Defining Mentorship

What is a mentor? Webster’s dictionary defines the term as a trusted friend or counselor. The archetype of the Greek mentor was a friend of the Greek king, Odysseus, who entrusted the education of his son, Telemachus, to this individual. Some people even confuse the term “mentor” with the mythical half-man, half-bull Minotaur. However, as one studies the term as a phenomenon within the United States Army, a “mentor” and “mentorship” emerged as none of these, yet a combination of them all. A mentor is a friend, but he is also much more than this. While we should view the term “friendship” as a relationship which develops from a sharing of common experiences and stresses in the military environment, the mentorship relationship is stronger. The mentor and his associate (the individual receiving the mentoring) become comrades, much in the spirit of the German blutenbrudershaft or blood brotherhood. There is a bond formed between the two soldiers. The mentor cares for his associate and his professional and personal development.. A mentor is trusted. In the army of a democracy, trustworthiness and honesty must rank at the top of the ethical qualities sought by the organization, for not only the lives of soldiers are in the hands of the leaders; the life of the democracy is, itself, in their hands also. Soldiers look for such qualities as these in their leaders and their mentors because, as associates, they rely on their mentors for education and advice which affects them in far-reaching and significant ways. Additionally, there is a strong element of confidentiality in the relationship. Both the mentor and the associate must trust each other in the knowledge that what transpires in the relationship will be kept in confidence. A mentor is a counselor. The giving of guidance or the sharing of a problem with another individual are experiences that most of us share and hold important as part of our role as soldierAeader. In fact, this giving of guidance is an inherent duty. Indeed, some leaders are better counselors than other leaders. A few are mere plastic automatons who use mechanical tech- -.---- i LI niques and gimmicks learned from a best-selling paperback. Other leaders perceive themselves as psychologists and attempt to employ such exotic “weapons” as neuro-linguistic programming. Other soldiers in leadership positions, unfortunately, just don’t give a damn. Obviously, they should never become mentors, and probably won’t; more importantly, they should not be leaders. However, many of us truly do try to talk to, to help, to communicate concern for those soldiers who seek our counsel, or even those who do not. From this group of counselors can emerge the individuals who can become mentors. A mentor is a leader, but of a special type. Most of us have worked for, or with, that officer or noncommissioned officer who was certainly human in appearance, but whose aggressive style, word choice, and techniques left us looking for the bear, the lion that lived within him. Yet from this man or woman, we learned. We learned how to kill. We learned how to survive. We learned how to fix the unfixable. And some of us still learn from these leaders, because they become our mentors, and here is where leadership becomes mentorship. Mentorship is a specialized, advanced, sustaining, extra-legal form of leadership. Our learning from this mentor-soldier does not stop when we leave the unit; it 35 continues in the form of phone conversations, letters, even special study assignments from that mentor. The mentor may no longer be our legal, chain-of-command leader, but an educating part of that leadership continues to improve both our professional and personal lives. Within the 194th Armored Brigade at Fort Knox, Kentucky, groups of soldiers have met to d e fine “mentoryy and “mentorship.” No definition as simple as Mr. Webster’s emerged. In fact, the participants all saw the dictionary version as incomplete because it did not address the emotional relationship which exists between mentor and associate. The discussion groups did see that teaching and counseling were the major functions of mentorship; however, the actual development of the mentor-associate relationship had escaped definition. Those soldiers of the discussion group who knew they had a mentor believed that “something had ‘clicked’ between the mentor and the associate,” but they could not describe the process. Most soldiers of the discussion group indicated that the mentor usually initiated the relationship and drove the mentoring process. The associate usually realized after the process begun that the relationship had commenced; the associate almost always desired to continue that relationship. But the discussion groups could not come to a consen- c SUB as to what characteristics set the