Formal versus informal programs

Fuentes et al. (2014) state that informal mentoring programs are better than formal programs for school administrators. These scholars define formal mentoring as part of the classes for principals. Informal mentoring is defined as receiving mentoring outside the classroom or place of employment. A review of the benefits of formal mentoring is followed by a review of informal programs.

Formal mentoring is composed of supervisors or people with authority within a school or an organization (Reyes, 2003). Formal mentoring provides structure and boundaries for mentoring pairs. Informal programs are impromptu, based on an individual’s needs and immediate concerns outside any formal matching program or curriculum. “Mentees prefer formal support for mentoring that is informal in nature so they can choose how best to develop their relationships and address their individual needs” (Hopkins & Grigoriu, 2005, p. 42). Formal programs give space for shared

meaning and agreement on the outcomes of the relationship within a timeframe (Raabe & Beehr, 2003).

Formal relationships address professional growth, while informal mentoring lends itself well for work–life discussions (Sanfey et al., 2013). An informal mentor is

interested in the growth of the mentee, responds as a friend, and can show the ropes of being an administrator but does not have technical knowledge of hiring policies,

Page 59 budgeting, writing curriculum, and other school-specific necessities (Reyes, 2003).

Informal mentoring structures can boost income, promotions, and career development (Sanfey et al., 2013). Having an increased degree of accountability provided by the mentor should be part of any informal program (Hopkins & Grigoriu, 2005).

Reyes’ study (2003) recognizes that informal mentors can also be sponsors for applying formal learning application processes such as credentials. Reyes’ study (2003) shows also that mentoring helped new principals find positions. Fifty-two percent were placed in assistant principal positions or central office positions after receiving their master’s degree and completing other requirements such as certification and examination. Twenty-four percent of the graduates who were placed successfully had informal

mentors. Networking was critical for the new principals’ mentoring relationships. The principal gained a resource for the future and learned more about who to contact for what. Those who did not find good mentors who were already principals or had experience as mentors were unable to obtain the roles they desired. For example, one identified a teacher as a mentor and held a quasi-administrative position (Reyes, 2003). Informal mentoring requires initiative on behalf of the mentee since few institutions have formal mentoring programs (Cunningham, 1999). Other research supports informal mentoring as more effective than formal, but formal mentoring is better than no mentoring at all

(Young et al., 2006).

Ragins (1997) suggests that since formal programs with assigned pairs seem to be less effective, organizations should create a pool of mentors and a pool of mentees. The organization’s role in this hybrid model is to introduce mentors and mentees to each other in group settings, provide training with an emphasis on diversity, and create informal

Page 60 opportunities for mentoring to occur. The mentor role allows for further growth in not only technical abilities, but also career development (Reyes, 2003). The best mentoring relationship is a combination of informal and formal—meaning that the supervisor is holistically developing the aspiring principal (Reyes, 2003). It is possible to have more than one mentor in either formal or informal programs (Sanfey et al., 2013). Mentors suggested that situations (like faculty orientation) be created to encourage new faculty to look for and approach a mentor (Jackevicius et al., 2014).

Others define mentoring relationships in more specific terms. Ehrich (1995) agreed that mentoring can give a step up for those seeking to serve through education administration. Haven taken place in Australia, Ehrich’s study (1995) defines mentoring through three types: traditional, institutionalized, and professional. Traditional mentors are those who assist mentees in advancing in their journeys. In the past, this self-selected method provided a high number of male mentors and mentees. To combat this, Ehrich (1995) noticed two more types of mentoring: A professional mentor is one who is a mentor through policy enforcement, and institutionalized mentors are those who are mentoring through a formal program instilled as part of bringing an inexperienced staff member on board (Ehrich, 1995).

Mentoring happens between students and faculty, but seems to not occur unless formalized among staff (Cunningham, 1999). A college of pharmacy at Western University of Health Sciences formalized a mentorship program between 51 mentor– protégé pairs between 2009 and 2012 (Jackevicius et al., 2014). About 70 percent were happy with the formal program overall (Jackevicius et al., 2014). The most difficult struggle reported was time management by the protégés, prioritization, and work–life

Page 61 balance (Gilley et al., 2015; Jackevicius et al., 2014). Ninety percent of the protégés said the mentors were effective in helping them become more successful. In fact, the peer- reviewed publications by junior faculty members were higher from those involved in the program. Mentoring seems to be helpful among staff, especially in formal programs (Cunningham, 1999).

Regarding gender, Giscombe (2007) reviewed 11 mentoring programs in the corporate arena and reviewed their characteristics to determine if the programs helped or hindered women in the workplace. She found that mentoring programs propelled women, but that informal programs seemed to be more helpful than formal programs. Focusing on corporate leadership and women who want to advance, Giscombe (2007) emphasized the need for tailored structure of the formal programs. Women increased leadership

behaviors and skills through a formal mentoring program (DeFrank-Cole et al., 2014).