Build Effective Virtual Mentoring

Running Head: BUILDING EFFECTIVE MENTORING PROGRAMS IN A CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT
Building effective mentoring programs in a virtual environment
Lisa Parrott
Argosy University/Seattle Campus
August, 2013

Mentoring is the process of sharing information from a more experiencedemployee to a
new or less skilled employeewith the goal of career advancement (Hezlett & Gibson,
2005).Traditionally, these efforts were tied to location proximity and mentor availability. The
growinginnovations in technology enabling corporate globalization have increased the need for
mentor relationships to form in nontraditional methods. As organizations begin to incorporate
virtual work environments at a rapid rate, it has created a new set of possibilities and challenges
for development and communication within the mentor relationship. Creating an effective
mentor program in a virtual environment must address a process for buildinga trusting and
meaningful relationshipwhile overcoming the barriers of time, distance and the possible loss of
nonverbal communication. For deployed and displaced service members, a virtual mentor
environment is ideal to aid in career development during transition from active duty military
service.
Mentoring is not a new concept in career development, as mentors have existed
throughout history (Bierema &Hill, 2005).The typical relationship is often between an older co-
worker and a younger individual who wants to grow their career.Hilbun and Akin (2007) defined
mentoring as, “a traditional method of passing knowledge and skills on from an established
professional to a junior or new member of the field or discipline” (p. 28). This exchange of
information is important for overall growth and opportunities for the protégé and mentor.
Researchshows the presence of mentoring has become influential for development across a
number of areas, such as personal and academicwhile being critical for career success
(Bozionelos, Bozionelos, Kostopoulos & Polychroniou, 2011;Hezlett & Gibson, 2005).
The mentoring process often happens between two individuals within the same
organization (Higgins & Kram, 2001). The availability to connect mentors and protégés has

historically focused on location and convenience. Companies would connect employees based on
their proximity, not necessarily because they are the ideal fit for the protégé or mentor. The
advent of technology has changed the needto create this relationship from a local available pool
of employees to a global one (Higgins & Kram, 2001).
The transformation from a traditional work environment to a virtual workplace has
impacted the way in whichyoung employees engage in meaningful mentor relationships.
Akkirman and Harrison (2005) defined the virtual environment as one that “encompasses a
number of different working styles, such as telecenters, teleworking, hot-desking, hotelling, and
virtual offices” (p. 398). This type of an environment has resulted in the isolation of employees
and often a lack of face-to-face interaction.
The virtual workplace does not reduce the requirement for mentoring, although it does
present the need for a new model. Where a traditional mentorship happened face-to-face
allowing for nonverbal cues and instant responses, the virtual workplace has created the
necessity for new methods of communication, including emails, texts, phone and video calling
(Akkirman & Harris, 2005, p. 404; Gieskes, 2010). Theemerging career development
relationship in a virtual environment has been deemed e-mentoring (Simmonds & Zammit Lupi,
2010; Bierema & Hill, 2005, p. 557). Simmonds and Zammit Lupi (2010) defined this term as “a
vehicle for providing a guided mentoring relationship over large distances, largely through e-
mail, but also by using technology, including the voice over internet protocol (VOIP)” (p. 300).
Bierema and Hill (2005) identified a number of benefits found through e-mentoring,
including the flexible nature of communication, improved quality in messages, lower costs and
higher participation opportunity for populations who would not normally have access (p. 559). It
provides an egalitarian environment, allowing underprivileged populations to take part by

