Thesis

Mentorship Programs
Running head: Mentorship Programs
Mentorship programs ability to generate desired effects on organizational culture
Von M. Brickhouse
MNGT 6000
Webster University
Dr. Jack Hahm
MGMT 6000
Research Thesis
1

Mentorship Programs
Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………….........3
Situation Analysis…………………………………………………………………….4
Premise…………………………………………………………………………….....6
Problem Statements…………………………………………………………………..7
Definitions…………………………………………………………………………..
..8
Study Limitations………………………………………………………………….....10
Work Plan – Applied Research Methodology……………………………………….11
Participants…………………………………………………………………..11
Apparatus…………………………………………………………………….11
Procedure…………………………………………………………………….12
Literature Review…………………………………………………………………....13
Study and Findings…………………………………………………………………..18
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….…….32
Premise Assessment………………………………………………………………….34
Recommendations for Future Studies………………………………………………..35
Recommendations for the Unit Studied……………………………………………...37
References…………………………………………………………………………....38
Appendices:
Appendix A - Survey Cover Letter…………………………………………..42
Appendix B - Survey Questions……………………………………………...43
Appendix C - Raw Data………………………………………………………47
2

Mentorship Programs
Appendix D – Survey Graphs………………………………………………...52
Abstract
Mentorship programs, what are they? Can they have the desired effect upper
level management wants in regards to the professional development of their employees?
Do formal mentorship programs work better than informal ones? What effects do these
mentorship programs have on the organizational culture? There are numerous reasons
that organizations implement a mentorship program at many levels in their work
environment. The motivation could range from providing a positive work place,
improving employee loyalty, share past experiences to reduce repeated mistakes or to
develop new employees who will lead the company in the future. Then again do
employees even want or require a mentorship program? They might possibly use their
current organization to propel themselves to a better occupation and market place. With
a mentorship program does the individual being mentored get to select his or her mentor,
or is a mentor forced upon the person. Organizations that implement a mentorship
program whether formal or informal and if they are equipped properly can have a
resounding effect on an organization, which can improve employee self worth and a
positive organizational culture.
3

Mentorship Programs
Situation Analysis
Mentorship or mentoring programs are on the rise in the United States by fortune
five hundred companies in order to gain an advantage over rival competitors.
Organizations are placing enormous amounts of energy and resources to ensure their
personnel are groomed for success. Mentoring can be traced back to the Song Dynasty
were Yue Fei and his mentor Zhou Tong served their country against the Northern
Barbarians (Chan 2000). In general, mentorship refers to an extended relationship
between two people over a period of time sharing first hand experiences to improve the
overall development the person being mentored (Chan 2000). Mentorship programs have
shown to be another useful tool to improve an organization’s culture if implemented
correctly. The United States Army uses FM 22-100 to define mentorship as the proactive
development of each subordinate through observing, assessing, coaching, teaching,
developmental counsel and evaluating that results in people being treated with fairness
and equal opportunity (FM 22-100).
Need, is there a requirement for mentorship programs and does the work force
want or require someone to guide them through the many wickets of an organization.
Some employees may just want to be left alone to go to work and come home and not be
bothered with the politics of being mentored or having to participate in a structured
program. At what level do mentorship programs start: the worker bee, lower, middle or
executive management? Or do we let individuals freely participate and chose their own
mentor who will give them guidance and lessons learned from past occurrences.
How is the success of the mentorship program measured in an organization and
what is the overall desired outcome. At Fort Irwin can a mentorship program thrive both
4

Mentorship Programs
in the military and government civilian structures? Fort Irwin has a diverse cross section
of people that can provide various attitudes, view points, beliefs or life experiences which
can have a positive effect on a mentorship program.
5

Mentorship Programs
Premise
Organizations that encourage mentorship programs for all echelons of
management are well ahead of most corporations understanding what positive
consequences that can be achieved. Mentorship coupled with supportive leadership
styles can actually promote a healthy organization to accomplish their vision and goals.
Is there a belief here at Fort Irwin, California that mentorship is increasing everyday?
This research, wants to discover what mentorship techniques are used and available to
leaders (military, civilian employee and contractor) at all levels in a military organization.
6

Mentorship Programs
Problem Statements
1. What overall effects, both positive and negative do organizations incur when
implementing a constructive mentorship program.
2. Do subordinates in the organization even want, need, or require a mentor to guide
them while employed with the firm.
3. How do organizations find the valuable time to develop maintain a mentorship
program while trying to increase the overall value of the organization leading to
continued mentorship for future personnel.
4. Can leaders and managers work in concert to provide positive environments
without threatening retributions in regards to who mentors whom?
5. By implementing a mentorship program within an organization, how does that
influence race relations, religious beliefs, and gender recognition once a program
has been approved to put into action.
6. What is the desired outcome of a mentorship program, and how do mentors
ensure the plan meets the desired end state and goals of the organization.
7

