An evaluation of factors leading to mentor satisfaction with the mentoring relationship

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.025Get rights and content

Abstract

This study assessed factors related to mentor satisfaction. Eighty-one youth mentors were surveyed to evaluate the effect of training, agency support, and confidence on mentor satisfaction. Linear regressions showed that greater perceived training and confidence significantly predicted greater mentor satisfaction within the mentoring relationship, and agency support marginally supported this relationship. These findings show the need for agencies to provide initial training, ongoing support, and to ensure their mentors are confident in their abilities as a mentor to guarantee that their mentors are satisfied in their relationships, perhaps making them more likely to continue mentoring. Participant comments provide support for specific suggestions for mentoring programs.

Highlights

►Good initial training increases mentor satisfaction. ►Confidence in mentoring ability is associated with mentor satisfaction. ►Mentors say scheduling, finances, communication and parents interfere with mentoring. ►Agencies might improve mentor satisfaction with training and support in these areas.

Introduction

The benefits of mentoring have been well documented in the literature. Rhodes (2002) states that mentors can influence their mentees by improving social skills, cognitive skills, and emotional well-being and can give the mentee positive attention as well serving as a role model. Mentoring can be beneficial at many points in a person's life. The mentoring literature is divided into three categories: youth mentoring, academic mentoring, and workplace mentoring (Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008). As each of these categories has their own intricacies, this paper will focus on youth mentoring.

Youth mentoring are relationships between older mentors who provide support, encouragement, and care to younger mentees (Eby, Rhodes, & Allen, 2007). The purpose of these relationships is to provide support to youth who may be lacking positive adult relationships in their lives. One paradigm of mentoring states that the role of mentors is to model good behavior and be a source of information and guidance to their youth mentees (Keller, 2007). Another model states that mentors are caring non-parental adults who foster positive development in youth through the formation of meaningful relationships (Rhodes, 2005). In school-based mentoring, community volunteers meet individually with youth at school to provide at-risk students with friendship, support, motivation, and a positive role model (Herrera et al., 2007). While such relationships may form spontaneously at school or within the community, much of the focus of current investigation is the matching of youth and adult mentors through formalized programs, as naturally forming mentoring relationships are more difficult to monitor and researchers are unable to collect baseline data prior to the start of the relationship (Keller, 2007).

Formal youth mentoring programs are managed by an outside source, such as a community supported program or school-based program. The supporting institution is responsible for matching youth and mentors, providing training and support to the mentors, and monitoring the matched pairs. The level of support and training can vary from program to program, even though these are factors that lead to successful relationships between mentor and mentee (Miller, 2007).

Structured programs with established guidelines often result in better outcomes for the youth. Outcomes from mentoring relationships are more beneficial when mentors have ongoing support available from the matching agency, ongoing mentor training, and a specified amount of contact frequencies (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002). A meta-analysis of evaluations of mentoring programs found that, in general, mentored youth make gains in academic, behavior, and socio-emotional functioning while non-mentored youth deteriorate in these areas. These benefits are seen not only in one-on-one adult mentoring, but also in older peer mentoring and group mentoring (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011). Rhodes, Grossman, and Roffman (2002) found that mentoring programs without training and periodic supervision achieve modest effects at best, and could negatively impact the mentee at worst.

Mentoring is currently receiving increased attention in the media; however, there is limited peer-reviewed research on the topic (DuBois et al., 2011, Rhodes, 2002). Eby et al. (2008) caution policy makers not to overestimate the benefits of mentoring, as there are many factors that go into a beneficial mentoring relationship, which, if not met, can lead to negative outcomes. Additionally, research on mentoring has demonstrated variability in outcomes and generally meager improvements (DuBois et al., 2011).