reducing barriers for relationship building (Gieskes, 2010). The introduction of e-mentoring has
allowed mentors and protégés to engage in a mentor relationship regardless of distance. It has
shown to be more time efficient, as participants do not have to travel for meetings, and can
respond to messages at their leisure (Gieskes, 2010). E-mentoring has also allowed protégés to
maximize learning, as they can engage with multiple mentors across different subjects (Hilbun &
Akin, 2007).
Regardless of the environment, there are two types of relationships that can form between
a mentor and protégé. Smith, Howard and Harrington (2005) defined informal mentorship as
“spontaneous and unstructured relationships with minimal organizational involvement” (p. 32).
These develop through mutual identification, when a mentor recognizes someone similar to
himself or herself, and the protégé identifies them as a role model (Ragins, Cotton & Miller,
2000, p. 1179). This natural type of connection forms a strong initial mentorship bond, often
developed through face-to-face interaction. Research has found informal mentor relationships to
be rated more satisfactory because they are generated through altruistic means (Ragins et al.,
2000; Simmonds & Zammit Lupi, 2010, p. 305).
The other type of relationship is a formal mentor program.Kim and Egan (2011) defined
this as a programwhere “organizations intentionally couple new or less experienced employees
or students (protégés or mentees) with managers or advanced students with moderate to high
levels of experience (mentors)” (p. 90).These relationships aredeliberately paired through a third
party, limiting the amount of mentor and protégé involvement (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005; Smith et
al., 2005). Although formal programs are not as effective, they are useful because mentoring has
shown to improve career success for both the mentor and protégé (Bozionelos, et al., 2011).
Kayworth and Leidner (2001/2002) found the need for mentors in a virtual environment to

continue encouraging individuals to perform (p. 27).To ensure all employees have the ability to
be a protégé or mentor and seek career development, it is critical for virtual organizations to
consider formal programs.
The isolation of virtual environments makes it difficult for employees to locate an
informal mentor. Providing the capability to assign mentors and protégés together mustbe
included when developing a virtual mentor program,although the mandatory assignment of a
mentor can be less effective (Ragins et al., 2000; Simmonds & Zammit Lupi, 2010).Whether it is
formal or informal, the key in building a mentorship program is ensuringthe relationship between
the mentor and protégé is of high quality; otherwise the presence of a mentor is not conducive to
career growth (Ragins et al., 2000, p. 1190).
Bierema and Hill (2005) identified three functionsnecessary to ensure success from any
mentoring program. The best environment provides a sense of mutual interest, trust, respect,
comfort and confidentiality between all parties. Next, both individuals need to set expectations
for the relationship and ensure they are committed to the results. Finally, the mentorship must be
prioritized (Bierema & Hill, 2005, p. 558). It is essential to create a plan to overcome the barriers
of e-mentoring for these functions to thrive in a virtual environment.
Trust is a major barrier for any mentorship, and is even more of a problem in a virtual
environment (Bierema & Hill, 2005, p. 563; Simmonds & Zammit Lupi, 2010, p. 313). In order
to build trust, the mentor and protégé must engage in numerous meaningful interactions
(Akkirman & Harris, 2005, p. 298). Effective communication is essential for this process, often
requiring the receiver to be aware of nonverbal cues. The lack of nonverbal cues can affect the
ability to understand the true meaning of messages from the other party (Pauleen, 2003). This is

a serious barrier in the virtual environment, as these are not transmitted through written forms
like text and emails.
Because face-to-face interactions are not possible to build a high level of trust virtually,
the method of communication being used for e-mentoring becomes extremely important
(Akkirman & Harris, 2005). Technology has provided the virtual environment with numerous
opportunities for overcoming the lack of nonverbal cues, through video calling and virtual
worlds (Gieskes, 2010).In order to maintain the trust once it has developed, Olson and Olson
(2012) found the need for both parties to engage in consistent communication.
The method of interactions may vary among environments, so mentors and protégés must
be comfortable using different communication approaches in order to connect. Lack of training
on technology platforms, poor communication skills and a high cost for a technical system can
deter the success of e-mentoring (Bierema & Hill, 2005, p. 561). Even with a system that is well
understood by the user, the lack of nonverbal communication can make it difficult to understand
the meaning behind a message, allowing the reader to misconstrue the idea. “Working through a
text-based or an audio channel does not provide the visual cues used to judge people's true
feelings” (Pauleen, 2003, p. 156).For this reason, platforms like Skype, Facetime and Google
Hangouts provide the virtual mentor and protégé a way of interacting that offers insight into
nonverbal communication as well (Gieskes, 2010).
Without having established expectations for the frequency of interactions, the lack of a
physical presence can be adiscouraging barrier. Being separated by time zones can also impact
the quality of the relationship if expectations are not established at the beginning for
responsiveness to messages (Guzmán, Ramos, Seco, &Esteban, 2010). “The e-mail message or
bulletin board posting can be more easily ignored than someone standing in the doorway.

