Table Of ContentThe Road to Mentoring:
Paved with Good Intentions
GREGG F. MARTIN, GEORGE E. REED,
RUTH B. COLLINS, and CORTEZ K. DIAL
M
entorshipisahottopicinacademia,business,andthemilitary.Recently,
in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Robert Gross said it was evident
fromtheEducationalResourcesInformationCenter’sannuallistofpublications
thatvirtuallynobodywaswritingabout“mentorsandmentoring”inthe1970s,as
only 33 articles appeared for that entire decade. He adds, however, “Then the
topictookoff:230piecesin1980-84;597in1985-89;1,051in1990-94;1,524in
1995-99.”1 In February 2002, a subject keyword search (using the term “men-
tor”)ofWilsonOmnifile,anacademicdatabaseofarticlesandpublications,re-
sulted in over 2,000 hits. Reflecting this trend, new mentorship web pages are
being born across the internet.2 Consultants have sprung up, promising that if
onlymanagerswerebettermentors,theirprofitabilityandretentionofprecious
humancapitalwouldimprovedramatically.AsurveyofFortune500executives
indicated that 96 percent of them saw mentoring as an important influence in
theirprofessionaldevelopment.3Insomeorganizations,coachesandmentorsare
assigned and duties are formally outlined. Young professionals are encouraged
toactivelyseekoutpeopletheyadmireto“betheirmentors,”asawaytoacceler-
atetheirlearning,development,andcareerprogression.
Despitethewidespreadinterestinmentoringandhopesthatitpresents
potentialforaddressingamyriadofproblems,theconceptisnotwellunderstood
within the Army. The term “mentorship” has different connotations and cur-
rentlyisusedsolooselyindescribingsuchanarrayofleadershipandhumanbe-
haviors that well-meaning, intelligent people often talk past each other when
tryingtodiscussit.Thetermelicitsawiderangeofresponses,fromenthusiastic
endorsementtoadamantcynicism,withconfusioninbetween.InarecentArmy
War College strategy research project, Merrill Anderson-Ashcraft conducted a
content analysis of 64 essays on mentoring submitted by members of the
USAWC Class of 2002. Although most essays included positive and negative
Autumn2002 115
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
2002 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2002 to 00-00-2002
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
The Road to Mentoring: Paved with Good Intentions
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
U.S. Army War College,ATTN: Parameters,122 Forbes REPORT NUMBER
Avenue,Carlisle,PA,17013-5238
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
PARAMETERS, Autumn 2002
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 13
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
comments,sheobservedthat71percentofthestatementsinthepapersaddressed
negative aspects of mentoring. Further analysis indicated that misunderstand-
ings regarding mentoring goals, strategies, and implementation methods are a
coreproblemcontributingtoconfusionandcynicism.4
Thepurposeofthisarticleistohelpinformthedevelopingdialogbyas-
sessingthecurrenttreatmentofthementoringconceptintoday’sArmyandthen
highlightingtheissues,implications,andalternativesrelativetoaformalArmy
Mentorship Program. We believe that unless the concept and implications of a
program are carefully reevaluated, this potentially useful leadership concept
mayremainaconfusingcliché—orworse,aeuphemismforfavoritism—causing
ittoactuallyunderminethedesiredleadershipenvironment.
