How formal is ‘formal’ mentoring?

Although this study considers the mentoring in the CSLA as formal, in that it is employer -led and policy driven, the levels of formality in practice were explored. Responses to questions allowed a picture to emerge on how relationships worked; whether mentoring was enacted as a form of psychosocial support or as a more managed leadership development approach. In this study, the signal for formality was a mentor who led or managed the process through a planned and/or documented process. Responses to questions on agenda setting, action planning and recording the mentoring conversations are summarised in broad themes below. Analysis of responses from this theme of questioning offered polarised views on how mentoring is best implemented. The area where the strongest views emerged was whether there was a need for any written record of or from the mentoring process. Although a template record sheet and action plan were offered within the mentoring policy, it was not a mandatory part of the arrangements.

Around half of the mentoring dyads set an agenda, or plan for discussion, beforehand (Table D7). Agendas were considered to increase the formality of the relationship, whether this was seen as a positive or a negative element differed between respondents. The value of formality was reported as valued more commonly by mentors as the following quotation illustrates:

Yes, we kept notes and then from the notes we created a minute of the meeting, and from that we created a plan for the next meeting which was the agenda.

P HT MR The benefits of formality were reported less commonly from mentees, where for some, an agenda was perceived as a potential barrier to openness, what was described as conversational ‗flow‘ (P HT ME) or ‗free-flowing‘ discussion (S HT ME). As the following quotation indicates, some mentors reported that they responded to mentees‘ wishes to reduce the formality of the relationship:

I think by writing things down it was a bit intimidating to the mentee. We abandoned note taking after the mentee said she didn't think it was necessary.

P HT MR It was evident from responses that the formality of the relationships evolved, but on closer scrutiny, they grew in different directions. For this mentor, once the personal relationship was established, the increased formality arising from agenda setting became less daunting:

Once we got to know each other better, we then started to create agendas. It seemed too formal at first.

P DHT MR However for another mentor, the process began quite formally, but evolved to be more informal as the relationship built:

I probably felt it was going to be more informal than it turned out to be. Having said that, it did evolve into being more informal as we went on. We did start with quite a strict format.

P DHT MR Whether the function of mentoring had predominately a task or psychosocial emphasis differed between dyads, prompting strong views from respondents. The following two conversational approaches are examples of different process models for mentoring. The first quotation suggests a psychosocial emphasis on what was understood as the function for mentoring where the initial prompt for discussion creates an emotional reaction:

We tended to decide what to talk about at the meeting. She would say 'How are you' and then it all would tend to pour out from there.

P HT ME The alternative view suggests a more task centred emphasis on what was understood as the function of mentoring, as the following quotation shows:

We used a standard sort of agenda list that started by recapping what we talked about last time and any urgent or new stuff would come under 'matters arising'.

P DHT MR The data showed that both parties had a role in determining the focus for the conversation (Table D8). Depending upon who introduced the discussion topic this could be interpreted as reactive, where the mentee was facing a new and significant challenge and wanted to raise it with the mentor. Alternatively it could be proactive with the agenda reflecting the cyclical nature of the school year, previously highlighted as ‗the year of the firsts‘, as the mentor predicts key times within the school year or tasks within the quality assurance calendar where the mentee may need support. What emerged from the responses was that different arrangements evolved with differed relationships. There was a general consensus from mentors that mentoring a newly appointed school manager needed to be both a reactive and a proactive process in terms of responding to immediate concerns while also planning for the future as this quotation illustrates:

I think mentoring needs to be a mixture of 'What can I do about this incident?' and 'What am I intending to achieve next year?'

P HT MR Around half the mentoring dyads produced an action plan (or what was described as a development task or homework) (Table D9), a similar proportion to those who reported using a form of agenda. As was consistent in the differing views of the use of agendas, there were polarised views as to whether this was the function of mentoring as the following responses illustrate:

How often did I leave meetings with a task to do? Every bloody time! But it was what I needed.

P HT ME

That’s a difficult one, I didn’t see that leaving with tasks was the role of mentoring, I do that with my education officer, as part of a PRI - this was more like exploration.

S HT ME Some mentors suggested that notes might be important as an ongoing ‗aide memoir‘ to help the relationship progress, to remember to do what they had agreed, or if the mentor had a concern. As this mentor highlights, a written record may only be necessary in specific circumstances:

I think if it had been a really big issue we would have made some notes

P HT MR What this mentor means by the phrase ‗big issue‘ merits further exploration. It could mean that it is an area for significant development for the mentee, requiring support over an extended period of time and referring back to notes is helpful to reflect on progress. Or, that it is a big issue because of the potential consequence of the area under discussion. My experience of the mentoring programme leads me to infer that the

‗big issues‘ for new headteachers are challenging staffing issues. Notes on such issues may be helpful if there are a number of political actors in the situation, as an aide memoire, or created as a series of steps to follow for the mentee. However a record of mentoring may also be kept if the mentor had a concern over the actions or behaviour of the mentee. From this it could be inferred that a note of the meeting may be considered useful should the mentor be required to substantiate their actions or advice.

Should this inference be accurate, this is concerning, as it would suggest some disquiet over the accountability of the mentor.

In summary, mentors reported the benefits of signals of formality more than the novice headteachers and depute headteachers in this study. The need for a written record of the mentoring relationship prompted strong views from respondents, some agreeing it was a useful part of the learning and development process, while others felt such a model was inconsistent with the function of mentoring. A planned and documented process was reported in around half the dyads, and signals were more consistent within relationships where a more task orientated, learning and development emphasis was evident. Around half the dyads reported a more reactive model where there was a greater focus on the psychosocial functions of mentoring.