh (2007) means that the mentor should be more of an honest person, who has great collaborative skills and is willing to listen to the mentee. The mentee on the other hand, should be respecting the mentor as a person but also the amount of time the mentor is willing to invest in the relationship. Furthermore, the mentee shall be open for feedback and a great listener.

2.8 Research questions

The problem discussion in this thesis underlines that despite the amount of studies that has been conducted in this field, there is still room for clarity and additionality.

Especially when the research questions are formed to consider both ends of the

spectrum, meaning looking at it from the mentor’s point of view and the mentees point of view. The theoretical frame of reference presents different complex models that are used to describe a mentoring relationship. This implies that previous literature has attempted to explain this relationship with various processes without reaching a general consensus. Hence, when and to further specify the purpose, this study intends to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: Which characteristics shall a mentee look for when identifying the matching mentor?

RQ2: Which characteristics shall a mentor look for in a mentee before deciding upon mentoring?

By answering RQ1 I intend to address the mentees viewpoint by investigating whether there are any common characteristics the mentee should look for before selecting a mentor. By knowing what to value in advance, the mentee can more precisely identify a matching mentor. This is also based on previous literature which proposes accurate pairing as one of the most important aspects of a healthy mentoring relationship (Perry & Parikh, 2007). By answering this research question, I achieve to fulfil one part of the thesis purpose, which is to identify common traits from the mentees perspective that leads to a strong mentoring relationship.

RQ2 is formulated to examine the second part of the thesis purpose which includes the other half that constitutes a mentoring-relationship, namely the mentor. Looking it at from the mentor’s perspective, by selecting a mentee who fulfils a certain type of characteristics, the selection of one becomes more evident.

12

3. Method

______________________________________________________________________ Chapter three presents an overview of the research design. In this chapter, the research philosophy and approach will be declared, what methods that are suitable for this topic and a motivation for the method that was chosen for collecting and analysing the data in this research. This chapter will also present the trustworthiness and ethical

considerations of the study.

______________________________________________________________________

3.1 Research approach

Every form of empirical study includes in one way or another a research approach, whether it is internal or external (Yin, 1994). Especially in the case of a qualitative study the importance of having a well-structured research design is crucial. The design process is agile and requires thorough assessment of every step on the way. Meaning that research design does not follow a sequential path and instead focuses on the interdependence and connection amongst the different design steps. (Maxwell, 2005). In line with Maxwell (2005) this study has followed a meticulous approach throughout the course of the thesis.

3.2 Research Philosophy

When discussing research philosophical correlations, it is about the understanding of how ontology and epistemology relate to each other. Ontology concerns “the nature of reality and existence” whilst epistemology is about “the theory of knowledge” in which the latter simplifies the process of “best ways of enquiring into the nature of the world”. According to (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, Jackson & Jaspersen, 2018) the continuum of ontological positions concerns four core directions, specifically realism, internal realism, relativism, and nominalism. Realism has its roots in the ontological viewpoint that the social world exists regardless of the external observations made about it. Whilst internal relativism agrees that the world is independent from any observations but can solely be accessed indirectly. The relativism positions cover our perception of things meanwhile from a nominalist point of view the reality is created by us and if we don’t perceive it, it does not exist. There are two core views that is categorized as

epistemology, namely positivism and constructionism. Positivism describes the idea that the social world is in existence excluded from the people’s observations. Further, it can

13

only be considered objectively. Constructionism is all about the reality being built upon how people experience it (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018).

The experiences and perceptions of mentors and proteges may differentiate drastically, depending on several factors. These factors may include: the mentoring relationship experience as a whole, the mentees commitment to the relationship, the mentor’s role in the relationship, along with a countless number of other factors. By looking at it from an ontological point of view, this study relates to different mentoring relationship

experiences and will be covering different perspectives of the relationships. Hence will be assuming a relativistic position.

This study intends to identify which characteristics that are required from both ends, for a mentor/mentee relationship to function properly. Furthermore, a pivotal area of this topic is the people. Mentoring relationships are formed around the observations and perspectives of human beings, hence the most suitable epistemological approach to follow based on my aim is the constructionism. The constructionism approach picks a small number of instances that are selected rationally based on the aim. Moreover, this approach focuses on increasing the consensus understanding within a topic. The

thoroughly gathered data shall then be used to formulate conclusions (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). All arguments presented in the constructionism viewpoint aligns with what this thesis contemplates to do. Thus, in order to properly identify the required

characteristics, and thereby answer my research questions, a constructionistic approach will be applied.