Defining the Problem
Informal mentoring relationships have long existed in the Army, al-
thoughtheylackeddefinitionassuchuntilthe1980swhenthetermmentorship
enteredthebusinessandacademiclexicon.Recently,aspartofacomprehensive
descriptionoffutureandongoingactionstoimprovetrainingandleaderdevelop-
ment,GeneralEricK.Shinseki,ChiefofStaffoftheArmy,announcedthatthe
ArmyhasdevelopedtheframeworkfortheArmyMentorshipProgram.5Citing
surveyresultsthatfound“disconnectsbetweenwhatweasanArmybelieveand
whatwedoinpractice,”GeneralShinsekiarticulatedthatwe“needtoadjustour
culture,getbacktoourrootsintraining,improveofficerleaderdevelopmentand
management, and establish healthy feedback to inform the force and make ad-
justmentswherenecessary.”6
InanArmyTimesinterview,GeneralJohnKeane,ViceChiefofStaffof
the Army, stated that the “quality of leadership—as reflected in the mentoring
process—hasfallenoff.”Heargues,“We’rejustnottakingthetimethatweneed
to spend with our youngsters and their personal growth and development. We
need to do more of that.”7 According to reporter Sean Naylor, “Keane’s com-
mentswerethefirstbysosenioranofficertopubliclyacknowledgewhatmany
companyandfield-gradeofficershavebeensayingforseveralyears.”8TheCen-
terforStrategicandInternationalStudies’AmericanMilitaryCultureinthe21st
Century,9andasurveyof760officersattheArmyCommandandGeneralStaff
TheauthorsarefacultymembersintheDepartmentofCommand,Leadership,and
ManagementattheUSArmyWarCollege.Eachhasover20yearsofmilitaryexperiencein
awiderangeofoperationalassignments.ColonelGreggF.MartinisanEngineerofficer
withaPh.D.inengineeringmanagementandpublicpolicyfromtheMassachusettsInstitute
ofTechnology.ColonelGeorgeE.ReedisaMilitaryPoliceofficeranddoctoralcandidate
inpublicpolicyanalysisatSaintLouisUniversityandholdsaMasterofForensicSciences
degreefromGeorgeWashingtonUniversity.ColonelRuthB.CollinsisanAdjutantGeneral
CorpsofficerwithaMasterofArtsdegreeinhumanresourcesmanagementfromPepper-
dineUniversity.ColonelCortezK.DialisalsoanAdjutantGeneralCorpsofficerwitha
MasterofSciencedegreeineducationfromtheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia.
116 Parameters
College which ricocheted around the Army via e-mail,10 had earlier pointed to
leadershipdisconnectswithintheArmy.Thealarmingattritionrateofcaptains
caused Dr. Lenny Wong to research and publish Generations Apart: Xers and
BoomersintheOfficerCorps.11Wongobservedthatyoungofficershaveastrong
desire for honest and professional relationships, camaraderie, cohesion, and
work/lifebalance.Heendedhismonographbysaying,“Ourcaptainsareleaving
andthatsayssomethingaboutwhotheyareandwhattheArmyhasbecome.Itis
timewetooknoticeanddidsomethingaboutit.”12
ThemostrecentsurveythattheChiefofStaffcited,TheArmyTraining
and Leader Development Panel Officer Study Report to the Army,13 had input
from nearly 14,000 officers, NCOs, and civilians. Specifically regarding men-
toring, the report concluded: “Officers believe mentoring is important for both
personal and professional development, yet a majority of officers report not
having mentors. The Army’s mentoring definition and doctrine need revising.
Officerswouldliketoseeagreateremphasisonmentoring,butdonotwantfor-
mal,directedprograms.”14
Many junior officers, when asked, report that they aren’t being men-
toredordon’thaveamentor.Manyareconfusedanddisappointedthattheydon’t
have this so called “mentoring relationship” about which leadership surveys
have queried them. Such surveys have led them to believe mentoring is some-
thingtheyoughttohaveandofwhichtheyarebeingdeprived.
Instudyingthementoringissueanddiscussingitwithpeopleofvarying
grades and backgrounds (most recently in support of mentorship as a special
theme for the Army War College class of 2002), we have experienced a wide
rangeofreactionstotheterms“mentor”and“mentoring.”Juniorandmid-grade
officers generally think the concept is positive, but don’t think they are getting
enoughofit,andareanxiousthattheywillfallbehindtheirpeerswhotheyper-
ceive are being better mentored. Senior officers (former brigade commanders
andabove)generallyviewtheconceptofmentorshipinapositivelight,andbe-
lieveittobeapowerfulantidoteformanyoftheArmy’swidelypublicizedmo-
rale and retention problems.15 A number of general officers have criticized
battalionandbrigadecommandersfornotdoingenoughmentoring.Theyspeak
fondly of growing up in an Army in which they were mentored by seniors, and
theyrelatethey’vedonemuchthesamewiththeirjuniors.16
Manylieutenantcolonelsandcolonelsexpressfrustrationatbeingla-
beledaspoormentors,andportrayedascontributingtotheattritionofcaptains.
