Mentor Matching Cycle
The SEED Engineering mentoring program 4-Site Term (for Bangalore, Beijing, Prague,
and St. Petersburg, running June – December 2007) is now 86% matched (44
mentoring pairs). Starting from the date the first email invitation went out to
a potential mentor, here is a comparison of the matching rate
during the first three weeks of this term and three earlier SEED terms:
| Term | Participants | Executive Mentors |
Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 |
| Jun-Dec 2007 4-Site |
51 participants 0% US-based |
22 (50%)* executives |
19 matched, 37% | 39 matched, 75% | 42 matched, 82% |
| Jan-Jun 2007 Established Staff |
49 participants 61% US-based |
36 (73%) executives |
26 matched, 53% | 37 matched, 76% | 37 matched, 76% |
| Sep 2006-Sep 2007 Recent Hire and Sep 2006-Mar 2007 Established Staff |
83 participants 40% US-based |
63 (77%) executives |
42 matched, 49% | 62 matched, 73% | 69 matched, 83% |
| 3 Term Average | 61 participants | 40 (68%)* executives |
29 matched, 48% | 46 matched, 75% | 49 matched, 81% |
* The 4-Site term is not completely matched, so this data
is preliminary.
US vs. Non-US Metrics
It is interesting that even though the 4-Site term is solely made up of
non-US-based participants, the matching rate during the first three weeks of the cycle was
essentially the same as for terms with mixed US-based and non-US-based Sun Engineering
staff. The 4-Site mentor group is different so far in this incompletely
matched term in that there are fewer executive (Director, Vice President, Fellow,
Distinguished Engineer) mentors and more Staff Engineers and Senior Staff Engineer
mentors accepting 4-Site term participants as mentees. (We will not know for
several weeks if this lower executive mentor percentage holds true.)
The lack of difference in mentor matching cycle time is consistent with the lack
of difference in participant satisfaction ratings between mentoring pairs working
in the same geographic area and those working at a distance.
Tanya Jankot just finished publishing her analysis of SEED’s April 2007
quarterly feedback reports. As in prior terms, analysis of the 33 recent reports does not
show significant difference in responses to “Q15: Overall Worth of Meetings with Mentor”
and “Q24: Overall Satisfaction with Program” between participants at a distance from
their mentor and those co-located with their mentor. As reported in SEED’s
“5 Years of Mentoring by the Numbers” (by Katy Dickinson, presented at the October
2006 Grace Hopper Celebration of Women and
Computing, 30 pages, PDF format):
- During the past four worldwide SEED Terms,
68% of the mentoring partnerships have been
at a distance. “At a distance” may mean on
opposite coasts of the USA, or it may mean in
different countries entirely. - Participants who are co-located with their
Mentor report that they meet for longer than
participants who are at a distance from their
mentor. While mentoring pairs who are at a distance
do report meeting slightly more often,
co-located partners appear to spend several
more hours together overall over the course of
their relationship. - Whether participants are co-located or at a distance
from their Mentor does not have any
impact on their reported satisfaction with the
SEED program.
This is interesting because one of the assumptions I often hear about mentoring
is that it works better if the mentor and mentee work in the same local area.
I have heard this assumption from both mentors and mentees within Sun and from
managers of mentoring programs outside of Sun. However, the metrics above
do not support that assumption. Mentors are just as quick to accept a potential mentee
regardless of relative location, and mentees (in our case, the SEED program
pariticipants who returned quarterly reports) say they are as satisfied with the
mentoring relationship whether their mentor is local or at a distance.
For more on the SEED Engineering mentoring program,
see <a href="
http://research.sun.com/SEED
KatysBlog 