relationship into motion. While most of the group members described the initiation as a result of some vague “chemistry” between the mentor and the associate, no two formulas were alike. A significant element of most mentor-associate relationships is that most associates are mentored for a period of from several months to several years, often without their own knowledge. The “chemistry” is often more elusive; the process may ship can occur within the cha command; but it is very rare fa people (superior and subordi to be able to establish the sy relationship of trust requirc mentoring and not cross the li favoritism which would be mental to the organization. Within the last context comf idea that associates themselve begin initiation of a mento process. Although most soldic the discussion group who pa pated in a mentoring process cated that they were “selec they thought that looking mentor makes good sense. young officer or NCO encounl myriad of questions and seem unsolvable problems when 1 she enters the service or pir corporal’s stripes. Regardle where one was schooled in pre tion for the Army, to try to ‘ alone” is courageously dum‘ admit ignorance within one’s unit is seldom done, particu when one considers the Vi taught in our basically ‘‘mz American society. Sorrowful some of our own units, admiss ignorance is not even tolerate! can even be seen as a sign of I ness. The major who moves several years in a MACOM back to the field may find hi. or herself in the same situatii “Sorrowfully, in some of our own units, admi sion of ignorance is not even tolerated, ai can even be seen as a sign of weakness.“ seem more of a “monitoring” than a mentoring, but the bottom line was that the mentor had chosen the associate, for whatever reason, as a soldier who was deserving of special attention or grooming. This situation should in no way be confused with a “good old boy” network, a form of favoritism which lacks the comradeship and the objectivity of the mentoring process. For this reason, most group members believed that the mentoring process usually occurred outside of the rating chain, although it may have had its roots in a past chain-of-command relationship. We must understand, however, that mentor-the young lieutenant or corpoi the same way, the Sergeant Class wardmaster who mov the combat support hospital seven years in a MEDDAC also be filled with feelings of curity and doubt. All of thes diers in this sort of situation o doubt and intolerance or fe embarrassment may be helpec outside of the chain-of-commr Somewhere in their new mil environment, they will meet a ficer or NCO who can help. chemistry develops. It may be softball game or at the club, bu phenomenon occurs. The gote associate asks a question an 36 ceives an answer. He gains insight. The secrets known only to someone who “has been there” pass to the associate. In time, more information passes. The bond grows. The associate learns without fear of embarrassment and becomes a better leader for the Army. If one believes that mentoring is simply leadership, look again. The discussion groups discovered some key differences which may help hone the definition of mentor. These differences are listed in Figure 1. One of the important roles of leadership is teaching. There is a common misperception, however, that mentoring is just teaching, and hence, all leaders are mentors. A platoon sergeant teaching his lieutenant “the ropes,” or a battalion commander explaining to a company commander what could have been done better at the National Training Center, is certainly teaching. But is it mentoring? No! What these two examples illustrate is what leaders are supposed to do. The mission demands teaching. The safety and well-being of soldiers demand teaching. It is a requirement of leaders. Mentoring is different. The difference between mentoring and teaching as a leader is one of focus. The mentor reinforces the teaching of trainers like the platoon sergeant and battalion commander. The mentor also goes beyond the trainer’s teaching in terms of: Frank, bloodless, and unmen-acing criticism, working toward along-term change in the associate, a term far beyond that of the legal time limits of chain-of-command situations. 0 Greater emphasis on the reasons for actions or reactions. 0 More focus on the future and the professional development steps to get there. Greater complexity and tailoring to the associate as an individual’s situation rather than to the leader’s “realm of the possible.” As a result of this focus, a mentor often cannot meet the needs of several people; he or she must restrict the number of associates he deals with in order to permit that focus which differentiates good leadership from good mentorship. Not only is there a difference in focus; Key Differences - Leaders and Mentors Leader

