Category Archives: Mentoring & Other Business

Formal vs. Informal Mentoring

One of the common questions I am asked when speaking about the
SEED Engineering mentoring
program is about formal versus informal mentoring.
I have managed Sun Engineering’s worldwide mentoring program since
2001 for executive sponsor

Greg Papadopoulos
, Sun’s Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice
President of Research and Development.

In eight years, SEED has developed into a formal system with published processes,
metrics, and web tools. However, as in most companies, Sun staff also benefit
from many informal mentoring relationships. I estimate that there are
at least three times the number of untracked informal mentoring pairs as there
are pairs in Sun’s formal mentoring programs, of which SEED is only one.

Whether the mentee is a junior Engineer just out of the university looking
to learn basics from someone one or two grades above them, or an
already-accomplished technical star who wants to learn even more
working with a world-class master of their craft, mentoring is a key tool.
In as much as the experience, scope of understanding, and perspective
of the mentor informs, inspires, and strengthens the mentoring experience,
benefiting from the most senior mentor available is particularly important.
I am biased in favor of formal mentoring programs because in SEED
I have seen that a formal program can make the wisdom of executive
mentors more available longer-term to a larger and more diverse group of mentees.

Style and Focus are the two main benefits of
a formal mentoring program.

Style
By Style, I mean the personal manner, preferences, and comfort in communicating
between the mentor and the mentee. Even in professional or corporate circumstances,
mentoring requires a personal relationship and commitment that can be harder
to initiate and maintain in an informal environment, particularly when the
mentor is much more senior than the mentee (as is the case in most SEED
relationships).

    For the mentee:

      Some people are very comfortable with selling themselves, for example, they
      are confident enough to call up a potential mentor and just ask
      for time. Others find this approach too confrontational, or they may be
      too modest or private to approach a senior or very accomplished person
      in this way. Gender and cultural issues come into this as well: for example,
      a woman who wants to be mentored by a senior man may be concerned about how
      he would interpret a direct request, or in a strongly hierarchical culture, a
      junior staff member may feel it is not their place to ask for mentoring from
      someone outside of their management (or they are rightly concerned about how
      their management would respond to their making such a direct request).
      A formal mentoring program can be of great value to someone who is not
      comfortable selling themselves cold to a potential mentor. Knowing that their
      own manager has formally approved their participation in mentoring (that this
      professional development program is part of their “day job”) is empowering.

    For the mentor:

      Some potential mentors are comfortable being approached by junior staff
      asking for mentoring but others may find such a request offensively direct
      (inappropriate, pushy or arrogant). Also, the more senior a person is, the
      more valuable their time is. In particular, senior executives need to make
      the best use they can of their very limited time. SEED is run for the convenience
      of the mentors and is set up to make it as comfortable as possible for executives
      to participate. An executive may get too many requests for informal mentoring
      to evaluate the benefit and circumstances of each one, so they end up rejecting
      all, or just spending a little time with each, or only accepting requests from
      people they already know. Also, the executive may never have been a mentor and
      are not sure how to proceed (and they don’t feel comfortable
      admitting this). A formal program which includes training may get them
      started, to the advantage of their mentee, the company as a whole,
      and their own understanding. By evaluating and validating potential
      mentees in advance, a formal mentoring program can save time and avoid
      mismatches as well as avoiding the awkward or embarassing situation of
      a potential mentor rejecting or discouraging promising junior staff
      members because of lack of time.

In a program such as SEED, all mentor-mentee matches are made privately.
That is, the mentee submits to SEED a prioritized wish list of potential mentors
with whom they would like to work. The SEED program staff act as matchmakers
or brokers. SEED provides the available potential mentors with
validated background information on the potential mentee (that is, information
that the potential mentor can trust) and asks if they want to consider a
mentoring relationship for six months. The mentee does not
know which of the potential mentors on their wish list was contacted. Potential mentors are given space and time to consider the possibilities of a mentoring partnership without risk of offending the potential mentee or interfering with
future communications with them or their manager.