3.3 Research Design

The quality and trustworthiness of a study are often evaluated by how properly the research methods and techniques are imposed (Williamson & Johanson, 2017). Generally, there are three core methods to conduct a research study with, namely qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. However, the methods shall not be perceived as polar opposites, instead studies rather lean towards being more qualitative or quantitative. Mixed methods are often settled in between the two, consisting of signs that can be categorized under both qualitative and quantitative methods (Creswell, 2014). Based on the aim and the research questions, this study will follow a qualitative research method. Qualitative research forces the researchers to be creative, in a sense that qualitative research cannot be justified numerically. The way to go about a

qualitative study can significantly differ depending on what type of study that is being conducted. For instance, there is a fundamental difference in a qualitative study that is contained by interviews, as opposed to a qualitative study that composes participant observations (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). A common problem that occurs when doing business research is the lack of knowledge that students possesses in the qualitative research field. Notably, students tend to directly link case studies with semi-structured interviews to qualitative research. Following this, the bigger picture of what a

14

qualitative study may consist of is unjustifiably ignored (Erikssson & Kovalainen, 2008). Thus, the importance of addressing this issue by presenting the different approaches of qualitative research is of the essence. According to Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) a qualitative research can have several approaches, however there are mainly three approaches that suits the purpose of this study:

• Case study research • Ethnographic research • Grounded theory research

Given the three necessary approaches presented, this study will be following an inductive approach using grounded theory research. By bringing up the aim of this study which is to identify which characterises are required for a mentor/mentee relationship to find the right match, a sequence of interviews took place. Based on the conducted interviews, the research of this study intended to form a theory. Grounded theory is generally about studying an array of interviews then theoretically formulate the collected data. However, coming up with a theory does not exclusively mean that there must be a general understanding around a phenomenon that the interviews disclosed. One can also formulate theory in terms of debunking one intended theory which eventually leads to forming a more generalized formal theory (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018).

3.4 Data collection

Considering the research method and the research philosophy of this study, with focus on actual real-life examples of mentoring relationships semi-structured interviews will be used to collect the primary source of data. With this format the researcher can examine theory while conducting the research itself (Cassell, 2015). By using semi-structured interviews researchers can construct the interview in a way that allows them to ask a wide range of questions in an open-ended way (Polonsky & Waller, 2018). In order to use semi-structured interviews in the right setting, the researcher shall aspire to reach a few core targets aims with the study: Firstly, the researcher should prioritize to understand the reasoning behind the interviewees thought process and viewpoint. This can be done either single-handedly or in collaboration with the participant. Secondly, understanding the fundamental establishment that the participants use when answering questions related to a particular element or topic. The third valuable point in order to decide upon doing semi-structured interviews is that there is no gradual rationale of a position (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). In the case of this thesis, asking “why” and “how” questions during the interview can be a way of understanding the respondents reasoning behind statements. Further I as an interviewer can educate myself about the interviewee for me to further understands the participants reasoning behind statements.

15

Secondary data is portrayed as data that has been conducted prior to this current study. The researcher collects this form of data to complement the empirical material that has been collected for research purposes. Secondary data tends to hold a great amount of credibility, specifically when the data is corporational and governmental information. However, this is not a reason for the researcher to not questions the sources that is being used in the study (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018).

The primary data collection process for this study was entirely based on semi-structured interviews. The reason I chose to conduct interviews instead of, for instance an

observation, is that I wanted to know the thought process the respondents had after the fact that something had occurred. By giving the participants the chance to look back at a certain situation it allows them to reflect on it in a deeper manner. The semi-structured interview format simplified my work as a researcher while trying to interpret what the participants were saying. Moreover, it gave the participants the freedom to further clarify their intention with statements they provided to avoid any potential

misinterpretations. My role as an interviewer was relatively passive since the talkative criteria applied on all the respondents of this study. However, as previously stated I interrupted respectfully when any clarification needed to be done. With the consent of the interviewees I recorded some interviews whilst being an active note taker during all of the interviews. The interviews were carried out through either phone calls or Zoom-meetings.

