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