Mentoring seems to provide benefits to both the mentor and mentee; however, this may be based on speculation rather than fact (Rhodes, 2002). While improvements in cognitive skills, social skills, and self-worth, and decreases in misbehavior can be seen, the effects of a mentoring relationship can actually harm a mentee's self-worth (De Wit et al., 2007, Rhodes, 2002). This is especially true when the relationship lasts less than six months, as the benefits of a mentoring relationship appear to accumulate over time (Grossman and Rhodes, 2002, Rhodes, 2002, Rhodes et al., 2002) and a shorter relationship may feel like rejection to at-risk youth. Miller (2007) states that a minimum commitment of six months should be made, although 12 months is optimal for positive mentoring outcomes. Additionally, matching youth with a new mentor after the first mentor has ended the relationship has been shown to have negative academic outcomes even when the youth receives six months of mentoring (Grossman, Chan, Schwartz, & Rhodes, 2011).

DuBois and Neville (1997) found that mentors who reported spending more time with their mentee felt more emotionally close and reported better relationship outcomes. De Wit et al. (2007) found, in an evaluation of the United States' largest mentoring program, the Big Brother/Big Sister program, that youth did not significantly improve in areas such as substance use, conduct, aggression, and misbehavior at school in the short term. They hypothesized that this comes with time and that the most important thing a mentor can do is model a stable long-term healthy relationship to the youth.

The Brother Sister program is managed by The Y of Mankato, Minnesota (a small metropolitan area) with support of the United Way (and not part of the Big Brother/Big Sister Program). The program is currently comprised of about 145 adult mentors and 170 mentees. The program suggests that mentors spend two to three hours a week with their mentee. As there are a greater numbers of mentees, some mentors spend time with more than one youth, or spend time at weekly events for unmatched youth. Though the program requires mentors to make at least a nine month commitment to the program, identifying factors to ensure longer-term commitment to the program, such as mentor satisfaction, is important (Ojanpa, 2010). While the link between satisfaction and retention needs to be further explored, research does support this relationship (DuBois et al., 2002, Herrera et al., 2000, Stukas and Tanti, 2005).

There is, therefore, the need to evaluate the factors that lead to mentor retention and satisfaction within the literature. Deutsch and Spencer (2009) state that evaluations of the mentoring process need to occur on two distinct aspects: the mentoring relationship itself and the mentoring program. While there is much literature on the effects of mentoring relationships on the mentees, there has been minimal focus on the mentors themselves and how the mentoring program can best benefit them.

Miller (2007) states that effective training procedures are a best practice principle for effective mentoring programs. Parra, DuBois, Neville, Pugh-Lilly, and Povinelli (2002) noted that even a minimal amount of training led to better relationship outcomes. The authors stated that training lead to greater mentor efficacy, which lead to greater amounts of contact between mentor and mentee, greater involvement in program-relevant activities, and a decrease in relationship obstacles. Furthermore, group training has been found to be associated with a match continuing into a second year, and individual pre- and post-match training were associated with mentor-reported closeness in the mentoring relationship and the matching continuing into a second year (Herrera et al., 2007).

Mentors develop their ideas and expectations of the mentoring process, which are later related to successful mentoring outcomes and greater relationship length, during the training period (Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring, 2009). It is through training that mentors learn about their target group and become familiar with the procedures of the matching agency. Mentor familiarity with the matching agency allows them to approach agency staff for future support if problems with the match arise (Miller, 2007).

Weinberger (2005) suggests that training should begin before the mentor is matched with the mentee to discuss general program policies, before getting into specifics. This ensures that the mentors are familiar with all policies and are comfortable with the program itself before meeting with their mentee. Other topics such as confidentiality, suspected abuse, boundaries between mentor and mentee, and gift giving should also be addressed.

Training should not end when the mentor is matched. Research has shown that ongoing training is linked to positive outcomes for the youth mentees (DuBois et al., 2002). Stukas and Tanti (2005) state that training that focuses on the actual mentoring experience and that is ongoing is an important factor in mentor retention. Herrera et al. (2000) found that mentors build the most close and supportive relationships with their mentees if they receive more than six hours of training. They also found that mentors who receive two hours of training or less form the least close relationships with their mentees.