The secondary data that has been used to construct this study are internet searches, books, journals, newspapers, and websites. These were mainly used to identify what the present literature has to offer, while also being used for supporting my understanding of various concepts and theories throughout the thesis. However, during the primary data collection process two of the participants choose to provide me with some further data that can be classified as secondary data. One mentee offered me her mentoring program application and her nomination letter for an annual “Best mentor in the region” award. Another mentor/mentoring program director offered me their personal way of team building in the early stages of forming the mentoring relationship. Certainly, this data was highly appreciated and taken into consideration when evaluating the final result.

3.4.1 Choice of respondents

The respondents who participated in this study was chosen thoroughly based on a few common criteria. The respondents had at some stage of their career been mentoring or been mentored upon. The type of mentoring relationship the participants needed to have was limited to a business mentoring relationship. This limitation was done to get the right participants since there are numerous fields where mentoring takes place. Furthermore, another requirement was that the participants needed to be based in Sweden. This criterion was mainly set to simplify the accessibility of the participants. Besides that, mentoring relationships, the relationship matching, and experiences may

16

considerably differentiate in other countries. The credibility of the respondents was also considered when selecting candidates. Either, the mentors had won a mentoring award in some sort or was in charge of a mentoring program. Regarding the mentees, they had either been part of a relationship that lead to a mentor winning a mentoring award, alternatively their company took off after their participation in their mentoring relationship.

Table 2. Breaking down the respondents, their roles, the way of communication, and alias.

3.5 Data Analysis

The data analysis process is interrelated to the research philosophy and the inductive approach that this study favours. There are eight different approaches to analyse qualitative data (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018) and one that is in line with this studies direction is grounded analysis. When comparing to content analysis, which is a more reasoned and logically stricter way of analysing data, grounded analysis provides a more perceptive and accessible way of analysing data. When using this form of analysis, the aim is not to experiment with current theories and try to falsify or prove their assumptions. Rather, the grounded analysis aims to establish new theories from the collected empirical data (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). Researchers who desires to use grounded analysis for their study are recommended to use open coding to conceptualize unanalysed data (Oktay, 2012). Further, the importance of fragmenting data sets is

Nr. Role Duration Manner Alias

1 Mentor 35 min Phone Call Mentor M1

2 Mentor 35 min Video Call (Zoom) Mentor M2

3 Mentor 35 min Phone Call Mentor M3

4 Mentor/program director

40 min Video Call (Zoom) Mentor M4

5 Mentee 30 min Phone Call Mentee M1

6 Mentee 45 min Phone Call Mentee M2

17

highlighted when using grounded analysis. This way of micromanaging pieces of raw data leads to a more comprehensive theory which contributes to specific research area in a macro perspective (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018).

Birks and Mills (2015) states that a study that uses grounded analysis needs to have an inductive stance and needs to be related to the research questions and aims off the study. In their sight large amount of data will indeed be collected at all costs with a qualitative study, hence maintaining the focus on the specific research area is of great importance. This study does certainly follow an inductive approach and the grounded analysis will definitely relate to the research questions, since it will be used for breaking down the empirical data. Thus, a grounded analysis will be applied as the main data analysis method. In accordance to (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018) this study will obey by the seven steps of grounded analysis:

1) Familiarization: This initial step is about the researcher re-evaluate what the study is all about while considering the relationship between me as a researcher and the participants in this study.

2) Reflection: This step is about making sense of all the data that has been

collected. Some question that I as a researcher need to consider at this stage are: what the data is about? does it support the current knowledge in the field or challenge it? Is the data different from what already exists?

3) Open coding: This is usually a word or a phrase that is very common in the interviews that helps to summaries bigger sets of data. Here I took into consideration what the data that I collected was all about and who’s point of view I was evaluating.

4) Conceptualization: This step is about pattern discovery, I as a researcher considered what is different between the codes, what is similar and which patterns occur frequently. By doing this comparison I identified different themes that proved to be important with the data I collected.

5) Focused re-coding: When the initial coding and the pattern/theme discovery was done, there is still a large chunk of data that needs to be broken down. This data was once again coded to get more specific codes.

6) Linking: During this step, by rating the categories and patterns together I was starting to see some clarity in the data.

7) Re-evaluation: The final step is about looking back at the previous steps and identify whether I as researcher completed the coding process equally. Did I overdo one category while completely ignoring another?

