RTS is a collection of specialist teams carrying out cutting-edge research and providing a technological consultancy service to Shell’s operating companies worldwide. Graduates joining RTS, called “first assignees”, enter an organisation that couldn’t get much flatter. It has two levels: the management committee and the teams. Responsibility for leadership, strategy, budgeting and so on is decided within the teams and may be handled on a rotating basis, which ensures that the first assignees will soon be handed important roles.
Most people at Shell change jobs every three to four years. Internal transfers are handled in much the same way as external recruitment. People apply for advertised jobs, are interviewed, may be offered a position and have the freedom to accept or reject the offer. The first four years are critical. To get a good job at the end of this period, first assignees must have something to “sell” to their employer. They need a combination of technical experience, interpersonal skills to work with others in a diverse cultural environment, and a sound understanding of the wider business. During this time they are treading a difficult line between getting the work done, which is what their teams require, and meeting their own development needs. Mentoring is therefore seen as a way of helping them to understand, manage and achieve both objectives.
With its own budget, organising committee and web site, the first assignees’ forum has become a focus for all graduate recruits and vacation students working at RTS. Their regular meetings with invited speakers are well supported and attended by people from outside the forum. The list of guest speakers includes the company chairman, representatives from Greenpeace and academics from a number of European universities. The forum has also been active in advertising the mentoring programme.
The senior management team has been supportive from the start, but they initially wanted to control the key process of finding mentors and matching them up with graduates. This proved to be a stumbling block in this self-directing organisation, and nothing happened for a number of months. The first assignees were suspicious about the motives behind the pairing process, but the senior team perceived a lack of interest on the part of first assignees and decided not to push matters. No one felt obliged to make the first move, which resulted in a classic stand-off.
A back-to-basics approach was therefore needed to break the deadlock. The mentoring programme was intended to help the first assignees manage their own development. Thus, if this was to be a proper relationship rather than a forced marriage, the first assignees should have been left to choose whether or not they wanted to develop, and whether or not they wanted a mentor. Similarly, the mentors should have been given the choice of whether or not they wanted to be mentors and of whom they wished to mentor.
The scheme and its supporting processes were therefore simplified to allow “natural selection” to take place. Mentors now nominate themselves, enter their CVs into a central database and await the call. The first assignees then sift through these documents and choose their likely partners, meeting them face to face before making a final selection. If someone has an excellent reputation as a mentor, they are encouraged to take on as many as – but no more than – three mentees.
Removing the controls eliminated suspicion and freed the pairs to develop a relationship of trust. Eighteen months on, all 130 first assignees are using mentors, and two who declined have subsequently joined in. There are now 70 mentors participating, and this number has been maintained despite job changes and downsizing over this period.
“Coming into RTS is very stimulating, but I have found it invaluable to be able to talk to someone who understood the rules of the game and could put my concerns and aspirations in context,” reports one graduate chemist after nine months on the programme.
An important later addition has been the appointment of a person to promote, monitor and generally support the day-to-day workings of the scheme. Ken Elvery, a retired Shell employee, started on a three-day-a-week basis for three months, and now works one day a week. His main tasks are to interview every first assignee as part of their induction and to ensure that they understand the scheme and the process of finding a mentor. He also acts as a recruiter and coach for mentors, initiates the training of new mentors and keeps records of all staff involved in the scheme.
An evaluation of the RTS mentoring scheme by two external observers took place in November 1998. One of these people was a manager from another Shell division; the other, Clare Eames, was the senior manager for training and development at Ingram Micro, a Belgian software company. She had volunteered for the task after hearing Tony Stott speaking about the programme at a conference in Amsterdam.
The evaluators reported that the first assignees’ ability to select their own mentors “was a key to the scheme’s success”. But they also acknowledged the importance of Elvery’s contribution in facilitating the programme and implementing improvements.
After a false start, the RTS mentoring scheme has proved successful, but can organisations in these times of lean staffing afford to dedicate someone to one part of their management development programme? Large mentoring schemes do need good administration at a basic level. You need to be able to respond effectively to statements such as: “My mentor is transferring to another location. Who else do you have?” If you can’t, confusion will reign and the queries and the complaints will start to flood in. Experience shows that good project management and a few basic systems can keep the time spent on administration to a minimum.