Moreover,manyfeeltheyhavebehavedandledinthetraditionofcurrentsenior
officersunderwhosetutelagetheydevelopedoverthepast20-plusyears.Very
few see a significant difference between the way they have led and mentored
theirjuniors,andthewaytheirseniorsledandmentoredthem.17Ofparticularin-
terest,manyArmyWarCollegestudentsandfacultymembersreactedwithcon-
cern and unease over the term “mentorship.” Many associate mentoring and
mentorship with Courtney Massengale18 types who were able to connive their
Autumn2002 117
“Despite the widespread interest in mentoring . . .
the concept is not well understood
within the Army.”
wayintothegoodgracesofpowerfulandinfluentialsuperiorsandhencereceive
special treatment and favors. A number questioned why the Army has clouded
clearandwell-understoodleadershipconceptsbylabelingthemwiththeconfus-
ing and volatile term “mentoring.” Many related emotionally that the word
“mentoring” has negative baggage, such as exclusivity, unfairness, cronyism,
etc.—connotations that run counter to good leadership and the Army values of
fairnessandequality.
Whenonetriestodiscussoroperationalizetheconceptofmentoring,it
isapparentthatthereisnocommonlyaccepteddefinitionorunderstandingofthe
term. While one person’s idea of mentoring evokes warm feelings of positive,
caring leaders who invest in subordinates’well-being for life, another gets re-
sentfulandangrybecausethetermconjuresupimagesofanexclusive“oldboy”
network that plays favorites and advances people based predominantly on who
theyknowandwhattheylooklike.Manybelievethatmentoringisapartof—or
includedin—“goodleadership,”andthatthetermservesonlytoconfuseandob-
fuscateanalreadyclearlyunderstoodandarticulatedconcept,althoughonenot
consistentlypracticed.19
What is Mentoring, Really?
Stephen Gibb suggests that mentoring is something that almost defies
description.20 The term in contemporary use describes a wide range of relation-
ships including coaching, teaching, networking, advising, and evaluating. The
term “mentor” is actually derived from the character named Mentor, who was a
faithful friend of the Greek hero Odysseus, in Homer’s epic story The Odyssey.
WhenOdysseuswentofftowar,heleftMentorbehindtoserveastutortohisson,
Telemachus.Mentorservedinthisrole,earningareputationasbeingwise,sober,
andloyal.21Itisfromtherelationshipbetweenthesetwocharactersthattheclassic
understandingoftheterm“mentorship”hasevolved.
Intheclassicsense,mentorshipimpliesmorethanjustgoodleadership.
Itinvolvesamoreseniororexperiencedpersontakingasubstantialpersonal(in
addition to professional) interest in a junior, less-experienced person’s future.
Thementorisaguide,asage,withimportantadviceandexperiencethatheorshe
voluntarily bestows upon the protégé. This personal aspect is important, as the
classicnotionofmentorshipimpliesagenuinefondnessandrespectbetweenthe
118 Parameters
mentor and the protégé. Personality, profession, life-style, personal interests,
background, home, family, religion, and other such aspects all may become a
partoftherelationship,suchthattheprotégédevelopsaprofoundadmirationand
respect for the mentor. When this mutual attraction, respect, and interest exist,
thenavoluntarymentoringrelationshipcandevelopintheclassicunderstanding
oftheterm.22Thenatureoftherelationshipintheclassicalsenseisanexclusive
one.Somegetmentoringwhileothersdonot.Sincetherelationshipdependsona
specialchemistrybetweentheparticipants,itsformalizationisproblematicifnot
impossible,aswewilldiscusslaterinthearticle.
Current Army Description of Mentoring
SincetheArmyisontheroadtoanofficialMentorshipProgram,itisim-
portanttounderstandhowmentoringiscurrentlydefinedanddiscussedinArmy
leadershipdoctrine.ThroughoutFM22-100,ArmyLeadership,thetermisusedin
anumberofdifferentways—butneverintheclassicsenseasdescribedabove.