18

3.6 Trustworthiness

To ensure a trustworthy study, this study follows Guba’s (1981) paper on quality criteria when assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquires. The four quality criteria presented in Guba (1981) are: Credibility, Transferability, Dependability and Confirmability.

Credibility concerns the truth value of the data and testing how credible the collected data is. The credibility criteria are about ensuring confidence in the findings your study presents. This can be achieved by various methods when conducting research, these may include: Persistent observation, Peer debriefing, and Triangulation (Guba, 1981). To ensure credibility, this study selected mentors and mentees who operated across several different industries and were all experiencing different stages of their careers. The respondents of this study were also creditable in terms of career achievements, reached milestones and winning awards.

Transferability refers to the applicability of the study but does not necessarily mean that the study should be applicable in every context. Rather, this criterion concerns

collecting and developing a “thick description” in order to eventually go from one context to another (Guba ,1981 p.83). As for as confidentially allows, the study has aimed to describe the sampling material as detailed as possible. Apart from disclosing the roles of the participants, descriptions regarding industries were also addressed in the study.

Dependability is the third criteria and covers the consistency and stability of the data. According to Guba (1981) this may be evaluated by conducting the same type of research with a different research method, or in a different setting. To assure

dependability, the method used in this study was described in detail, the industries were the respondents are/were operating in are also stated.

Confirmability is the final quality criteria and is formed to aim for objectivity avoid bias in a qualitative research (Guba, 1981). In order to ensure confirmability, quotes and thoughts of the respondents were presented in a thorough manner in order to avoid any misconceptions.

19

3.7 Ethical considerations

Research in management and business might not obtain life-threating effects for the participants of the study that might occur in other fields. However, a badly conducted study in terms of ethics could lead to financial effects on current corporate structures. Moreover, when the researchers disobey by the ethical standards that shall be used when conducting a study, it can have a drastically life-changing consequences for an

employee (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). In order to avoid scandalous outcomes for a study, the researchers should always ask for the consent of the participant before any interviews are taking place, and the participant should oblige. Nonetheless, there is a difference between a regular consent and a knowing consent. Meaning that by a “knowing” consent participants are entirely informed of what they are getting into by participating. To break this down even further, the participant has to know about all the questions that are going to be asked during the interview, and what kind of “data” that is going to be used to conduct the study (King & Horrocks, 2010).

This study thoroughly followed the 10 “Key principles in research ethics” promoted by (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). These principles include the importance of protecting the concern in regard to research topics and informants. The integrity of the research in general is also carefully considered, this is achieved by not being biased towards one matter and provide truthfulness in the study. In the case of my thesis topic, which includes mentoring relationships it is certainly important to follow ethical

considerations. The participants that I will be interviewing are mentors and proteges which both most likely has private agreements and business secrets they don’t want to be disclosed for the public. Therefore, I as an interviewer must be extra causation when hunting for information and find a balance between what suits my thesis purpose and where the limit goes. Most of the participants are also members of mentor programs where they some might have the mentor programs matching them with a mentee. This can be considered sensitive data due to the fact that each mentoring program have their own matching procedure. Since the purpose of this thesis also involves the

mentor/mentee matching process I as an interviewer needs to respect the amount of data the mentors are willing to provide me with.

20

4. Results

________________________________________________________

Chapter four presents the empirical data which has been divided into two categories, mentors and mentees. The results are presented in an interview for interview format which have been rewritten and strengthen with quotes from each interview.

______________________________________________________________________

4.1 Interviews with mentors

This section covers the interviews with the mentors. Each interview is presented separately where quotes from the interviews are used to strengthen the respondent’s arguments.

4.1.1 Mentor M1

Mentor M1 is an award-winning mentor that has been an entrepreneur for the past 20 years and is currently involved as a board director in multiple business venture. The venture he is involved in today are categorized in three different industries. These industries are the wellness industry, the cosmetics industry, and the digital marketing industry. On an operational level, mentor M1 has decided to decrease the amount of work he is dedicating in each company, while prioritising the guidance of individuals who are operatively working with in the companies, he is involved in. He expressed his gratefulness for the company partner ALMI during his start-up years and wanted to somehow payback for the work they provided, hence he joined their mentoring program.

For starters, I tried to figure out whether the mentor has experienced some previous mentoring relationship before entering their current/latest relationship. In the case of M1, he certainly had been mentoring more than once, but was not quite sure in how many relationships that actually could be classified as “formal” relationships. When evaluating the matching process, he simply described it as “Speed dating” where he chose the mentee and the mentee chose him.