Mentorship Programs
Definitions
1. Army Installation: Place that Army personnel conduct their assigned activities
2. Gender: Categorization between femininity and masculinity
3. Noncommissioned officer (NCO): Army enlisted personnel in the rank of Sergeant to
Sergeant Major
4. Officer: Leader of personnel in the Army who is commissioned
5. Soldier: A person supporting the decisions of the Commander and Chief
6. Operations Group: Observer/Controllers who are assigned to train the Army
7. Government Service Civilian: A civilian who supports the Armed Forces
8. OIF/OEF: Operation Iraqi Freedom /Operation Enduring Freedom
9. Mentor: A person willing to share valuable perspectives and insights
10. Leader: Provides vision and guidance to accomplish goals and objectives
11. Manager: Person responsible for ensuring the desired results are achieved
12. Culture: A system of shared meanings, values and attitudes within an organization
13. Organizational Development: Long range programs and efforts designed at
improving an organization’s ability to survive by changing its problem solving and
renewal process
14. Rotation: Army Brigade size training event at Fort Irwin, California
15. National Training Center (NTC): A military installation were Army units train for a
thirty day period preparing for future world wide deployments
16. Mentorship: A program established in an organization that pairs senior personnel
with relatively new members of the group to share experiences which aids in the
development of the junior member
8

Mentorship Programs
17. Glass Ceiling: Unseen obstacles that hinder minorities and women from reaching
executive levels in some organizations
18. Fort Irwin, California: Army installation located 45 minutes from Barstow, CA
19. Rank: Position in the Armed Forces, i.e. Colonel, Command Sergeant Major and
Sergeant First Class
20. Diversity: Numerous distinctions and parallels that are prevalent between people
21. Ethnicity: One’s own ethic group in regards to race
9

Mentorship Programs
Study Limitations
This examination of mentorship programs is limited to military personnel,
government service civilian employees and defense contractors located at Fort Irwin,
California at the National Training Center (NTC). This study does not address different
mentorship programs at numerous military installations in the Department of the Army.
The research is limited by not being able to concentrate on the private or public sectors to
analyze what compilation of mentorship and leadership programs are used in those
organizations. This study will concentrate on mentorship programs at the NTC and how
military organizations effectively or ineffectively implementation of their mentoring
curriculum. Another limitation of this study is the participants, who may or may not
understand the value mentorship, which can result in skewed data from the questioners.
Finally, the due to the limited number research materials at the Fort Irwin library, various
sources will be taken from the information super highway (internet).
10

Mentorship Programs
Applied Research Methodology
Participants
The contributors in this study were United States Armed Forces members and
Government Service civilian employees assigned or employed at the National Training
Center, situated at Fort Irwin, California. All of the participants were mature and above
the age 21, comprised of men and women. The participants were diverse in race,
position, education level, expertise and involvement in a mentorship program. Persons
who took the survey varied from GS 5 to GS 13 for government employees and Sergeant
to General Officer for the Armed Forces members. The cultural environments of the
participants were various consisting of African-Americans, Asians, Caucasians,
Hispanics, Pacific Islander and Other.
Apparatus
The process of collecting data for this study was by means of survey consisting of
42 questions and 12 demographics. The survey design primarily used the Likert scale
technique, with a range measuring from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).
It included questions pertaining to the participants’ education level, current
position, race, diversity and the effects of the mentorship program on the organization.
Both primary source (survey) and secondary source (literature review) were applied to
the specific study.
The survey queries were grouped into numerous categories: mentorship program
effects, need for a mentorship program, mentorship program maintenance, mentorship
program environments, mentorship for minorities and women and mentorship program
endstate. This survey was prepared by the researched, edited and approved by both the
11

Mentorship Programs
Director of Webster University at Ft. Irwin, and by Dr. Hahm, the Management 6000
Integrated Studies Professor.
Procedures
The partakers in this study were solicited to complete a survey purely on a
voluntary basis. Every person received a copy of the cover letter explaining the purpose
of the study regarding my topic on mentorship programs. This purpose was to provide a
foundation for the author’s primary research in a Management 6000 research thesis
project. The participants were briefed and informed of the privacy and confidentiality of
their personal responses. Each was also informed that at any given time they could
conclude his or her participation.
Participants were selected on the basis that they are all assigned to the United
States Armed Forces members and Government Service civilian employees assigned or
employed at the National Training Center, situated at Fort Irwin, California. The survey
was personally delivered to the participants and carefully controlled and gathered after
each participant’s completion.
All survey results were computed and put into a table compiled by the researcher.
All research findings were collected organized and displayed using graphic illustrations.
The data was then integrated into the literary review portion of the research paper. The
information was private and was used only as part of the researcher’s Masters of
Management course master’s requirements.
12