Focus

In the SEED formal mentoring program, the mentee’s manager advocates for
their staff member to enter the program. The manager also makes an
explicit time commitment for their staff member to be in the program.
That up-front awareness highlights the mentee’s strengths and often means that the
manager has a better focus, understanding, and value of their staff member.
Informal mentoring usually does not require
this kind of commitment or focus on the part of the mentee’s manager.
Once the mentee enters the program, their new mentor (who for over 70%
of SEED participants is an executive) also gains a greater appreciation and
understanding of the mentee’s work.

Metrics:

In the SEED program, we regularly collect and evaluate a number
of program performance and success metrics:

    • Satisfaction (of mentee, mentor, and mentee’s manager)
    • Participation (number of applicants, number of managers who have had more
      than one direct report in the program, number of mentees returning as
      mentors, number of mentors who return term after term, etc.)
    • Diversity (demographic, geographic, professional)
    • Promotion Rate (compared to Sun overall and Sun Engineering)
    • Annual Performance Evaluation (percentage of Superior ratings, compared to Sun overall and Sun Engineering)
    • Retention (voluntary and involuntary)

These metrics enable us to understand how program participants and Sun as
a whole benefit from SEED. Because of the nature of informal mentoring,
such metrics are difficult to collect, particularly in an active work environment.
This makes improvement and valuation of informal mentoring almost impossible:
“If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it”.

How it works:

In a formal mentoring program such as SEED, those seeking to become a
mentee must submit an application form, resume, and letters of recommendation
by their manager and others who think highly of them. Their direct manager
and others spend a significant amount of time preparing the initial recommendations,
and often follow up by advising the program participant on mentor
wish list selections. When it is time for annual evaluation (or, unfortunately
in these difficult economic times, lay off decisions), it can be
very much to the advantage of the SEED participant that their management
has seriously considered their capabilities and value. The SEED program has a proven track record of strong diversity, very high satisfaction, high regard by management, and high retention. SEED participants as a group earn more promotions and higher performance ratings than Sun overall. Individual experiences will vary.

You can see flow charts of how this process works at

“SEED: Sun engineering enrichment & development”

Research Disclosure Database Number 482013, defensive publication in Research Disclosure, Published in June 2004, Electronic Publication Date : 17 May 2004
(5 pages, PDF format)

This special and positive focus by their management on the SEED program
applicant entering the program is often enhanced by the work of the mentoring
pair once the SEED term gets going. Most SEED mentee and mentor pairs report
talking about the following topics:

    • Regular projects/work
    • Joint special projects
    • Setting goals (short/long term)
    • Finding the best path to success
    • Homework from Mentor: people to contact,
      reading material, etc.
    • Industry current events/trends in technology
    • Sun strategy/products/current events
    • Soft skills development (negotiating, public speaking,
      conflict management, etc.)
    • Career development
    • Personal development

By spending six or more months focused on these topics in discussion with
a talented executive or senior staff member, SEED participants usually improve
their value to Sun. In the quarterly feedback reports, mentees report that
participation in the SEED program positively influenced the following:

    • Greater understanding of Sun’s overall architecture, strategy, or business direction
    • Better career direction
    • Broader network of contacts (peer or executive)
    • Increased visibility, within or outside work group

Another aspect of Focus is geographic proximity. For years, 70% or more
of SEED mentoring pairs have worked at a distance, that is, the mentor and
mentee are based in different cities, states, or countries. It is harder to
make and maintain informal mentoring connections when the mentor and mentee are
not local to each other. In a global workforce, potential mentees may work
in an area where there are few or no senior staff available to mentor them.
In their case, being mentored at a distance is their only choice.
If only informal mentoring is available, promising staff who do not work
at headquarters or at other large sites may not get mentored. A formal
mentoring program allows potential mentors to focus on a broader group
of potential mentees, not just those staff who work near them.

