Introduction

Mentoring is a professional development and learning approach that can be utilized formally or informally in many settings. Mentoring has been the subject of intense debate and widely varying definitions, notwithstanding its broad applicability, and despite the enormous body of literature on mentoring. For example, Haggard, Dougherty, Turban, and Wilbanks (2011) identified 40 different definitions of mentoring in the empirical literature since 1980. In the third edition of its expert guideline for adult mentoring of youth, the National Mentoring Working Group defined mentoring as a, “structured, one-to-one relationship or partnership that focuses on the needs of mentored participants” (2009, p. 25). Noonan, Ballinger, and Black (2007) described faculty mentoring of doctoral students as a cognitive apprenticeship between an expert and a novice. In addition to applying to many settings under numerous definitions, there are various styles of mentoring, which can be grouped generally into categories according to formality (formal/informal) and number of persons (one-to-one/group/team).

Regardless of the domain, setting, or style, at the core of mentoring is a human relationship colored by factors relating to experience, knowledge, and power. Traditional approaches to mentoring place the mentor in the role of expert source of knowledge and holder of power, while the mentee, or protégé, functions in the role of novice who is the recipient of knowledge and who has limited power in the relationship. Even in peer mentoring relationships with limited (or no) differentials in knowledge and power, the traditional mentoring experience is not designed or expected to involve transformative learning for both parties; nor is it generally intended to involve deep, interpersonal learning. Traditionally, peer-mentoring has focused on cognitive and affective learning (socialization) of the protégé.

Transformational co-mentoring (TCM) in the present case was precipitated by a doctoral dissertation advising process. Through the lens of the personal journeys described in this study the authors contrast the traditional model of mentoring with their proposed new model, TCM, which merges the theoretical constructs of transformative learning and peer mentoring (co-mentoring). In this article the authors describe a case study through which the proposed model was discovered. The model is situated in the literature on mentoring and transformative learning. The authors offer characteristics of this new model as well as suggestions of its process and the need for theoretical research.

Literature Review

A review of the literature identified only one article on the topic of transformational co-mentoring, which was presented at the 2011 UNM Mentoring conference. (The literature search was conducted within the EBSCOHost system, including 63 databases.) This paper, presented by Gruesbeck et al., described a case study involving two Latinas focused on an inclusive approach to mentoring in which, “the distinctions between ‘mentor’ and ‘mentee’ are blurred . . . This new embodiment of a mentoring relationship then takes on a transformational essence” (p. 19). Search terms used for the literature review included “transformational co-mentoring” and “transformational peer mentoring.”

It has been suggested that a mentor is, “that person who achieves a one-to-one developmental relationship with a learner, and one whom the learner identifies as having enabled personal growth to take place” and the person who assists the mentee, “in the realization of a dream” (USC, 2003, para 1). What stands out in the traditional notions of mentoring is the psychological dependence of the mentee on the mentor, the one-directional nature of the teaching and learning, and the balance of power residing with the mentor, though this can be mitigated to varying effect through peer mentoring. Hansman (2002) asserts, “mentoring relationships can be characterized as socially constructed power relationships that are designed to advantage certain groups while disadvantaging other groups” (p. 45). Further, as stated in USC’s Messon Academic Mentoring Support Project white paper, “the [mentoring] relationship is, at its most fundamental, a multifaceted collaboration between a junior professional and a senior professional with the primary goal being the nurturing of the junior professional’s development” (USC, 2003, para 5).

Mentors exercise power by assuming they know what mentees need to know, deciding if or how to support mentees to make important personal or professional connections, or by implicitly or explicitly encouraging mentees to adopt their style of thinking and behavior. Further, they may exercise power by holding mentees at arms-length, thereby maintaining their superiority and avoiding stepping into the interpersonal intimacy that might support the deeper reflection and growth of mentees. In those instances where mentors provide mentoring to their direct reports or students, the power disparity is exacerbated by mentors’ responsibilities for providing evaluative feedback. The potential for creating an emotionally supportive climate that supports candid communication and learning is diminished when an individual’s academic standing or job is at stake. Mott (2002) suggests, “whatever the term, a mentor usually represents the superior characteristics, accomplishments, skills, and virtues to which the protégé aspires as a result of the mentoring relationship” (p. 5).