Finding techniques and incentives for continuing the mentor-protégé dialogue are important”
(Bierema & Hill, 2005, p. 563). In a face-to-face situation the mentor or protégé has the ability to
stop by and check on the status of the mentor relationship, whereas in a virtual setting it is much
easier for one party to fail to respond to the other. Establishing expectations for response times
and meeting regularity at the start of the relationship can overcome this barrier in a virtual
environment.
Although these barriers are more pronounced in a virtual mentorship, there are
exampleswhere e-mentoring overcomes a traditional barrier. The anonymity of the internet and
virtual communication provides opportunities between the mentor and protégé to discuss
sensitive issues (Knouse, 2001, p. 164). In a trusted relationship the impersonal nature of online
communication has been shown to improve the quality of interactions (Simmonds & Zammit
Lupi, 2010, p. 305). In addition, face-to-face mentoring can be restrictive, as protégés are limited
to mentors within their local area, which may hinder the potential for career growth (Hilbun &
Akin, 2007). The busy nature of corporate roles in today’s age also presents a scheduling
challenge for coordinating regular meetings, whereas the virtual environment allows for
messages to be transmitted instantaneously.
Developing a mentor program in a virtual environment
Mentor programs have shown to benefit the individual participants as well as the
organization (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005). This benefit extends to the growing virtual workplace
and with it the need to establish a mentorship program for employee career development. For e-
mentoring to work, the company must be willing to ensure success for all employees. Akkirman
and Harris (2005) argued this should include providing technology capability and support to the
mentor and protégé (p. 403). The organization can also assist by facilitating an interactive virtual

environment for employees to remain connected. Although research has shown higher
effectiveness in an informal mentor program(Ragins et al., 2000; Simmonds & Zammit Lupi,
2010, p. 305), they are harder to foster in a virtual environment. For this reason, merging
elements of formal mentorships with the successful factors from informal programs is suggested.
Avirtual formal mentorship program incorporating informal elements must also address the
barriers associated with a virtual workplace to be effective.
The first step in building a virtual formal mentorship involvesobtaining buy in from
participants, as this will ensure the relationship becomes a priority. It is vital to educate all
parties involved about the process to forming the mentor relationship, the structure required to
build trust, barriers to damaging that trust, and the effectiveness of career success resulting from
mentorship (Bierema & Hill, 2005). In order to overcome the barriers around communication
and frequency of interactions, employees should also be trained on the expectations of the
program, including regular communication, dedication to personal growth, and goal setting
(Akkirman & Harris, 2005). Individuals showing little interest in pursuing a formal mentor
relationship should be asked to provide confirmation of an informal mentorship in order to meet
the organizational expectations for career development. By not making the virtual formal mentor
program mandatory for all participants but requiring some form of mentorship, this flexibility
will lead to a more effective outcome.
The second step involves creating a process for protégés and mentors to be formally
introduced. This is a necessary function of the formal program for the virtual environment to
ensure individuals have access to mentors. However, for a bond to formit is essential for the
relationship to involve mutual interest between the mentor and protégé, an aspect that must be
incorporated in the pairing activity (Bell & Treleaven, 2011). “The failure or success of formal