The five essential ingredients of a successful scheme are as follows.
A database
Allowing natural selection to dominate processes does not remove the need for a database. It provides a system of monitoring the flow of mentees and tracking the availability of mentors. It is necessary to know which mentors are available in order to match them with people joining the scheme, to replace mentors who move and to provide alternative partners where a relationship fails.
Administration need not be complicated. Elvery, for instance, keeps information on the names, locations and pairings of all the participants on a spreadsheet, and paper copies of mentors’ biographies are retained on file.
Mentor support
Mentors will be faced with situations that they are not equipped to handle. Their training should therefore include an exploration of the limits of both their role and their abilities. They are not counsellors, but they may need to know how to find one. Equally, they may need access to guidance on the company’s employment policies or an understanding of where to seek advice on outplacement support.
The support mechanism needs to exist before mentors have the chance to get into trouble. It does not have to be a full-time function and it may never be needed, but the fact that it exists often gives people the confidence to succeed without it.
Self-support can be powerful, and the enabling tools are often simple and cheap to establish. Clutterbuck Associates Mentoring Schemes recommends that mentors come together four to six months after the start of a programme to share experiences. RTS, for example, held a dinner for mentors and their spouses to recognise their contribution.
Training
Research has shown that relationships are three times more likely to succeed if both the mentor and mentee are trained. A key element is getting the timing of the training right. Our experience is that the right time (as long as there are enough people to make a session worthwhile) is shortly after the mentors have nominated themselves. Most of the input should be aimed at giving participants a sound understanding of the roles of mentors and others involved in the scheme. This process should help to manage the expectations of all involved.
British Aerospace recruits around 400 graduates a year, each of whom is mentored by one of the top 2,500 managers in the business. While the mentors receive initial instruction, BAe has used the three one-week training modules offered to graduates at regular intervals during their two-year induction to ensure that their level of awareness in this area is maintained. Mentoring is integrated into each module, the first of which introduces the concept, showing the graduates what they can expect from their mentors and underlining their responsibility for driving the relationship. The second reviews progress and relates mentoring to personal development, while the final module focuses on career management and the role mentoring could play in the future.
Resource materials
Under the RTS mentoring programme, Elvery briefs new mentors and mentees on a one-to-one basis, aided by a brief guidance booklet, Mentoring in RTS. This outlines the fundamentals of mentoring, explains why the organisation is adopting it, clearly defines the roles and helps to map out expectations.
The web sites for mentors and the parallel site for first assignees include a forum for the exchange of opinions and experiences. The first assignees’ forum provides a monthly meeting to air views and generally act as a “pressure group”. The sites are used, but they have not proved to be the prime means of information exchange.
Evaluation
RTS’s review process is seen as an essential check on the state of the scheme and a demonstration of the will to improve. This show of concern about how mentoring is working generates additional interest and support at all levels.
The evaluation method chosen was one-to-one interviews followed by focus groups comprising a cross-section of participants. The review took two days, including the production of a two-page summary of findings. The conclusion was: “Keep doing it. The basis is sound and mentoring is appreciated by all participants.”
Through this evaluation, RTS has shown that taking away bureaucratic control and giving ownership to the participants has created the environment for a thriving mentoring scheme. Yet underpinning this are simple, non-bureaucratic systems that have given people confidence in the process.
The costs of RTS’s mentoring programme include those of designing, “selling” and administrating the scheme; training all participants; evaluating the results; and rewarding the mentors’ efforts. But the benefits are that all parties learn from the experience; new recruits enjoy a quicker start; staff develop a wider view of the business; diversity is protected; professional standards are maintained; and best practice is communicated more effectively.
As companies come to rely more on mentoring to deliver their people policies and to market themselves as employers of choice, they will have to look closely at the long-term return from their investment. This is all part of the maturing of mentoring as a development tool. Supporting participants and managing schemes for lasting benefits will increasingly be a requirement, not an option.