Informal Mentoring

Despite my bias in favor of formal mentoring, I do see some ways in which
informal mentoring has advantages:

    • Informal mentoring has the advantage of a quick startup (no application
      forms) and less overhead in managing the relationship.
    • Informal mentoring may be more appropriate for peer mentoring in which
      hierarchy is less of an issue.
    • Informal mentoring may work better than formal mentoring for short-term
      task-based learning (“how do I do this?”) if that is the goal
      (as opposed to long-term professional growth and change).
    • Informal mentoring is less expensive to provide because program staff, tools,
      tracking and communication are not needed. However, this benefit must be
      balanced against the long-term cost to the organization of not taking
      full advantage of executive mentoring capabilities available through
      formal mentoring.
    • Because informal mentoring requires no administration, it scales
      – that is, many more can participate.

Mentoring of any kind (formal or informal) may not be the best solution
for remedial learning, needed by staff members who are not meeting management
expectations. Informal mentoring shares a key place with formal mentoring:
both are important tools for professional development. An individual who
wants to see what mentoring can do (as either a mentee or mentor) may get a
better start within the structure of a formal program. An organization which
wants to build or nurture a mentoring culture should plan to encourage the
use of both formal and informal mentoring.

1 Comment

Filed under Mentoring & Other Business

CAHSI and Diamond Age

This morning I had the honor of addressing the 2009 Annual Meeting of
CAHSI – the Computing Alliance of Hispanic
Serving Institutions. CAHSI is a “consortium of universities that are
committed to increasing the number of Hispanics who earn baccalaureate and
advanced degrees in computing”. I was part of a panel called “Mentoring Lessons Shared”
which also featured speakers from IBM, Google, and MentorNet.

I arrived in time to hear the last part of a very interesting keynote address
by
Dr. Dan Atkins
, Kellog Professor, Community Information, University of
Michigan (and past Director of the Office of Cyberinfrastructure, National
Science Foundation). Dan ended his talk with a Grand Challenge to the audience
to help find a way to college educate the extraordinary number of qualified students
worldwide for whom there are not enough university programs. He gave the number
100 million qualified students and said that it would take creating a major
university (U.C. Berkeley, Stanford…) every 15 minutes to meet their need under
the current educational structure.

Over lunch with Dan and other speakers, I recommended Neal Stephenson’s superb 1995
book Diamond Age or, A Young
Lady’s Illustrated Primer
. This book addresses a piece of the problem
Dan challenged CAHSI to solve: it tells the story of what happens when an elite
educational tool is hijacked for a vastly broader audience of little girls.

In 2007, during her senior year in High School, my daughter Jessica experienced
firsthand the unmanageable glut of excellent university applicants. She is
very happy at the school she accepted: Carnegie Mellon
University
(in Pittsburgh, PA). However, at the time, it was very stressful. Princeton’s 2007 rejection letter to Jessica said they had 18,900 applications for
an entering undergraduate class of 1,245 students. Looking at the current

Princeton Admissions Statistics
, the situation has become even worse:

      Total Applicants: 21,370

      Total Admits: 2,122

      Total Enrolled: 1,243

      Admit Rate: 9.9%

I still like the suggestion made by Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore in the article

“Why the best schools can’t pick the best kids – and vice versa”

(Los Angeles Times, Opinion, 18 March 2007):

      “The tragedy of all this selectivity and competition is that it is almost completely pointless. Students trying to get into the best college, and colleges trying to admit the best students, are both on a fool’s errand. They are assuming a level of precision of assessment that is unattainable. … There is a simple way to dramatically reduce the pressure and competition that our most talented students now experience. When selective institutions get the students’ applications, the schools can scrutinize them using the same high standards they currently use and decide which of the applicants is good enough to be admitted. Then the names of all the “good enough” students could be placed in a metaphorical hat, with the “winners” drawn at random for admission.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Mentoring & Other Business

SEED Matching Update

So far, we have 49 PreSEED mentor-mentee pairs (out of 54 available) and
48 SEED mentor-mentee pairs (out of 54 available). The two worldwide
Engineering mentoring terms are 90% matched in the first five weeks (the cycle began
on 3 December). If the Mentor and Mentee are matched after the
actual start of the term, the mentoring partnership still lasts for six
months from the match date, regardless of when the term formally ends.