mentor relationships maybe a direct consequence of matching administrator, mentor and protégés
expectations” (Smith et al., 2005, p. 47).
To guarantee a relationshipforms between the mentor and protégé, the matching aspect of
the program must identify a personal connection. This will quickly help to build a bond, leading
to trust. Unless this can be achieved, the relationship will not flourish (Bierema & Hill, 2005;
Simmonds & Zammit Lupi, 2010). Determining how to match people to create a successful
relationship between the mentor and protégé is one of the challenges of formal programs.
A key step involves protégé and mentor influence on the pairing process (Smith et al.,
2005). To aid in the development the organization needs to get involved by educating employees
on the purpose of a mentor relationship.It may be necessary to provide organizational coaching
support at an individual level to prepare the protégé for working with a mentor (Bell &
Treleaven, 2010).Simmonds and Zammit Lupi (2010) presented a model for connecting formal
mentors and protégés in a mutually beneficial manner, creating an environment to build a
trusting relationship.
The model suggested by Simmonds and Zammit Lupi(2010) involved matching mentors
to protégés across six categories, with an opportunity for the protégé to weight the criteria
according to their preference. These groups are: “desired organisational development
competencies, professional skills, personal qualities/skills, personal values, interests/hobbies and
socio-economic background” (Simmonds & Zammit Lupi 2010, p. 306). Matching individuals
together based on their interest will enhance their bond from the start, and is not the only area of
concern to consider when building a matching capability.
Ragins et al. (2000) mentionedthe need to guarantee the mentors are from different
departments for higher satisfaction of both participants (p. 1191). Mentors and protégés from the

same department can have a level of conflict and unease damaging trust and effectiveness of the
relationship. To prevent this from happening, Simmonds and Zammit Lupi (2010) suggested the
protégé have an opportunity to interview the mentor candidates before making their selection.
This process should be done through a virtual platform, as the relationship will continue in such
a manner (Simmonds & Zammit Lupi 2010, p. 306). Using a virtual platform to perform the
interviewwill ensure both parties are comfortable communicatingthis way, overcoming the
nonverbal communication barrier (Pauleen, 2003).
Once the mentor and protégé have been introduced, the third step in the program will ask
both parties to set expectations to be met in the first few months with regards to communication
methods, frequency and responsiveness.It is incumbent upon the protégé to initiate these
conversations and drive their intended goal of the relationship (Simmonds & Zammit Lupi,
2010). During this step the quality of the relationship is also established. Bierema and Hill
(2005) found the best mentor relationship to be one involving chemistry, trust and mutual respect
(p. 558). If the mentor or protégé does not feel the relationship will be mutually beneficial either
member can request to end the relationship and be matched with another participant with no
consequences (Simmonds, 2010, p. 312). This step enables participants to ensure the barriers to
establishing an effective mentorship have been overcome; otherwise either party can start over
with a new mentor or protégé.
The final phase of the mentorship program involves an ongoing and regular mentorship,
expected to last at least six month to a year (Kim & Egan, 2011; Ragins, 2000, p. 1179). At the
year point, the protégé should be given the opportunity to determine if they need to change
mentors to foster career growth. One benefit of a virtual environment is that of multiple mentor
and protégé relationships, each one addressing a specific need for the career development of the

protégé (Gieskes, 2010). Regardless of the amount of mentorships, is essential to confirm the
relationship is a positive one for career growth, and both participants should have the flexibility
and freedom to end the relationship if necessary.
Mentoring relative to career development after military experience
The military currently uses a mentor program to guide the careers of service members.
Each service branch has created a position for a career planner to aid incareer development
through coaching and mentoring(Knouse, 2001, p. 163). Active duty personnel are familiar with
formal and informal mentor relationships, although they are generally focused solely on
developing their military career, and not life after transition. Successful military leaders reported
having numerous mentor relationships within their chain of command, failing to identify external
mentorships(Smith et al., 2005, p. 37). The limited focus on career development after service has
proven to impede the success for transitioning service members as unemployment numbers for
18-24 year olds exceeded 30% in 2011 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012).
In addition to the challenges service member face obtaining successful careers after the
military, the values of a quality mentor differ between the military and business culture. Service
members report sensitivity as a trait that is least important as compared to their corporate
counterparts (Smith et al., 2005, p. 44). Aside from cultural differences, service members do not
begin to takeownership of their career development until they start the transition process, often
within six months of leaving the service. At this point they struggle to identify the careers they
want to move into in the corporate environment. “When moving from a stable career within a
paternalistic organisation to an uncertain job market they were unsure what they had to offer an
employer, how to approach job search or how to market their skills and experience” (Clarke,
2007, p. 196).

