mentoring in a virtual environment

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 experienced employee to a

new or less skilled employee with the goal of career advancement (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005).

Traditionally, these efforts were tied to location proximity and mentor availability. The growing

innovations 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 building a trusting and meaningful

relationship while 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. Research shows the presence of mentoring has become influential for development

across a number of areas, such as personal and academic while 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 need to 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 which young 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). The emerging 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 program where “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 are deliberately 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 must be

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 ensuring the 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 functions necessary 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 a discouraging 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 examples

where 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.

A virtual 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 involves obtaining 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 form it 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 may be a direct consequence of matching administrator, mentor and

protégés expectations” (Smith et al., 2005, p. 47).


To guarantee a relationship forms 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) mentioned the 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

interview will ensure both parties are comfortable communicating this 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 in career 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 take ownership 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 expectations and 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 order to 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 members and an informal mentor outside the military. It must also

address the ability to locate an informal mentor to aid in the transition process and 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 success compared 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), 89-105.


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.


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), 300-316.


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