Matching agencies that are responsive to the ongoing needs of their mentors are more likely to have higher mentor retention and satisfaction (Stukas & Tanti, 2005). Mentors in these programs also report longer relationships with their mentee. This support can come not only from the matching agency, but also through support groups of mentors. These groups can serve as a social network of mentors to discuss issues, goals, and clarify expectations. Support and helpfulness of mentoring program staff were associated with mentor report of closeness in the mentoring relationship and continuation of the mentoring relationship into a second year of a school-based mentoring program. Similarly, helpfulness of and frequency of communication with school staff was associated with mentor-reported relationship closeness (Herrera et al., 2007).

Deutsch and Spencer (2009) state that follow up from the matching agency is imperative to positive outcomes. They state that regular follow up and support can help guide mentors who are struggling in their relationship and small problems can be kept from becoming larger problems that may lead to the end of a relationship. Spencer (2007) cautioned that agency support needs to happen in moderation; too little or too much involvement can lead to detrimental effects on the mentoring relationship. Too little involvement can leave the mentor unable to resolve relationship conflicts, and could ultimately lead to the end of a relationship. However, too much support could lead to the pair being smothered and a lack of direct communication between mentor and mentee. This delicate balance of support is especially important in the beginning of a match when mentor and mentee are familiarizing themselves with one another (Miller, 2007).

Weinberger (2005) also stresses the importance of ongoing support from the matching agency as it is critical to the success of the mentoring relationship. The author suggests that maintaining close contact with the pair during the first two weeks of a match is important, and then monthly contact is sufficient. Herrera et al. (2000) state that matching agencies should have at least monthly contact with their mentors to ensure that mentors form close and supportive relationships with their mentees. The authors found that mentors who receive more support from the matching agency spend more time per month with their mentee, therefore building closer and more satisfying relationships.

Stukas and Tanti (2005) hypothesize that ongoing support for the matching agency allows mentors to continue to build skills needed to have a close relationship with their mentees, ending in greater mentor satisfaction. This ongoing support also allows the agency to monitor any goals the mentors have identified and assist them in reaching those goals; thus, leading to mentors who are more satisfied in their relationships (Snyder, Clary, & Stukas, 2000).

Rice and Brown (1990) recognized the importance of confidence in one's mentoring abilities. Bandura (1980) defined self-efficacy as the judged ability one has to complete a given task. He found that people will not do well on tasks they believe surpass their level of competence. Conversely, he found that people will spend more time and energy on those tasks that they feel confident completing.

Mentors who had higher self-reported efficacy ratings spent more time with their mentee (Parra et al., 2002) and reported having closer and better relationships with their mentees (Herrera et al., 2007, Parra et al., 2002). Confidence can be built through initial or ongoing training for those mentors who may initially state a low level of confidence in their abilities to become a youth mentor (Herrera et al., 2007, Parra et al., 2002). Confidence in the mentoring relationship can lead to increased time spent with a mentee and, therefore, more satisfaction with the relationship.

Karcher, Nakkula, and Harris (2005) found that a mentor's perceived self-efficacy and motivation are extremely important variables, especially in the beginning of a match. They found that self-efficacy and motivation mediated the relationship between risk status and favorable mentoring outcomes. They stated that mentors with higher self-efficacy at the beginning of the match were better at making their mentee feel supported and important throughout the relationship.

Based on past research indicating a link between training, support, and confidence and mentor satisfaction, the hypotheses of this study are threefold. First, mentors who perceive higher quality of training from the Brother Sister program will be more satisfied with their relationship with their mentee. Second, higher perceived support from the Brother Sister staff will lead to greater mentor satisfaction. Third, mentors who feel more confident in their mentoring abilities will feel greater satisfaction overall with their relationship with their mentee.