Transitioning from a rigid culture with established rules, explicit expectationsand a
steady paycheck into one of uncertainty is extremely difficult for many active duty personnel.On
average the military individual has limited to no business experience and many leave the military
with a physical or mental disability increasing the challenges to obtaining successful
employment (MacLean, 2010). This can result in frustration, anger and a victimized approach to
Veterans employment. These negatives stereotypes could be overcome through mentor programs
while on active duty, specifically targeting mentors from outside the military prior to transition
in orderto aid in career development post service.
One of the barriers to service members receiving corporate mentorship is their limited
interaction with potential mentors outside of the military. Service members often have robust
global networks, but these are primarily limited to individuals from within their military
experience. Higgins and Kram (2001) suggested this presents a low-range network, which may
also be low-density due to the nature of the military environment and frequent relocations. The
lack of a well-developed network prevents service members from connecting and engaging with
potential informal mentors who can lead them to career success. Corporate mentors often help
their protégés through sponsorship, which could aid service members during the transition
process (Bierema & Hill 2005, p. 558).
Transitioning military personnel with limited informal mentor support in the corporate
environment often fail to navigate the nuances of career advancement. Drebing et al. (2012)
found Veterans struggling to obtain consistent employment post transition were unwilling to seek
help, remaining unemployed or underemployed for more than four years. To avoid this
downward spiral of unemployment, service members preparing for transition must begin
working with mentors outside the military as early as possible.This presents a challenge for

service members, as they do not have a network established to find business mentors and are
often physically separated by distance from potential mentors. While on active duty, most
military personnel are living somewhere other than where they wish to reside after service,
creating a barrier to locating and forming crucial mentor connections (Knouse, 2001).
The nature of military life involves deployments and dislocation, very similar to that of
an expatriate. Mezias and Scandura (2005) highlighted the additional stress and uncertainty
caused by international assignments, and suggested expatriates obtain mentor relationships to
assist with adjustment when returning to their home country. This can provide added value to a
company looking to capitalize on the experience gained from working overseas by service
members. Therefore it would be beneficial for organizations to offer mentoring support to
deployed and dislocated service members, which can be done in a virtual mentorship program.
Corporate mentorship while on active duty must be done in a virtual environment as
many service members are stationed around the world, and are often deployed within a year of
leaving the service (Knouse, 2001). For this reason, e-mentoring is an optimal platform to
support transitioning service members. The four step virtual formal mentoring program would
provide the ideal e-mentoring scenario for the military. Participants in the mentorship program
would require initial training on the differences between the military and business cultures as
well as the importance of mentor programs on career development in a corporate environment. It
should be explained to protégés how mentoring has been found to be instrumental for corporate
career satisfaction, commitment, and mobility to ensure their active participation (Bierema &
Hill, 2005, p. 557; Ragins et al., 2000, p. 1177). Mentoring is critical for expatriate acculturation
as well, and a virtual mentor program would provide an added value for service members
returning from overseas assignments (Mezias & Scandura, 2005).

The current perception towards mentoring in the military focuses on internal results,
failing to address the need for career development post service (Knouse, 2001; Smith et al.,
2005). There is a lack of recent and relevant research on the attitudes and beliefs of transitioning
service members around mentorship, although in the corporate realm it has found to be
instrumental for career success (Bozionelos et al., 2011). Research must determine the level of
involvement between service membersand an informal mentor outside the military. It must also
address the ability to locate an informal mentor to aid in the transition processand service
member attitudes on mentoring effectiveness for career development.
It is expected that findings will show a lack of informal corporate mentors to aid in future
career successcompared to the presence of formal or informal mentors within the military
service. Attitudes towards mentorship within the military are expected to be favorable whereas it
will be unfamiliar and possibly reduced towards the corporate environment. For this reason
research on transitioning service members will include questions identifying the barriers to
engaging in corporate and virtual mentorship. The researcher anticipates a correlation between
positive attitudes and engagement of corporate mentors to higher success in effective career
transition. It is anticipated that these results will shed light on the association between the
perceptions of mentorship outside of the military environment compared to the success of
transition as defined by the rate of unemployment for transitioning service members.

