Workshop #5: Setting Sail on the Mentorship

The 5th workshop of the Collaborative Connections Workshop was on Mentoring. Specifically the MentorSHIP. The goals of our workshop were to;

1. Analyze characteristics of good and bad mentors
2. Discuss some mentor-mentee predicaments
3. Reflect on your current mentor-mentee relationships
4. Develop a mentorship plan

To achieved these goals we had a series of activities, beginning with a Think-Pair-Share to identify what mentorship is, what is it like to not have a mentor, the scales of mentorship, and lastly the characteristics of good and bad mentors. We also discussed the differences between an advisor and a mentor with several people noting that advisors are paperwork positions while mentors have a vested interest in your success.

After we listed the characteristics of mentors we asked the attendees of the workshop to create concept maps using our shared characteristics and characteristics unique to them.

"What keeps a mentoring relationship afloat? If the relationship were a boat, what type of boat would it be and why?"

The participants were asked to depict their graduate school mentoring relationship using the above prompt. Mentoring relationships, whether you are the mentor or the mentee, are dynamic. The relationship often serves a purpose and the individuals in the relationship are trying to achieve specific objectives. The participants were asked to consider the direction, obstacles and unique qualities of their relationship(s).

Mentorship :: coal-powered boat. The fuel (coal) is labeled as "interest", "active participation" and "Encouragement to Excel." Interestingly, the participant depicted obstacles as bird droppings raining down from above ("disinterest" and "unavailability"). Also, the participant commented that the boat is out to sea with no land in sight. This exemplifies his feeling that he is in the middle of his graduate school process. Luckily, his pile of fuel is large!



Mentorship :: Trash Barge. Navigating past obstacles such and QE (qualifying exam) and comps (exams), looking to catch the illusive three-eyed dissertation fish, the goodship "Co-Sponsorship"is loaded down with goods: "personal attention", "support", "engaged", "coauthor" and "direction." The mentee and mentor sit together in the pilot house and stay protected from the clouds of "bad ideas."

The concept maps gave attendees to chance to reflect on the aspects of mentorship that they appreciate and/or avoid. It also illustrated the dynamic nature of mentorships where winds, currents, and predators representing bad mentorship threaten to capsize boats but where good mentorships help mentees stay afloat.

We then explored mentorship scenarios with the following 4 scenarios developed from Johnson and Huwe 2002 (for full citation see below);

1. You are mentoring several people, two or more of which do not get along. How do you handle the situation? Under what circumstances involving this situation would dissolve a mentorship? How would you do it?
2. After working closely with your mentee for several weeks you suspect that your mentee is attracted to you. You realize it is unethical and against University rules to start a relationship with your mentee. How do you handle the situation?
3. You are frustrated because you feel neglected by your mentor. However you are unsure what the cause of your mentor's neglect is. How do you assess whether your mentor is just busy or has purposely neglected you? How do you rectify the situation?
4. You are believe in formal relationships between mentors and mentees. However you are mentoring a person of a different culture who address you in a very informal way. How does this make you feel? How do you handle this situation? How would you feel if the situation were reversed and you were informal while your mentee was formal? How would you handle this situation if you were the mentee?

The attendees were asked to discuss these scenarios from both the mentor and mentee's perspective in small groups, then to develop skits to demonstrate the scenarios. After each skit we had a short discussion, with the longest discussion involving how to deal with mentees that don't get along. It was brought up that sometimes a mentee's environment becomes hostile because bad mentors fail to intervene in a timely matter or ever at all. At which point it was noted that mentees also have the power to dissolve mentorships and should do so if they are not receiving what they want or need from the relationship. In the end for the mentee it becomes a matter of weighing the time it would take to finish up if one stayed vs. left the mentorship.

Lastly, we gave a handout with prompts for thinking about how to write a mentorship contract. A mentorship contract lays out all the expectations a member of the mentorship has for the relationship and provides a framework from which to discuss what both members of the relationship hope to gain. The questions in the handout were:

STARTING YOUR MENTORSHIP CONTRACT

WHAT CAN MENTEE/S EXPECT FROM YOU?

1. How much time you are willing to commit to your mentee/s?

2. Are you willing to write letters of recommendation?

3. Are you willing to help with writing in general? If so, will you look at outlines, partially completed drafts, completed drafts only?

4. Will you offer personal guidance? Can your student rely on you for personal as well as academic advise? Will you advise on career advancement, grantmanship, publishing, teaching, enhancing professional visibility, networking with other scientists and practitioners, overcoming barriers to career success?

5. Timely comments

6. Weekly/monthly/quarterly meetings?

7. Respect your mentee's time as much as you respect your own.

8. Make only positive or neutral comments about your mentee to others.

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT OF YOUR MENTEE/S?

1. Timely revisions?

2. Timeliness in general?

3. Be open to constructive criticism?

4. Listen to what you have to say?

5. Seriously consider the advice given to you by your mentor, even if your immediate reaction is not positive.

6. Make only positive or neutral comments about your mentor to others.

Johnson and Huwe. 2002. Toward a typology of mentorship dysfunction in graduate school. Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training 39(1). 44-55.