Thus, in the best case, the traditional mentoring model may be experienced as benevolent and positive. In the worst case, mentees may be placed at a significant disadvantage, with the likelihood that their development trajectory is directed and controlled by their mentors. With this as a backdrop, it is not surprising that many mentoring relationships are unsatisfactory for both mentors and mentees, and that their real potential remains unrealized. Hansman (2002) suggests that, “mentoring processes and outcomes are power laden, frequently unexamined, and uncritically applied” (p. 10) and, cites Hale’s suggestion that formalized mentoring relationships simply, “reinforce the status quo by reproducing the disparate existing dominate power structures that mentoring seeks to make more equitable in the first place” (p. 11).

More recent perspectives on mentoring have begun to challenge the traditional model. For example, Varney (2009) offers a model he refers to as Humanistic Mentoring, which he defines as a motivational construct that, “incorporates care and nurturance for the person within the developing professional” (p. 128). This definition reflects research by Noonan, Ballinger, and Black (2007) in which both peer mentors and doctoral student mentees identified relationship as the central concern of mentoring. Gehrke (1988) grappled with the traditional definitions of mentoring and methods for research on mentoring. She found the traditional definitions lacking. Through a personal journey she arrived at the opinion that mentoring is a gift exchange, “the mentor’s relationship with the protégé can be seen as an example of gift giving” (p. 192). She explains, “The passage of the gift binds people to each other” (p. 191). She adds, “The greatest gift the mentor offers is a new and whole way of seeing things . . . it is a way of thinking and living that is given, often through long conversations about matters of mutual interest” (p. 192).

Radically altered workplaces, the emergence of distance learning in adult education, and rapid advances in technology have rendered traditional models of mentoring obsolete. These shifts have also sounded a clarion call for new models that equalize power in mentoring relationships, incorporate technological advances, and place responsibility for learning with mentees. Some new models of mentoring described in the literature include co- mentoring, mentoring networks and transformational mentoring. Each of these models appears to improve on the traditional mentoring model. For example, with co-mentoring, there is an equalization of power, with both individuals serving as mentor and mentee at various times. Rymer (2002) argues that co-mentoring relationships, like optimal functioning traditional mentoring relationships, are rooted in mutual trust. However, they improve upon them by replacing hierarchy with equality, and enabling the mentoring process to adapt to increasing uncertainty and complexity.

Rymer (2002) also argues that such relationships foster individual change in both mentors and mentees. The author cites research by Kram that demonstrates that peers can fulfill a variety of mentoring functions across all stages of life, often as well or better than mentors who are senior to their mentees. In transformational mentoring, greater emphasis is placed on supporting mentees’ self-directed growth and development, with significant shifts in personal identity and self-efficacy as expected outcomes. With mentoring networks, individuals work with various mentors over the course of time on an as needed basis and also serve as mentors to others in those networks. Mentoring networks emphasize informal mentoring relationships, and they may offer individual or group mentoring.

Transformational mentoring is a more recent mentoring model that recognizes today’s complex, multi-faceted workplace environments and the asynchronous, self-directed nature of many adult learning environments represented by virtual/online learning models. In transformational mentoring, the mentee experiences a profound shift in thinking, feeling and acting that is fostered by the dynamic relationship between mentor and mentee. Transformational mentoring shares attributes of transformative learning models that shift the landscape of learning from instructor-centered or content-centered to learner-centered.

The concept of transformative learning was popularized by Jack Mezirow who defined it as, “the process of effecting change in a frame of reference” (1997, p. 5) Later in the same passage Mezirow explains, “We have a strong tendency to reject ideas that fail to fit our preconceptions, labeling those ideas as unworthy for consideration—aberrations, nonsense, irrelevant, weird, or mistaken.” Transformative learning then occurs, “when a disorienting dilemma leads an individual to reflect on assumptions or expectations and find them to be faulty and, as a result, revise them” (Howlett, 2009, p. 44). Transformative learning enables the learner to challenge his or her own existing frameworks and paradigms via the self-directed learning process. This process can be actively fostered by an adult learning facilitator. Masterful mentors can be readily described as adult learning facilitators, and the mentoring relationship is a natural, psychologically safe container in which the crucible of transformative learning can occur.