Concerningmentorshipatthedirectleadershiplevel(battalionandbe-
low),FM22-100says,“Asaleader,youhelpyoursubordinatesinternalizeArmy
values.Youalsoassistthemindevelopingtheindividualattributes,learningthe
skills, and mastering the actions required to become leaders of character and
competence themselves. You do this through the action of mentoring.”23
Mentoringfallsunderneaththebroaderheadingof“ImprovingActions,”which
are“thingsleadersdotoleavetheirorganizationsbetterthantheyfoundthem.”24
FM 22-100 then expands its definition of mentoring, calling it “the
proactivedevelopmentofeachsubordinatethroughobserving,assessing,coach-
ing, teaching, developmental counseling, and evaluating that results in people
beingtreatedwithfairnessandequalopportunity.Mentoringisaninclusivepro-
cess(notanexclusiveone)foreveryoneunderaleader’scharge.”25Thedoctrine
further describes mentoring as “totally inclusive, real-life leader development
foreverysubordinate”andstatesthatleadersmust“strivetoprovidealltheirsub-
ordinates with the knowledge and skills necessary to become the best they can
be—fortheArmyandforthemselves.”26Thedoctrinethenexplains,“Mentoring
beginswiththeleadersettingtherightexample.AsanArmyleader,youmentor
people every day in a positive or negative way, depending on how you live the
Armyvaluesandperformleaderactions.”27Thedoctrinestates,“Whenyoumen-
tor,youtaketheobserving,assessing,andevaluatingyoudowhenyouoperate
andapplytheseactionstodevelopingindividualsubordinates.Mentoringtech-
niquesincludeteaching,counseling,andcoaching.”28
At the organizational leadership level (brigade through corps), FM
22-100 states, “The payoff for improving actions might not be evident for
years. . . . Precisely because of these difficulties, organizational leaders ensure
the goals they establish include improving people and organizations.” It says
commanders must “ensure that systems and conditions are in place for the
mentoringofallorganizationalmembers”andcautionsthatexcessiveemphasis
Autumn2002 119
oncurrentoperationsattheexpenseofimprovingactionswillthreatenthefuture
oftheArmy.Leaderdevelopment,broughttolifethrough“constantmentoring
andexperientiallearningopportunities”becomesforseniorleaderstheir“great-
estcontribution—theirlegacy....Commandersmusttakethetimetoensurethey
dodevelopmentalcounseling.Nothingcanreplacetheface-to-facecontribution
madebyacommandermentoringasubordinate.”29
At the strategic leadership level (theater army and above), doctrine
specifies, “Afundamental goal of strategic leaders is to leave the Army better
than they found it,” which implies “an ongoing tradeoff between today and to-
morrow.”30Leadersatthislevel“developsubordinatesbysharingthebenefitof
theirperspectiveandexperience,”by“act[ing]asakindofsponsorbyintroduc-
ingthemtotheimportantplayersandpointingouttheimportantplacesandactiv-
ities.” It points out that “strategic leaders actually become mentors as they, in
effect, underwrite the learning, efforts, projects, and ideas of rising leaders.”31
Armydoctrinethenstates,
Morethanamatterofrequiredformsandsessions,mentoringbystrategicleaders
meansgivingtherightpeopleanintellectualboostsothattheymaketheleapto...
thinkingatthehighestlevels.Becausethosebeinggroomedforstrategicleadership
positionsareamongthemosttalentedArmyleaders,themannerinwhichleaders
andsubordinatesactalsochanges.Strategicleadersaimnotonlytopassonknowl-
edgebutalsotogrowwisdominthosetheymentor....Strategicleaderspayspecial
attention to their subordinates’ self development, showing them what to study,
wheretofocus,whomtowatch,andhowtoproceed.32
Across all three levels of leadership, Army doctrine describes men-
torship as the actions of good interpersonal leadership (teaching, evaluating,
coaching, and counseling), caring for people and growing future leaders—all
performedbygoodrolemodels.Thedoctrinespecifiesthatthis“leadersdevel-
opingleaders”formofmentoringisasoundpracticeforall.Giventhis,itiseasy
toseewhymanyfeelpositiveaboutthementoringconceptandwanttoexpandit.
Whythenistherethewidespreadnegativityandcynicismdescribedearlier?
Recalling the FM 22-100 description of mentorship at the strategic
level,wecanseethatitappearstosanctionthenotionsofexclusivityandspon-
sorship,abolddeparturefrommentorshipattheorganizationallevel.Inessence,
itseemstocodifywhathasbeenoccurringinmanyprofessionsovertime:senior
leadersoftheprofessionidentifying,investingtimein,andgroomingthoseju-
niormembersoftheprofessioninwhomtheyseethemostpromiseandpotential
toonedayreplacethemasseniorleaders.
Recall also the classic notion of mentorship first described: the rela-
tionshipofamoreseniororexperiencedpersontakingaspecialprofessionaland
personal interest in a junior or less-experienced person’s future. If one accepts
theclassicnotionofmentorship,itisnotpossibletobetotallyinclusiveandstill
labelitmentoring.Whenmeasuredagainsttheclassicunderstandingoftheterm,
120 Parameters
“The term ‘mentorship’. . . is used so loosely in
describing such an array of leadership and
human behaviors that well-meaning,
intelligent people often talk past each other
when trying to discuss it.”
theArmy’sdescriptionofmentoringas“positiveleaderdevelopment”atthedi-
rectandorganizationallevelsofleadershipisnotmentoringatall,sinceitisdone
primarilyonaprofessionallevelandisowedequallytoallmembersofthepro-
fession.Thecloser,two-waypersonalrelationshipimpliedintheclassicnotion
ofmentorshipwillnotnecessarilydevelopwithall,orperhapsany,subordinates.
