A colleague recently referred me to an article in this January’s issue of College & Research Libraries, entitled “Revitalizing a Mentoring Program for Academic Librarians” (pre-print available here). The article describes the experience of Kansas State’s librarians in reworking their mentoring guidelines; it is of particular interest to me since we are also reworking our mentoring guidelines at my place of work.
We’ve definitely taken a different path in reworking our own guidelines, and as such, I found myself taking exception to several of the assertions or decisions made by the librarians at Kansas State.
In their introduction, they state that “..the informal method leads to a patchwork of input of varying effectiveness. A formalized mentoring program can meet the needs of the new employees and more effectively impart the information and advice in a coordinated, ongoing process.” My first objection is that the literature I’ve read questions the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs. (I highly recommend you read Sarah Anne Murphy’s piece in the September 2008 issue of the Journal of Academic Librarianship. Yes, I’ve recommended it before!) I do understand and acknowledge the need for a consistent and coordinated way of imparting information – we’ve used a “first semester orientation” checklist here that I believe has been very helpful to new librarians. However, I’ve taken part in a great deal of informal mentoring (both as mentor and mentee), simply by sharing an office with colleagues and asking and answering questions that come up. I’m not sure that one is necessarily better than the other; I believe each is necessary.
My second objection to Kansas State’s program is the focus of their new program. Their Professional Development Committee “changed the program focus from ‘attaining tenure’ and guidance through that process, to development of the person in all aspects of professional life. The committee felt strongly that this type of relationship would be more rewarding for both the mentor and the person being mentored.” For my own part, there are many different aspects of my professional life that I hope to develop – and I cannot imagine having only one person upon whom I could rely for my professional development. I learn about teaching from several coworkers; I learn about government documents from one coworker and several colleagues at other institutions; I have a mentor through ACRL/STS to help me learn about science librarianship; I hope to learn more about management from my supervisor and other managers; I am learning about the tenure process from tenured colleagues. There is no one person whose job is exactly like mine, or who has the knowledge to guide me in all areas. (It takes a village to raise a librarian.) How can one person meet all the professional development needs of another?
Another issue that bothered me is that tenured faculty are not required to participate in their mentoring program, but non-tenured faculty are. The authors say, “Virtually all faculty members agreed that compulsion can create resentment and apathy in certain individuals, resulting in ineffective mentoring. Therefore, there was agreement that mentoring should not be a requirement imposed upon all tenured faculty members.” Why is this committee not concerned with creating resentment and apathy in the people being mentored? Furthermore, I was concerned that the people being mentored do not actually get to pick their mentors – “Every effort would be made to match pairs with similar interests and/or complementary strengths and weaknesses.” I believe I would feel very resentful if I was told I must participate in a mentoring program, and would not be able to choose my mentor.
I think this comes back to something I wrote about back in October; I believe that professional development, for newer (not necessarily younger) librarians, is and should be mostly a self-directed, self-initiated process. (This is not to say that mentoring is not required or useful; my opinion is that a mentoring relationship should almost always be initiated by the person wishing to be mentored.) As such, I feel like many of the decisions and guidelines made by Kansas State’s Professional Development Committee would serve to limit one’s agency in one’s own professional development.
What do you think?
I think most professionals benefit from mentoring, even later in the career process. But I do agree with your thoughts that it be a voluntary process. You are potentially creating a negative relationship that is doomed to failure when you force two people together who are not fully invested in the relationship. While new librarians should be encouraged to find mentor(s), they should be allowed the freedom to choose who their mentors will be, whether it is someone within the organization or outside the organization.
This brings me to another concern. If you are only encouraging mentorship relationships within your organization, the potential for insularity becomes greater. This can be extremely problematic to new librarians who should be encouraged to develop relationships with colleagues in various types of libraries and institutions. If the main goal is not to assist in the tenure process, there is no reason why a mentor cannot be picked from another library…or perhaps even outside the field of librarianship.
It is also presumptuous for someone to assume that they know what is best for a new librarian and to act on that presumption to assign them a mentor. While it is nice to interact with those with similar interests, I find that I’ve benefited more from mentor/mentee relationships where I have shared interests. These types of relationships challenge me to think about things differently and consider ideas and activities outside my normal comfort sphere.
Personally, I have benefited from the mentors I have found. But this has been a process that I’ve often initiated when I needed it and with people who will benefit my growth process at different stages of my career. I don’t know that I would have discovered the same benefits if I had been forced into the relationships.