On 15 December, I started an experiment which I hope will improve
SEED communications. I set up a group for SEED
Engineering Mentoring mentees, mentors, and managers on
LinkedIn. Since then, I have approved adding
345 current and alumni SEED managers, mentors, and mentees to the new group.

More?

More information on the SEED worldwide Engineering mentoring program
is available at
http://research.sun.com/SEED/

Leave a comment

Filed under Mentoring & Other Business

SEED and matching update and LinkedIn

So far, we have 47 PreSEED mentor-mentee pairs (out of 54 available) and
39 SEED mentor-mentee pairs (out of 54 available). The two worldwide
Engineering mentoring terms are 80% matched in the first month (the cycle began
on 3 December). Mentors are from Canada, China, Czech Republic, France,
Germany, India, Israel, Netherlands, UK, and the USA (California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, and Virginia).
My December 2008 email file for SEED has 1,580 emails in it. One mentor
and one mentee have left Sun since matching started. There have only been
four matches since 22 December but the pace will pick up as people get back
to work from winter break. I plan to match the remaining mentees with mentors
of their choice in the next few weeks.

On 15 December, I started an experiment which I hope will improve
SEED communications. I set up a group for SEED
Engineering Mentoring mentees, mentors, and managers on
LinkedIn. In the first two weeks,
262 current and alumni SEED managers, mentors, and mentees have been
added to the new group. I have only had to decline a dozen or so requests
from non-SEED group wannabes. Some of those
LinkedIn requestors are from Sun,
some from outside. I have directed the Sun requestors to the SunWeb
pages for current SEED application information.

More?

More information on the SEED worldwide Engineering mentoring program
is available at
http://research.sun.com/SEED/

Leave a comment

Filed under Mentoring & Other Business

SEED Matching Update, SEED LinkedIn Group

We are 13 days into the SEED mentor matching cycle for the two
January-June 2009 terms. So far, 61 program participants are matched
(that’s 56% of the 109 total participants). The remaining 48 are
under consideration by potential mentors from their Mentor Wish Lists.
My December email file for SEED already has 1,235 emails in it.

Matching has been slower than for a usual term. By the second week
of a normal SEED mentor matching cycle, we usually have 75% of
participants matched. This slowed matching is probably due to
two causes: 1) We have about double the number of participants
than are usually matched at this time of year; 2) I decided
to ask all but the most senior and experienced mentors
to have a pre-match discussion with their potential mentee before I
declare the match. The restructuring that Sun announced last
month will be starting soon. In these stressful times, I want to
be sure that these mentoring pairs are a particularly good fit for
each other. Only about 1/3 of the participants in these terms are
based in the USA, so pre-match discussions take a while to set up.

Yesterday, I started an experiment which I hope will improve
SEED communications. I set up a group for SEED
Engineering Mentoring mentees, mentors, and managers on
LinkedIn. I announced
the group to the SEEDs last night and in less than a day, I
have approved 163 requests to join.

Why do this? Year after year, the most frequent request from SEED applicants and participants is for more information about potential
SEED mentors. Keeping good records on the 445 SEED potential mentors
is time-consuming, and the resulting list is always incomplete
and a little out of date, despite our best efforts.

LinkedIn is a business-oriented social networking
site which can be used as a self-updating professional address book.
By creating the new SEED group on LinkedIn, SEED and PreSEED
mentees, mentors, and managers can link to each other, find out about,
and keep track of each other more easily. The new SEED
Engineering Mentoring group is open to current and alumni
SEED program mentees, mentors, and managers. That is, staff
who are current and former Sun employees associated with the
SEED Engineering Mentoring program.