Section snippets

Participants

Eighty-one mentors participated in the study. The ethnic composition of the sample was 90.1% non-Latino Caucasian, 1.2% multi-racial, 2.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2.5% African American, and 1.2% American Indian. Census data from the US Census Bureau for the Mankato, Minnesota area served as a comparison point (Census Bureau, 2009). Chi squared analysis showed the sample was representative of the ethnic composition of the population from which it was drawn, χ2 (4) = 4.75, ns. The average age of

Results

Linear regression was used to see the effect of training, support, and confidence on mentor satisfaction (see Table 1). The assumption of normality was not met with data based on results of a Shapiro Wilk test, and all data is negatively skewed (indicative of positive ratings of training, support, confidence, and satisfaction), suggesting the results be interpreted with caution. For the quality of training a mentor received, we found that our model was significant, F(1, 72) = 5.10, p < .05,

Discussion

The results indicate that training and confidence are associated with higher levels of mentor satisfaction with the mentoring relationship. These results are consistent with past research, which found that these variables are important when predicting mentor satisfaction.

The support of our hypotheses shows the importance of training and confidence to create mentor satisfaction and beneficial mentoring outcomes. Mentoring agencies should be aware of these findings and ensure that all mentors are

References (34)

  • Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring

    Report of MεNTΩR and the MetLife Foundation

  • W. Furman et al.

    Children's perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks

    Developmental Psychology

    (1985)
  • W. Furman et al.

    Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships

    Child Development

    (1992)
  • W. Furman et al.

    The Network of Relationships Inventory: Behavioral systems version

    International Journal of Behavioral Development

    (2009)
  • L. Goldner et al.

    The quality of mentoring relationships and mentoring success

    Journal of Youth and Adolescence

    (2009)
  • J.B. Grossman

    Evaluating mentoring programs

  • J.B. Grossman et al.

    The test of time in school-based mentoring: The role of relationship duration and re-matching on academic outcomes

    American Journal of Community Psychology

    (2011)
  • Cited by (28)

    • Intercultural mentoring among university students: The importance of meaningful communication

      2022, International Journal of Intercultural Relations
      Citation Excerpt :

      These students face barriers in achieving a sense of belonging due to cultural differences, different social norms, and possible language barriers (Rivas et al., 2019, as cited in Caligiuri et al., 2020). To meet the needs of these learners, one way is through third party intervention, which could be part of a structured or informal mentoring programme (Kalbfeish, 2002; Martin & Sifers, 2012; Li et al., 2018). This could be beneficial to international students as Furnham and Bochner (1982) explained: ‘If sojourners are carefully introduced into a new society by close, sympathetic host-culture friends, the evidence indicates that they may encounter fewer problems than if they are left to fend for themselves’ (p. 171).

    • Relational dynamics in formal youth mentoring programmes: A longitudinal investigation into the association between relationship satisfaction and youth outcomes

      2019, Children and Youth Services Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      By assessing the link between youth-mentor match satisfaction and youth developmental outcomes this research provides several benefits for both research and practice in the youth mentoring area. For example, although other research has examined the role that mentor or youth match satisfaction/perceived relationship quality may play in impacting programme outcomes, relatively little research has examined how both youth and mentor match satisfaction may impact community based mentoring programmes, such as BBBS, over time (see Martin & Sifers, 2012; Rhodes et al., 2017). Notably, findings from the current research also indicated that youth and mentor perspectives appear to be associated with different developmental outcomes.

    • Initial motives and organizational context enabling female mentors’ engagement in formal mentoring – A qualitative study from the mentors’ perspective

      2016, Children and Youth Services Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      The engagement needs to be limited to one relationship at a time, and limits can also be placed on contact between mentor and protégé outside the regular meetings. Lack of time is one common barrier to having a good relationship with one's protégé (Martin & Sifers, 2012). In the organization studied here, mentors are aware of the one-year commitment and no contact is allowed in the dyad outside the meetings which take place every second week.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text