Entrepreneurs and mentors are generally very busy as it is, so to fit in yet another obligation in their already stacked schedule may seem to be impossible. Mentor M1s take on this is was that you should only concentrate on one mentee at a time to get the most out of the relationship.

21

“It is totally fine to have two at a time, others might prefer this to maintain a busy schedule and routines, but in my opinion, in order to get the most out of your relationship I would prefer one at a time”.

He clarified that both him and the mentee were already busy as it was, so by having several relationships the wholehearted support would diminish significantly. He felt that by having both parties dedicated to the relationship they managed to accomplish things that would be much harder to achieve if his time was more limited.

The communication and responsibilities between the mentor and the mentee were things Mentor M1 put a lot of emphasis on in the course of his relationships. Mentor M1 said that he had formal communication with his mentee approximately every 3rd _{week. With} formal communication he meant, physical meetings, which was his preferred way of communicating. In regard to responsibilities, Mentor M1 assigned his mentee to take the initiative and set up meetings based on a pre-planned schedule which they both need to commit to.

“He got it as a mission”

When looking back at potential moves that served his mentoring relationships well Mentor M1 identified one that outshone the others.

“As a mentor, above all, it’s about being a listener, and not only a listener but a great, active listener. When there is room for providing feedback, it is necessary to do so. But the big part of being a mentor is about listening.”

Mentor M1 implies that in order to get the most out of a mentoring relationship he really only has one requirement. And that is to meet the mentee in-advance. He said that a meeting does not only simplify things for him as a mentor and means that a meeting may have benefits that are twofold. In the final touches of the interview, Mentor M1 gave his thoughts on dealing with various types of personalities as a mentor.

“All of the mentees I have had, are in one way or another different, that is once again why I recommend a meeting in advance, to see if our personalities get along with each other, and to see if there is something to build from that.”

4.1.2 Mentor M2

Mentor M2 is a multiple time nominee for a “Best mentor in the region” award and has actively been mentoring since 2012. Her latest venture on a personal level was in the health & medical industry, where she ran her own therapy company. She is a true believer in the younger generation were she firmly believes that if you help them find their authentic side, great achievements are to be expected. With the 6 mentoring

22

relationships she has been mentoring in, she has seen young entrepreneurs blossom into extraordinary entrepreneurs in a short amount of time.

“I have seen the young entrepreneurs throughout the years and how fantastic they can become if you just guide them a bit and make them realise what they want to aim for.” The assignment or matching of a mentee is a process that Mentor M2 really likes to take advantage of. She said that this is the opportunity for her as a mentor to question her potential mentee. But more importantly, it is the time were the mentee also has the opportunity to question her as a mentor. During this phase, she can also find out the mentees ambition level in terms of, economical insights, if they have attended a course or likewise in business and their though process towards this whole mentoring thing. “During this meeting you have the opportunity to ask what they really, want and if they really want this. You can also test the mentee here to see if they know some basic financials, and what I expect from them as my mentee and what they expect from me as their mentor.”

Regarding managing more than one mentee at a time, she has never had two or more ongoing relationships simultaneously but was confident she would never even manage to have more than one relationship at a time.

“Realistically speaking, I have only had one at a time and will continue to do so, because since this is a relationship it requires commitment”.

Mentor M2 prefers a structural relationship format rather than a spontaneous. However, she is certainly open to some emergent meetings if the mentee feels it is necessary. She states that the advice they got from the mentoring program was that the mentee was the one who needed to take the initiative regarding communication. Though, she abstains from this advice with the argument that the mentees are the one who more confused and unexperienced part of the two. Hence, she always reached out to the mentee and made herself available if the mentee needed her.

“Initially, you and your mentee agree on a schedule, and then you can decide to extend or reduce it upon request. I do understand that the mentoring program guidelines the mentees to take the initiative in this regard, however me knowing that the mentee is usually very hesitant I decide to let them know that I am available as much as they need me, and did check-ups from time to time.”

Even though she seemingly cared about her mentee’s wellbeing and development, she insisted on the fact that she as a mentor cannot do all the work.