AseniorofficerwhotookpartinwritingthecurrentFM22-100related
thattheverynotionofdiscussingvoluntary,unofficialmentoringrelationships
causedgreatconsternationatthehighestlevelsoftheArmy.Itwasbelievedthat
discussingthesevoluntary,long-term,personalrelationshipsinofficialdoctrine
couldbeperceivedaspromotingorendorsingunfairandunequaltreatment,and
hencerunhead-onintotwooftheArmy’smostcherishedandhard-earnedprinci-
ples,equalopportunityandfairnessforall.33Manyfelttherewouldbetoomuch
personalityandselectivityinvolvedintheconceptofclassicmentoring.Sinceit
wasbelievedthatallArmyleadersmustdevelopalloftheirsubordinatestotheir
fullest potential in a fair, impartial, and inclusive manner, the final document
reinforcedthemessagethat“goodleadershipequalsmentoring,andmentoring
equalsgoodleadership.”
The Army’s use of the term “mentoring” in FM 22-100 (essentially as
“good leadership”) was well-meaning, just as is the current plan to have a Men-
torshipProgram.However,suchleaderactionsasteaching,counseling,coaching,
andcaringforpeoplearethecompetenciesortoolsusedbymentors,notthepro-
cessofmentoringperse.Whyconfusetheresponsibilityofleaderstodevelopall
subordinatesthroughleadershipactionsbycallingitmentoring?Ifwereallywant
tousethe“mentor”labeltodescribethisconcept,thenweshouldspecificallystate
whatmentoringisnot,inordertoeliminatetheconfusionandassociatednegative
connotations,suchas“specialleadershipforspecialpeople.”
Approaches to Mentorship
InarecentstudentpaperattheArmyWarCollegeentitled“Leadership:
MorethanMissionAccomplishment,”ColonelPeterVarljenrecommendedthe
Armydoawaywiththe“mentor”termaltogetherandsimplyfocusoneducating
Autumn2002 121
leaderstodeveloptheirsubordinatesthrougheffectiveteaching,coaching,coun-
seling,androle-modeling.Hecontendsthatifleadersperformtheseactionsef-
fectively,manyoftheirsubordinateswillwanttomaintainavoluntarypersonal
andprofessionalrelationshipwiththem,longaftertheydepartfromtheirofficial
senior-subordinate relationship. A positive mentoring relationship might well
evolve,heargues,asanaturalby-productofgood,caringleadership.34
When Varljen speaks of longer-term relationships, he refers to men-
toringintheclassicsense.Thesetypesofinterpersonalrelationshipssometimes
formwhenleaderseffectivelyteach,coach,andcounseltheirsubordinatesina
way that fosters their long-term growth as professionals and as people. When
leaders are not effective in this dimension, their subordinates generally do not
stay in contact and may become disillusioned with the Army.Hence, there is a
certainrandomnessordegreeofluckinopportunitiesfortheselonger-termmen-
torrelationships.Ifonehasthegoodfortuneofservingunderatrulycaringand
people-focusedleaderwhoisalsoapositiverolemodel,thereisahigherproba-
bilityofestablishingthisrelationship.Thisclassicnotionofmentorshipisbyits
natureascarceandnon-programmablerelationship.
Colonel Thomas Kolditz, a military psychologist and professor of be-
havioral science and leadership at the US Military Academy, has studied these
longer-term classical mentoring relationships that sometimes develop in the
Army.Inhisresearchheusedthefollowingdefinition:“Amentorisdefinedasa
seniorpersonwithwhomyouhavehadanintensiveandlastingdevelopmentalre-
lationship. A mentor relationship goes beyond a typical senior-subordinate
relationshipinthatitisbothprofessionalinfocus,yetpersonalintone.”35Itisthis
conceptofmentorshipthathasbeenexploredmostwidelyintheacademiclitera-
ture in recent decades, but which the Army, for valid reasons discussed earlier,
chosenottoaddressinitsleadershipdoctrine.Thisdisconnecthassurelywidened
theknowledgegapandincreasedconfusionbyfailingtoaccountforawidespread
leadershipphenomenonintheforce.36Choosingtousethetermmentorshiptode-
scribepositiveleadershipactionswithintheArmyhasinadvertentlyledpeopleto
believethattheyshouldallreceiveanequalshareofmentorship,wheninfact,in
theclassicsense,itwillneverbeequallydistributedorinclusiveofeveryone.