1. Owes equal attention to all subor-

2. Often, if not always, is in the dinates. associate’s chain of command.

3. Style and methods are fairly well-established and addressed in doctrinal literature.

4. Acting as a leader is a requirement for all persons in leader ship positions.

5. Time-related due to chain of command dependency.

6. Has a legal base in UCMJ, MTOEs, oath of commission, Consititution, etc. Mentor

1. Devotes extra time to a single individual, yet is not bound to do so.

2. Very seldom in the associate’s chain of command, to preclude favoritism in duty performance.

3. Strength of style and methods rest in an idiosyncratic approach. Little or no doctrinal background or resource material.

4. Strictly voluntary.

5. Time independent; can last until death of either associate or mentor.

6. Authority base is personal consent. Figure 1. there is also a difference in depth of the goal. While both good leadership and good mentorship must be based upon ethics and commitments, the depth of the goal for leadership and mentorship is different. The essence of military mentorship is that what the mentor does for the associate is to improve the force in the mission that takes place, both within the mentor and the associate, as they visualize what is evolving and this, in fact, stirs the “chemistry” even more. At this stage, both the mentor and the associate realize that their relationship has a goal even deeper and certainly much more important than the professional and personal improvement “The mentors, or potential mentors, are a select group because all soldiers are not capable of becoming mentors... I. long term. There is deep ethical and professional commitment made by both the mentor and the associate that what happens during their relationship will result in the improvement not just of the associate, but of the military institution. Good leadership - while it, too, may lead to that - is usually more concerned with immediate goals such as success of the unit. As the ethical and professional commitment of the mentor and associate grows, so does this “chemistry” between them until their relationship becomes secondary to the commitment to the Nation, the Army, the unit, and the soldiers. There is an intertwining of self and and development of the associate: their relationship serves to develop and improve the Army and, hence, the Nation. The mentors, or potential mentors, are a select group because all soldiers are not capable of becoming mentors. Some soldiers do not have the nearly consuming love of service required. Some soldiers are so self-centered that any help offered would be only for their personal gratification or self-advancement, a smokescreen that the associate would soon penetrate. Other soldiers suffer from self-image problems: they see themselves incapable of offering benefits to others. Some soldiers are simply poor coun- 37 selors or teachers and lack the interpersonal skills so necessary for successful interaction with other soldiers. This leaves those soldiers who have the ability, the knowledge, and the inclination to help others: the potential mentors. The associate, or potential associate, also comes from a select group. All enlisted soldiers, NCOs, and officers in the Army are guided and taught through the normal leadership channels within their chain-of-command. They are privy to classes, formal and informal counseling, and schools to help them do their jobs well. However, there are among these men and women select individuals whose attitudes, intelligence, savvy, and other attributes are so special that their potential to contribute to the ”Not everyone can become a mentor, nor can everyone become an associate.... I Army makes them deserving of special grooming. This is not an elitist approach. This grooming is not to further their careers. Rather, this process is to ensure that their potential is realized and beneficially used at all levels within the Army to make the Army better, more effective, more combat ready. It is from this group that associates come. While some realize their potential and seek out a mentor, many potential associates do not. The mentor must draw them out. Not everyone can become a mentor, nor can everyone become an associate. In fact, not everyone needs to be an associate. But it is precisely because there are certain types of people who can more easily become mentors and because men- i Ir toring involves deeper goals, is in a different relationship and setting, requires more focused techniques, and is of greater complexity that mentorship is not simply leadership. These characteristics also point to the fact that if mentorship were made into a formalized “program” for each unit, and required much as a good safety program is required, mentorship would fail. It is too idiosyncratic in its approach and far too select in its applicability. It-is, however, an activity of leadership and an activity of such high value and of such great, but long-term result to both the Army and the Nation, that its existence within the Army should be publicized, encouraged, and to the extent possible, taught. What, then, is military mentoring? Army mentorship is more than Webster’s trusted friend or counselor. It is more than the education of a king’s son. It is certainly more than simply leadership. Army mentorship is a service performed in an atmosphere of mutual trust, professional respect, andeom-radeship in which selected senior soldiers share experiences, knowledge, and challenges with selected junior soldiers, with the goal of improving the Army through increased individual maturity, higher and deeper levels of knowledge, and the full achievement of potential.

TERSON, Medical Service Corps, is currently XO of 42d Field Hospital, 194thArmored Brigade, Ft. Knox, KY. He is a graduate of Clemson University and received his masters degree at Pepperdine University and later graduated from the Army Command and General Staff College, Ft. Leavenworth, KS. He has held numerous command and staff positions in CONUS, Korea and Germany from 1970 to 1977 and from 1977 to 1980 was Chief, General Military Subjects and Leadership Branch, Basic Division, U. S. Army Signal School. From 1980 to 1983 he served as organizational effectiveness officer, Mad-igan Army Medical Center and then assumed his present duties at Ft. Knox. 38