References
Akkirman, A. D., & Harris, D. L. (2005). Organizational communication satisfaction in the
virtual workplace.The Journal of Management Development, 24(5), 397-409. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216349409?accountid=34899
Bell, A., & Treleaven, L. (2011). Looking for professor right: Mentee selection of mentors in a
formal mentoring program.Higher Education, 61(5), 545-
561.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9348-0
Bierema, L. L., & Hill, J. R. (2005). Virtual mentoring and HRD. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 7(4), 556-568. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/221212560?accountid=34899
Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Kostopoulos, K., & Polychroniou, P. (2011). How providing
mentoring relates to career success and organizational commitment. Career Development
International, 16(5), 446-468. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620431111167760
Clarke, M. (2007). Where to from here? Evaluating employability during career transition.
Journal of Management and Organization, 13(3), 196-211. Retrieved from
Drebing, C. E., Mueller, L., Van Ormer, E. A., Duffy, P., LePage, J., Rosenheck, R., et al.
(2012). Pathways to vocational services: Factors affecting entry by veterans enrolled in
veterans health administration mental health services.Psychological Services, 9(1), 49-
63.doi:10.1037/a0026662
Guzmán, J. G. ,Ramos, J. S., Seco, A. A., &Esteban, A. S. (2010). How to get mature global

virtual teams: A framework to improve team process management in distributed software
teams.Software Quality Journal, 18(4), 409-435.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11219-
010-9096-5
Gieskes, L. (2010). Mentoring interactively (MIing): New tools for librarian recruitment and
retention.New Library World, 111(3), 146-
153.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03074801011027646
Hezlett, S. A., & Gibson, S. K. (2005). Mentoring and human resource development: Where we
are and where we need to go.Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 446-469.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/221132500?accountid=34899
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001).Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental
network perspective.The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 264-288. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/210951325?accountid=34899
Hilbun, J., & Akin, L. (2007). e-Mentoring for Librarians and Libraries. Texas Library Journal,
83(1), 28-32. Retrieved from:
http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4aa8aa99-
ba91-4441-b941-78065005f8c0%40sessionmgr4&vid=8&hid=22
Kim, S., & Egan, T. (2011). Establishing a formal cross-cultural mentoring organization and
program.Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(1), 89-
Knouse, S. B. (2001). Virtual mentors: Mentoring on the internet. Journal of Employment
Counseling, 38(4), 162-169. Retrieved from
MacLean, A. (2010). The things they carry: Combat, disability, and unemployment among U.S.

Men.American Sociological Review, 75(4), 563-585. Retrieved from
Mezias, J. M., & Scandura, T. A. (2005). A needs-driven approach to expatriate adjustment and
career development: A multiple mentoring perspective.Journal of International Business
Studies, 36(5), 519-538.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400159
Olson, J., & Olson, L. (2012). Virtual team trust: Task, communication and sequence. Team
Performance Management, 18(5), 256-276.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527591211251131
Pauleen, D. J. (2003). Leadership in a global virtual team: An action learning approach.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(3), 153. Retrieved from
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of
mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career
attitudes.Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1177-1194. Retrieved from
Simmonds, D., & Zammit Lupi, A. M. (2010). The matching process in e-mentoring: A case
study in luxury hotels.Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(4), 300-
Smith, W. J., Howard, J. T., & Harrington, K. V. (2005). Essential formal mentor characteristics
and functions in governmental and non-governmental organizations from the program
administrator's and the mentor's perspective.Public Personnel Management, 34(1), 31-58.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215947990?accountid=34899
U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, March 20). Employment status of persons 18 years and

over by veteran status, age, and period of service, 2011 annual averages[Table].Retrieved
from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/vet_03202012.htm

Build Effective Virtual Mentoring

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Build Effective Virtual Mentoring

Similar a Build Effective Virtual Mentoring (20)

Último

Último (20)

Build Effective Virtual Mentoring