Onetemptingresponsetotherealityofthisbehavioralphenomenonis
for organizations to establish formal mentoring programs. Formal mentoring
programsarisewhenorganizationsidentifymentoringasbeneficialandwishto
extend,regulate,orfacilitatetheformationofotherwisenaturallyoccurringrela-
tionships. Stephen Gibb identifies six motivations for establishing formal pro-
grams: targeting those who need mentoring, defining mentor competency,
selecting mentors who can provide help and support, matching mentors and
learners,developingguidelines,andprovidingtrainingformentors.37Although
someorganizationsaretryingthis,Kolditzfindsonlyspottyevidenceforthesuc-
cess of personal relationships that are initiated through bureaucratic programs,
rather than voluntarily by either mentor or “mentee.” He argues that these pro-
122 Parameters
gramsareoftenflawedbecauseoftherulesusedtopairmentorswithmentees.38
His research suggests that we might be successful if we define mentoring as a
unique professional relationship, and subsequently address the practices the
Armymightusetoenhanceorreinforcesuchrelationships.39
AsseeninTheArmyTrainingandLeaderDevelopmentPanelOfficer
StudyReporttotheArmy,thisviewiswidelysharedinthefield.Officersreport
wantingmentorship“butdonotwantformal,directedprograms.”40AsoneWar
College student put it, “A formalized bureaucratic mentorship program is an
oxymoron.”
TheMarineCorpstookthevoluntaryapproachin1995whentheCom-
mandantatthetime,GeneralCarlE.Mundy,Jr.,directedcommandersinWhite
Letter10-95todevelopvoluntary,informalmentoringprogramsthatgiveallof-
ficersopportunitiestobenefitfrommentoring.41In1999,anarticleintheMarine
Corps Gazette by Matthew Culbertson argued against formal mentoring pro-
grams,assertingthat“attemptsatformalizingthisprocessmayverywellunder-
minethepivotalfoundationoftrustthatmentoringisbasedupon.”42Culbertson’s
articlereflectsconcernthatformalizationcouldresultinasacrificeofqualityfor
quantityandeffectivelyeliminatethoserarebutvaluableinstancesofclassical
mentoring.JulesM.Rothsteinholdsasimilarview,assertingthatmentoringhas
“become commercialized.” He cautions, “When personal expectations become
employment criteria and when the emphasis shifts from a behavior born out of
personal commitment to a fashionable act, we put the continuity at risk. . . .
Mentoring in my view does not consist of a laundry list of tasks. Instead,
mentoring—atleastinpart—isamergingofspiritandsharedaspirations.”43
BeforetheArmymovesforwardwithitsMentorshipProgram,itshould
preciselydefineleaderbehaviorissuesanddesiredoutcomes,andthenlabeland
approach them accordingly. Otherwise, we are doubtful that any program will
produceademonstrablebenefit,regardlessofthetermsused.AMentorshipPro-
gram(evenasthesubsetofatrainingandleaderdevelopmentprogram)thatdoes
notaddressfundamentalleadershipdeficienciesdoomstheArmytoperpetuate
thedisillusionmentandfogthatnowsurroundstheconceptofmentorship.
Recommendations and Conclusions
TheArmyshouldcarefullyweighitspromotionofamentoringpolicy,
program,orcampaign.Clearly,therearelegitimatequestionsaboutthenatureof
the Army’s “leadership problem” or widespread perception thereof, and we
shouldcertainlyaddressthem.Wearesaying,however,thatduetothecompeting
definitions, unclear expectations, and perceived inequities associated with
mentoring,theArmywouldbewell-advisedtoresistreachingforafaddishsolu-
tion reducible to a buzzword like mentoring. Rather, it should focus on the
broaderconceptofleaderdevelopment.
First,theArmyneedstoexamineitsmostbasicdefinitionofmentoring
atthedirectandorganizationalleadershiplevelsasdescribedinFM22-100.As
Autumn2002 123
