Military Review English Edition July-August 2015 | Page 54

relationships not only strengthen the individuals involved but also contribute significantly to the improvement of the profession. Members of the current junior ranks of the armed forces bring a significantly different view of life than older generations. Soldiers entering the force today come increasingly from the “Millennial Generation.” Compared to the midcareer leaders in the Army that come mainly from “Generation X” and the senior leaders who are from the “Baby Boomers,” the Millennials tend to be more trusting and more team-player oriented. They “appear to be receptive to advice, willing to work hard, and extremely focused on accomplishment.”5 With a generation in the force that welcomes advice and is motivated to work hard toward goals, mid-career Army leaders need to approach professional development in a different manner than what they experienced during their careers. Senior leaders often offer insufficient assistance in helping their subordinates understand mentoring, coaching, and counseling. For example, the Army Leader Development Strategy 2013 speaks to assigning threeand four-star mentors for each U.S. Army War College Fellow.6 This assignment of mentors does not comport with the doctrinal intent of mentoring being a voluntary relationship. Other Army senior leaders speak about mentoring as a commander’s action, not as a voluntary personal developmental relationship. This confusion may hinder senior leaders in helping their subordinate leaders understand the informal, nurturing intent of mentoring. The Dark Side of Mentoring Despite all the advantages of effective mentorship in transferring knowledge, supporting development, and improving performance, a mentoring relationship can sometimes have undesired ramifications. As an advantage, mentors may serve as advocates for their mentees. A mentor, due to greater experience and a broader network of colleagues, can often open doors to opportunity for a mentee. A good word from a mentor to a senior officer can result in an inside track to a career-enhancing job for the mentee. However, such mentoring within the chain of command can have detrimental outcomes for the organization. In fact, it may be best to not develop a close, exclusive mentoring relationship with those directly under the mentor’s supervision since this could easily foster a perception of favoritism or cronyism among those in the 52 command with whom the mentor does not share as close a relationship. Another negative aspect of mentorship results from a mentor sabotaging a mentee by providing inaccurate or irrelevant career advice. Negative organizational ramifications can develop when a conflict occurs and a formally assigned mentor engages in a bullying or a revenge-seeking behavior with a mentee. Perhaps the worst thing a mentor could do is to exploit a mentee to further the mentor’s personal agenda. Who Does Mentoring? As we have noted, there is some confusion in the Army as to just what is mentorship. The confusion increases as we look at the other services and how they view this issue. Moreover, our increasing interaction involving leader development with other government agencies brings real potential for substantial misunderstanding. Government agencies have attempted to establish some common definitions. For example, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) describes mentoring as a formal or informal relationship between a senior person, usually outside the chain of supervision, and a junior protégé.7 The importance of having effective and capable mentors for the federal workforce is evident in the Federal Workplace Flexibility Act of 2004, which mandates federal agencies, in coordination with OPM, establish training for supervisors on mentoring employees.8 This implies mentoring is a function of leaders and managers, not necessarily a voluntary relationship with subordinates. Even between the military services, there are differences and overlaps in use of the term mentoring. For example, the Navy’s policy views mentoring as formal or informal but most effective when conducted as a voluntary relationship between a subordinate and an experienced superior— not the first- or second-level supervisor.9 The Navy program links employees with experienced professionals for career development. These experienced workers advise on the personal and professional growth of the employees by sharing the knowledge and insights they have learned through the years. The Navy mentee selects a mentor based on the mentee’s developmental needs. Conversely, the mentor oversees the career development of another, usually junior, person. However, in July 2013, the chief of naval operations issued instructions that peer-to-peer July-August 2015  MILITARY REVIEW