23

With over 8 years of mentoring experience Mentor M2 has done a lot of trial and error in her mentoring relationships. One may believe that she must have many secrets she would not want anyone to know about. The reality is that, Mentor M2 has proven to be very good at the most basic things.

“The most important thing is really to listen to the actual words that the mentee is trying to express. And be sure to understand what they really are meaning. Same thing goes for when I try to express myself to the mentee. If I say run, the mentee can interpret it differently, and identifying early when the mentee does not understand it the way you do and look at it together.”

By practicing her listening skills and her way of expressing herself she has managed to understand her mentees better and vice versa. This has proven to be a winning formula in her mentoring relationships.

Mentor M2 believes that for you to succeed in a wide range of mentoring relationships as a mentor, you need to be able to adapt to the mentee’s particular needs. She says that a need does not necessarily mean something the mentee is bad at but can also be the mentees strengths.

“A mentee is sometimes scared of somethings and is better at others. You as a mentor needs to understand this, sometimes I can even feel as a mentor that the mentee really does not want this, and sometimes they just need longer time to think about it.”

4.1.3 Mentor M3

Mentor M3 is an award-winning mentor who holds a PhD in Business administration and has conducted research in areas such as corporate social innovation, sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate responsibility. He has actively been working as change agent and helped organization start-up and in the development phase. Furthermore, he has trained and developed leaders within these organizations. He sees a mentoring relationship as twofold where he gives something to the mentee and the mentee gives something back.

“I think it’s important to be engaged, and by being a mentor this is one way of being engaged. It does not matter how experienced you are, the mentoring process is always a two-way process.”

He describes the pairing process as pretty straight forward. He says the mentoring program pairs an entrepreneur with a mentor, then the pair have a meeting before taking a decision. However, it does not have to be this way. Mentor M3 says that during his current mentoring relationship he had been following the work of his current mentee beforehand and decided to contact the mentees manager to find out about the

24

“I had an interest in what the guy was doing and decide to reach out to his manager”. Mentor M3 is much about having routines and following a schedule. Even though he usually has one mentoring relationship at a time, he sees the benefit of having more than one simultaneously.

“I think it’s probably good to have several, you get into a routine”

He describes the mentoring relationships he has been involved in as “certainly

structured” but can be adjustable depending on the phase the mentee is going through. While the meetings are structurally planned, the structure can vary from person to person, some of his mentees he meets once a month, while with others he did it every other week.

“It totally depends on the needs, one person every other week, but usually once a month.”

Mentor M3 is committing to at least two mentoring relationships annually. During the course of his mentoring career he has learned what works best for him when he wants to transfer his knowledge to his mentees.

“Visual aids, whiteboard or something with me, visually.”

The visual aids are used as a way explaining things in simpler manner, however the initiative he believes, is on the mentees side. He says that the driving force in the relationship needs to be the mentee and gave an example of a less appreciated moment in his mentoring career.

“The mentee needs to be committed to actually meeting and this needs to be done on a regular basis. They have to drive the process. One time I ended up phoning the guy.” The diverse roles that a mentor may face in different kinds of relationships is a reality that Mentor M3 has welcomed. He knows what he is committing to and he knows that he needs to adapt to it. He says that it is all about understanding what type of

entrepreneur you are dealing with.

“There is a big difference between entrepreneurs who are really going for it and in this case, you basically only need to be a sounding board. Then there are mentees that are more hesitant and don’t really know what they are doing, here you need to be pushier”

25

Mentor M4 is currently the program-director of an entrepreneurship mentoring program in Sweden. She found her inner passion about mentoring by taking part of a local mentoring program herself in her earlier days. Mentor M4 had valuable experience of running her own business which involved advocating a healthy lifestyle and the benefits of living one. She learned a lot from this venturing experience and felt urgent to pass on her own knowledge to someone in need of it. Hence, she decided to take on mentoring. She described her first mentoring experience as “interesting” and described the

matching process as “random”. During her time as a mentor she has experienced having both one mentor at a time and being a mentor in two relationships concurrently. It is pretty evident which one she prefers.

“I prefer to focus on one relationship at a time, but some mentors in the program are more than happy to take on several”

She clarifies that there are evidential differences between the mentor preferences in the program and both parties have their arguments. When describing the relationship meeting process Mentor M4 says that their program requires meetings at least once a month, but this can be adjusted internally. She lets me know that if the mentor pair does not have a pre-planned schedule, there is a risk of skipping or postponing meetings. “In general, once a month, we have some mentoring relationships where they meet every week, but structured is the way to go.”