Case Study

The mentoring process in this case study began with a doctoral student, Jan, seeking a dissertation advisor, Bernadette. Bernadette was unwilling to accept payment for serving in the role of a dissertation advisor because she knew Jan had already paid tuition for this service, so Jan suggested they exchange services. Jan would provide leadership coaching, and in exchange Bernadette would provide dissertation advising. They were both experts in their fields and had much to offer one another. This proved to be a key ingredient as the relationship progressed from co-mentoring to transformational co-mentoring. Another key ingredient was a process of co-creation of knowledge.

Jan’s story

By the time Jan was introduced to Bernadette by a mutual colleague, she had experienced a number of starts and stops on her path to completing her doctoral dissertation. A diminished sense of self-efficacy was a primary factor in her lack of progress. This was manifested in her belief that nothing in her personal or professional life that preceded the work of completing a doctoral dissertation had adequately prepared her for what she was sure would be a daunting task. Indeed, she’d had this belief reinforced by many well-meaning, would-be advisors as well as former graduate students who had given up their plans to complete their doctorates.

A second factor was that, despite having completed two master’s degrees with honors, Jan felt she was on completely unfamiliar turf when it came to the nuts and bolts of organizing a research study and writing a dissertation. It seemed to her that there was an unwritten rule that completing a dissertation was difficult and that, as a right of passage, only the fittest of aspirants would be successful. The casualties left on the field of those who had attempted the journey but failed (or rather given up) were in plain sight. It seemed likely that Jan would be among them if something radical didn’t occur.

A third factor was that her previous mentor was steeped in a traditional mentoring model that reflected a power disparity and arms-length relationship. Jan felt intimidated and unsure about how to make the process work for her, particularly how to get her need for personal engagement met. This latter factor was out of sync with the style of her more traditionally oriented mentor. Despite all of this, Jan’s intuition told her that she would be able to succeed if she were able to establish a relationship with someone who was her peer—someone who could appreciate what she brought to the table while illuminating the path for how to put the seemingly obtuse parts together. One thing was abundantly clear: Jan’s more than ten years as a full-time practicing master certified coach had created a different set of expectations for how she could most effectively work with a mentor.

When Jan and Bernadette met (virtually) Bernadette expressed that she was completely captivated by Jan’s research topic of how humility is enacted in organizational leaders. She offered, almost immediately, that she thought she could learn a lot from Jan even as she mentored her on her dissertation. Her enthusiasm about Jan’s potential was contagious—and quite believable. It was something Jan quickly embraced, and it soon became apparent that it would be the basis of her success.

Jan and Bernadette met regularly for input and updates, and Jan’s progress could only be described as meteoric. Within eight months, she had her data transcribed, coded and placed in a theoretical framework—all while maintaining her active coaching and consulting practice in one of her busiest years since going into business. One month later, following her re-entry into the literature, Jan began to write her dissertation. She completed the writing in six weeks.

The shadow work, and the basis of transformative learning for Jan, was her bringing into full awareness the fact that in reality, everything she’d ever accomplished had prepared her to complete her dissertation. Her diminished self-efficacy blinded her to this fundamental truth. As she describes it, there was an aquifer of metaphorical meaning that lay beneath the surface that, once accessed, enabled her to bring the disparate parts of herself and her work together. Bernadette’s role was one of wise sage, herald and co-adventurer in a transformational process. Her own learning seemed to echo Jan’s findings and insights, and this in turn reinforced Jan’s progress.