More?

More information on the SEED worldwide Engineering mentoring program
is available at
http://research.sun.com/SEED/

Leave a comment

Filed under Mentoring & Other Business

SEED and PreSEED Matching Update

We are six days into the SEED mentor matching cycle for the
January-June 2009 terms. So far, 18 program participants are matched.
The remaining 91 are under consideration by potential mentors from their
Mentor Wish Lists. I have already heard some response (“Yes”, “No”, or “I am
Thinking About It”) from 63 potential mentors. I just sent out 46
“Last Call” emails to the potential mentors who did not reply
– telling them that they just have a day or two until their week
of consideration is over and I go on to the next potentially available
mentor. As usual, the “Last Call” emails generated a large number
of responses of one kind or another. My December email file for SEED
already has 681 emails in it.

This early in the cycle, almost all of the matches are for mentors who
were #1 or #2 in priority on the 10-name Mentor Wish Lists. However, I
have already had to reach down to #6 or lower for some as-yet-unmatched
participants. Despite all of the information available, some participants
were confused. There were many lists which included names of mentors who are
too junior or too senior to serve, or who are known to be unavailable.
I skip those names when looking for the next highest priority potentially
available mentor on a list.

As usual, Sun’s senior executives are being very
generous with their time, often accepting a second mentee or
queuing up their next mentee to start right after they finish working
with their mentee whose term ends in March 2009. It is an honor and
a pleasure to work with such a big hearted group of talented people.

More?

More information on the SEED worldwide Engineering mentoring program
is available at
http://research.sun.com/SEED/

Leave a comment

Filed under Mentoring & Other Business

SEED Mentor Matching Cycle Starts

Yesterday, all 109 SEED and PreSEED Engineering mentoring program participants
turned in the final versions of their 10-name Mentor Wish Lists. Also yesterday,
Tanya Jankot cleaned up the data, then she and I decided on who was the top
priority potentially available mentor for each new program participant, then I
sent out the first 65 personal email requests to potential mentors. Today,
I sent out the remaining 44 email requests. I have been getting
many enthusiastic responses from potential mentors. Four have already accepted
mentees (2 GSS SEEDs and 2 PreSEEDs).

Mentor request metrics:

    • There were 442 unique potential mentors requested on the 109 Mentor Wish Lists.
    • 14 potential mentors had more than one request at #1 priority.
    • 65 potential mentors had 5 or more participants request them.
    • 6 had more than ten requests.
    • 14 was the highest number of requests for any potential mentor.

Unless the mentor is very experienced or says they already know
the mentee well, I ask them to have a pre-match discussion by phone or in person
to be sure it is a good fit. I expect many more matches soon. If experience
holds true, it will take three to six weeks to match everyone in both terms.
There will be very few matches toward the end of this month because of
Sun’s winter break.

Mentor matching metrics:

    • In most terms since SEED started in 2001, about 80% of participants were
      matched with one of their top four priority choices. The remainder were matched
      with a Mentor lower down on their Mentor Wish List.
    • About 70% of SEED mentors are executives (Directors, Principal Engineers,
      Fellows, or Vice Presidents) in any term. More senior mentees tend to be
      matched with more senior mentors. For example, in the 2008-2009 terms, the
      Recent Hire term had 65% executive mentors but the Established Staff term
      had 84% executive mentors.
    • In the 2008-2009 terms, 77% of mentor-mentee pairs were working at
      a distance, another state or country from each other.
    • Over 90% of SEED participants indicate satisfaction or strong
      satisfaction with the program in their quarterly reports.
    • 100% of participants get matched with a mentor they requested.

More?

More information on the SEED worldwide Engineering mentoring program
is available at
http://research.sun.com/SEED/

Leave a comment

Filed under Mentoring & Other Business