1. 2014 National Mentoring Summit
Workshop Survey Results
SessionName:New MillenniumLeadership:ANewParadigm for the MentoringMovement
Date: Thursday, January 30, 2014
Presenters:GregoryOwens
Numberof surveys completed:27
On a scale from1 to 5, with5 being“stronglyagree”and1 being“stronglydisagree,”indicate yourlevel
of agreementwiththe followingstatements:
Statement
Average
Score
1. The presenters(s) demonstratedexpertise inthe topicareaandcommunicatedthe
contentclearly.
4.93
2. The contentwasconsistentwiththe sessiondescription. 4.78
3. The topicwastimely,relevant,andreflective of bestpracticesinthe mentoring
field.
4.48
4. I increasedmymentoringexpertiseand/orgainednew skillsthatIcan use to
furthermymentoringprogram.
4.30
5. The methodology,includingthe materialsandactivities,usedbythe presenterswas
appropriate toaddressthe topicandengagedme inthe material.
4.5
6. Sufficienttimewasprovidedtocoverthe contentandaddressquestions. 4.11
7. Overall,thissessionwasvaluable,andIwouldrecommendittoothers. 4.81
What was most useful or successful in thisworkshop?
 Format thatspoke aboutleadershipormultiple levels.
 Newideas,presenter–knowledge,humorous,fun>all of these
 The difference betweenmanagementandleadership.
 StrongSpeaker,goodcontentThankyou!
 Great information
 Compellingpresenter. Tangible toolsforidentifyingorganizational strengths&weaknesses 
goalsof where highperformance lies.
 Thisworkshopvalidatedthatthe mentoringprogramIworkwithishighperformance andhas
room forgrowth.
 Definingthe Role of aleadervs.managerL >High performance.
 Was good buta fewtalkerswhokeptaskingotherquestions.
 Excellentapproachand informationsharing. Dynamicspeaker.
 The depthof knowledge.

2.  Strongpresentationskillsgoodslides,opportunitytoaskquestions.
 Veryclearand concise message.
 VeryGood& EngagingSpeaker.
 VeryWide thoughtout,presented&clearmessage of material.
 Examplesof exercises.
 Leadershipvs.Management(Roles)
 Great resources.
How could this workshop have beenimproved?
 More time or z sessionsforthistopic.
 It was verywell puttogether. Time for?’s
 More than 3 hours at least
 Since time didnotalloww/content,itwouldhave beenhelpful tohave atake home resource
to applyleadershipquestionstoourcurrentworkplace.
 More time.
 Narrowscope - time of information,notenoughtime;couldhave beenmore beneficial if
focusedona couple areasof leadershiptraining&allowedtime foractivitiestodelveintothe
material.
 The workshopinformationwasvaluable;however,there wasnotalot of new informationfor
me.
 I wishthere wasmore time forthe workshop.
 It couldhave beenlongertomake it more interactive.
 The contentneedstobe condensedandbetterdigestible.
 It was great.
 Handoutscouldhave beengiven.
 Notenoughtime.
Please share any additional comments on thisworkshop.
 Great workshop.
 Speakerengagedaudience constantly.
 I enjoyedMr.Owenspresentation.Italignedwithmyexpectationsforthisworkshop.
Information  Application - Neededmore time forApplication.
 Great job!
 I wouldrecommendthisworkshoptoall agenciesespeciallythoseinmanagement/leadroles.
 Reallyappreciatedpresenter’sperspectiveandexpertise. Goodpower
point/slides/quotes/exercises.
 Mr. Owenswasa phenomenalspeakerandshowedgreatexpertise. GreatStart!
 It was verybeneficial.
 Didn’treallyneedtobe tailoredtomentoring. Wasimportantforme as the Directorof my
agencyand pointedouttome thingsIshouldbe recognizingandfocusingontobe successful.
 I walkedawaywithseveral newideasforhow todevelopasa leaderandhow to developmy
team. Thank you.
 Veryknowledgeable presenter.
 Speakerwasveryknowledgeable of content.