Bernadette’s story

For her part, in the beginning Bernadette was unsure what she would discuss with Jan, but she believed that leadership coaching would be a benefit to her and the team in her office. She knew it was a terrific opportunity to receive coaching from a master coach like Jan. She had recently accepted a new position and had a newly-hired team needing development. The coaching began with Jan asking Bernadette to identify her personal and professional goals as well as her aspirations. Over several months grappling with these questions Bernadette began to experience a significant sense of discomfort, something inside needing to work its way to the surface. She tried to ignore it for several weeks. But, by this point she knew she trusted Jan and felt confident she would be safe to discuss it with her. She was, however, unsure if leadership coaching could involve discussions of personal issues. She also knew that she would not make any further progress in the coaching if she did not address the issue. So, she asked Jan if people discuss personal issues as part of leadership coaching or if topics outside of professional life should be addressed with a separate counselor. They discussed boundaries and were able to proceed.

This was the key moment for Bernadette in the transformative learning process. She recognized dis-ease within herself and, after trying to ignore it, with the support of a masterful coach she stepped forward to work through it. Coincidentally, a new career opportunity emerged for Bernadette at this time—an opportunity that would involve difficult changes for her. Furthermore, up to this point in her career, Bernadette had made decisions based on meeting survival needs rather than on aspiration or intention. Considering this job opportunity through a holistic and developmental lens represented a paradigm shift for Bernadette.

Working through the process with Jan allowed her to become aware of, and eliminate, an unhealthy decision-making pattern. She was able to then move beyond the personal tragedies that had originally caused the need for the pattern. She was also able to reframe her early experiences and claim them as an essential part of her package of adult strengths. This was the essence of her personal transformation. We know from working with negative shadow that complete resolution requires bringing shadow elements to the surface where they can be examined and fully integrated into the person’s core sense of self. Thus, what was formerly dark and painful was illuminated and made a part of Bernadette’s fully expressed, whole self. When this transformation occurs, and the individual is no longer at the effect of unintegrated shadow elements, conscious choice is possible. In this way, Bernadette’s transformation mirrors the mythical hero’s journey depicted in the work of Joseph Campell (1973).

Discussion

It seems to be no mere coincidence that Jan’s grounded theory on how humility is enacted in organizational leaders is that they make it safe for followers to risk, learn and perform. Jan and Bernadette each brought their vulnerability, their enthusiasm, and their willingness to share with each other in a remarkable mutually transformational learning process. The phenomenon Jan and Bernadette experienced in the above case embodies two theoretical areas: co-mentoring and transformative learning. The participants did not realize what they had experienced until shortly after each had achieved her breakthrough. It was on reflection that they understood what had happened and determined that it might be of value and reproducible.

While the literature offers rich descriptions of traditional mentoring models and is ambitious in promoting new mentoring models that address today’s organizational and adult learning realities, discussion of peer mentoring relationships that create transformational impact is notably absent. It is this emergent model the authors of this paper wish to illuminate. The model is applicable to mentoring across any organizational, adult learning or personal domain.

Characteristics and Process of Transformational Co-Mentoring

There are several characteristics of transformational co-mentoring that are not typically shared by other models of mentoring and serve as a checklist for those who wish to implement the key principles. First, the model’s grounding principle is that masterful mentors are themselves masterful learners. Thus, the model is egalitarian and collaborative with the goal of creating synergistic learning within the relationship. For our purposes, co-mentoring is being considered synonymous with peer mentoring. This is because the participants in a co-mentoring relationship are in actuality peers irrespective of their differences in age, professional roles or experience.

Second, the model assumes that the co-mentoring partners bring important, substantive goals to the process, and by virtue of this, they are to some extent disoriented and vulnerable in their not knowing. Moreover, there may be palpable feelings of dis-ease. This dis-ease is the catalyst for the transformational process. The catalyst is an essential element because the source of the dis-ease is often a shadow element rooted in denial and avoidance. It represents a state of pre-contemplation for making an important shift. This mutual state of not knowing conveys personal humility and creates a powerful interdependence in the mentoring partnership. Moreover, because the process is learning-centered as opposed to instructor-centered, content-centered or learner-centered, there is an expectation that learning will occur within the relationship that includes but also moves beyond the subject matter expertise brought by each participant.