Mentor M4 has certainly herself experienced mentoring relationships in real-time, but more importantly, she has spectated several mentoring relationships from the sideline as a program director. Her exclusive access to insights from her position are unique, and with these insights she firmly believes mentors can form great entrepreneurs by following this simple formula.

“It’s very much about confidence building, talk about everything in life, not only the business side of things. By having close communication with the mentee, you invite them to be braver and strengthens them as individuals. It’s about guiding them when they are confused.”

When considering any requirements, she has on a mentee before entering a relationship with them she believes that the ball is on the other side of the court in this regard. She says that by forcing someone to be somewhere they do not originally want to be is not a great strategy.

“Their own will, they need to want to get feedback, be their own driving force and drive the relationship forward. They cannot just be placed in a program where they are forced to have mentor.”

She believes that the mentors are the ones who needs to adapt in order to get the most out of a mentoring relationship, however she states that there are limitations of how

26

adaptable one person really can be. Sometimes, the personality types just do not get along, she means that this is why they do have “get to know” sessions. Mentor M4 says that if the mentor knows what the mentee really wants to get out of the relationship, great things can be accomplished.

“As a mentor you need to adapt and make reads. Some mentees just want to access your network and in these types of scenarios you need to open these doors for them. Some are in more need of practical help, then this becomes your role.”

She gave some final verdict on what the mentors generally say in the post-evaluation part of the mentoring program, and in line with many other things, it varies from person to person and from relationship to relationship.

“The mentors say that it is something completely different from year to year. In every new relationship, they get to help their mentee in a new way. “

4.2 Interviews with mentees

This section covers the interviews with the mentees. Each interview is presented separately where quotes from the interviews are used to strengthen the respondent’s arguments.

4.2.1 Mentee M1

Mentee M1 had been running her business for approximately one year and felt she needed external help with the marketing department. Her business is categorized within content writing/writing industry, where she proofreads and corrects everything from webpages to books. After approximately one year in business, she applied for a local mentoring program where she started her one year long mentoring relationship journey. The end result was very satisfying for her. To put her satisfaction in a perspective, she ended up nominating her mentor for a regional mentor of the year award, which the mentor managed to win.

When she got assigned a mentor, she believes that she had an informal saying in the process. Mentee M1 explains that initially you do not have a saying, but you were allowed to hand in an application explaining which phase your company is currently in, which specific tasks you need guidance in and so forth. During her time as a mentee, she was mentored by one person throughout the process. Preferably, she would stick to one mentor if she were to enter a new mentoring relationship in the future.

27

“I think that, with the scheduled time, which was once a month you already had a lot of tasks to fulfil while getting to know your mentor. So, I believe that one mentor is the preferred way.”

She explains that the mentor early on made her aware of the fact that this relationship will go in the direction which she wants it to go. Her initiative dictates what she wants to get out of this mentoring relationship. Based on this, her relationship structure started of structured but ended up becoming more spontaneous over time.

“It started of structured, but it escalated pretty quickly to somewhat unstructured and we covered what I needed to cover basically.”

Mentee M1 admits that there was one period in the relationship where she started to question whether this mentoring “thing” really is serving her well. In the meantime, she faced some issues in the business and started to realize how important it is to have someone to discuss these matters with.

“Yeah, it got like that during one period, then it really helps having someone that pushes you a bit. Someone that challenges your thoughts, what I really liked was that me and my mentor were in a similar age, and he understood that even though I don’t have the same entrepreneurial experience as he does, I have work-life experience. A big plus”

As the quote suggests she valued her mentor’s ability to understand her situation and treat her in a respectful manner despite her lack of entrepreneurial experience. She mentions that there was some concern regarding the matching since she basically got assigned a mentor randomly, even though she had a minor saying in it. Her main concern was that if the mentor was this pushy businessperson, some conflicts might have occurred.

“You took what you got, I was more concerned about him being this pushy

businessperson, I really needed someone who would understand my problems during that time.”

Mentee M1 believes that even different personality types can make a great match. She says that on a professional level she and her mentor got along well, even though he had a background in sales and was used to constantly work under pressure. This side of him, she believes, brought out a new side of her.

“Even though there are differences, we never got into any conflicts. I would say that everyone works differently.”