Third, each co-mentoring participant brings an openness to learning as well as a commitment to support the other’s learning. This dynamic is fundamental to the psychological safety of the relationship that promotes risk-taking, learning, and performing, and it is a primary way that humility is enacted. Table 1 compares the attributes of TCM with the three other types of mentoring described in the literature: traditional, peer mentoring (also known as co-mentoring), and transformational mentoring.

Table 1: Comparison of Transformational Co-Mentoring with other Mentoring Approaches

Approach	Objective	Center/Focus	Direction	Power
Traditional Mentoring	Teaching of mentee by mentor	Content-driven	Mentor-directed	Resides with mentor
Peer Mentoring (Co-Mentoring)	Mutual advice and guidance giving and receiving	Learner-driven, with both participants receiving benefits	Mentor or self-directed	Egalitarian, shared power
Transformational Mentoring	Transformation of mentee	Learner-centered	Facilitated/ self-directed	Power resides with the learner
Transformational Co-Mentoring	Transformation of both participants, co-creation of knowledge	Learning-centered	Mutually facilitated self-directed	Synergistic/ Shared power, co-creation of knowledge

Future Research and Directions

Based on the literature review conducted for this project as well as the professional experience of the authors, transformational co-mentoring (TCM) appears to be a new model. The authors offer TCM as a subset and intersection between the conceptual domains of mentoring and transformative learning. As a newly proposed model, significant investigation is required, first to determine the veracity of the model itself through theoretical research. We encourage researchers to identify similar cases as that described in this paper and conduct a grounded theory study. Once a theory that explains the TCM phenomenon is established, descriptive studies will be needed to determine the situational variables associated with optimal outcomes of TCM. The final stage of research will then be comparative effectiveness, to determine how TCM compares to other solutions. The authors propose that TCM provides a means for achieving masterful mentoring. We invite interested individuals to collaborate or communicate with us regarding any of the above.

 

 

REFERENCES

Campbell, J. (1973). The hero with a thousand faces: The Bollingen series XVII. Princeton University Press.

Gehrke, N. (1988, Summer). Toward a Definition of Mentoring. Theory Into Practice, 27(3):190.

Gruesbeck, S. C., Throson-Barnett, S., Fillippino, T., McMurty, Z. & Biscoe, J. D. (2011, October). Transformational co-mentoring of two Latinas: Social and ethnic identity as a form of empowerment. [Abstract of paper presented at UNM 2011 Mentoring Conference]. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Haggard, D.L., Dougherty, T.W., Turban, D.B., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2011). Who is a mentor? A review of evolving definitions and implications for research. Journal of Management, 37(1):280-304. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310386227

Hansman, C. A. (2002). Diversity and power in mentoring relationships. In C.A. Hansman (ed). Critical Perspectives on Mentoring: Trends and Issues. ERIC. ED-465-045.

Howlett, B. (2009) Transformative development of healthcare faculty in online learning: A grounded theory. [Dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Dissertations & Theses: A&I. (Publication No. AAT 3360839).

Mezirow, J. D. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mott, V. (2002). Emerging perspectives on mentoring: Fostering adult learning and development. In C.A. Hansman (ed). Critical Perspectives on Mentoring: Trends and Issues. ERIC. ED-465-045.

National Mentoring Working Group. (2009). Elements of effective practice for mentoring. [Online publication]. Retrieved from www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_1222.pdf

Noonan, M. J., Ballinger, R., Black, R. (2007). Peer and faculty mentoring in doctoral education: Definitions, experiences, and expectations. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(3):251-262.

Rymer, J. (2002). “Only Connect”: Transforming ourselves and our discipline through co-mentoring. Journal of Business Communication, 39(3):342-363.

USC. Center for Excellence in Teaching (2003). Faculty mentoring paper summary. [Online publication]. Retrieved from http://cet.usc.edu/resources/teaching_learning/docs/facultypaper.pdf

Varney, J. (2009, Spring). Humanistic mentoring: Nurturing the person within. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 45(3):127-131.