Mentorship Programs
Literature Review
Do you have a mentor or participate in a mentorship program? Is that mentor still
providing guidance, coaching and sharing experiences? Who was your finest mentor?
Are you currently mentoring someone through your organizations professional gates,
which will improve their individual development? What effects did your organization’s
mentorship program have on you and others within your group? Now write those
answers down and examine it closely to see if that mentor or mentoring truly aided in
your or someone else’s professional development. Throughout the past there have been
famous mentor protégé relationships that have led to great history making moments.
George H.W. Bush was mentored by Richard M. Nixon and he became our 41st
President,
Condoleezza Rice was mentored by Brent Scowcroft (former National Security Advisor)
and she became Secretary of State for George W. Bush’s second term in office, Boris
Yeltsin (former Soviet President mentored Vladimir Putin who became Soviet President
and Harland Sanders (founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken) mentored Dave Thomas
(founder of Wendy’s restaurants) (Dalcourt 2002). How does a person find or seek out
mentor within their own organization? What can an organization do to start a formal or
informal mentorship program? Do mentorship programs work or do they cause friction
and resentment in an organization. How do we accommodate for individuals having
multiple jobs and careers in their life time with different mentors along the way? Do our
employees need or want a mentorship program? Before starting a mentorship program,
organizations must ask themselves these questions prior expending resources to
implement a mentorship program. This literature review will focus on the definition of
13

Mentorship Programs
mentorship, necessity or desire for a mentorship program and what factors affect a
mentorship program in an organization.
Today many organizations are developing and implementing mentorship
programs to develop their subordinates in order to be successful in future endeavors. If
done correctly mentorship programs can have a profound effect on an organization’s
culture. In today’s world of competing demands and reduced resources groups are trying
to find ways to effectively implement a mentorship program to motivate the average
person to become an integral part of their organization and make daily contributions to
the overall success of the group. Along with the competing demands globalization may
play a part or reason why organizations are implementing a mentorship program. In the
global market, there is more competition, diverse work force, distances between
geographic locations, and different environmental considerations. These factors would
cause organizations to ensure their personnel understand the inner workings of their
organization by implementing a mentorship program. Many upper level executives are
putting into action mentorship programs that will help ensure their organizations future.
These executives have come to understand the benefits from promoting mentorship
programs to better their organization and fostering a positive work environment.
However, leaders and upper level management must understand mentorship affects the
entire organization from upper level management to the lowest employee, which can be
both positive and negative.
First, we must define and comprehend the meaning of mentorship. 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 (Martin 2002). Mentor
14

Mentorship Programs
served as a tutor to Odysseus’ son when he went off to war (Martin 2002). Mentor was
responsible for ensuring Odysseus’ son was well cared for and taken care of in his
absence. The Army Field Manual 22-100 defines mentoring as the proactive
development of each subordinate through observing, assessing, coaching, teaching,
developmental counseling, and evaluating that results in people being treated with
fairness and equal opportunity (Department of the Army 1999). In the private sector a
mentor can be defined as a senior, experienced employee who serves as a role model,
provides support, direction and feedback to the younger employee regarding career plans
and interpersonal development (Finkelstein 2003). Mentorship can also be defined as an
intense interpersonal exchange between a senior experienced colleague (mentor) and a
less experienced junior colleague (protégé) in which the mentor provides support,
direction and feedback regarding career plans and personal development (Payne 2005).
Lastly Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary describes a mentor as a trusted counselor or
guide, tutor and coach and a protégé as one who is protected or trained or whose career is
furthered by a person of experience, prominence or influence (Schettler 2002). In
layman’s terms mentorship is a relationship in which a person with greater experience or
wisdom guides another to a higher level of personal and professional excellence
(Hairston 2000). These definitions of a mentor, mentorship and mentoring will aid in our
understanding of what effects a mentorship program either formal and informal has on a
organization.
Is there a need or desire for a mentorship program in your organization? The
power of mentorship is unmatched, when it works – so powerful that many successful
companies have tried to harness this force in structured programs (Schettler 2002). One
15

Mentorship Programs
such successful structured program is that if Richard McCloskey a Minnesota Mutual
Life’s agent who has a career building bonanza for his experienced producers who serve
as mentors (Brown 1995). McCloskey’s technique allows new recruits to observe top
producing executives with new prospects from the beginning of the selling process to the
end (Brown 1995). This formal process allows the protégé to learn what right looks like
from top selling executives, which McCloskey hopes will permeate throughout his
company.
Some corporations use the Mentor Model approach to leader development. This
example uses mentors who have been successful in their field and can provide valuable
insight and knowledge to one’s professional and personal development. Many leaders
need feedback from a person they trust, such as a mentor. The guidance and assessments
mentors give can provide valuable and insightful knowledge to the leader and aid in his
leadership development.
Texas Instruments identified the importance of being a mentor and reorganized its
management strategies into three main areas regarding mentorship. Texas Instruments
designed a talent acquisition, engaging and developing talent and talent retention as part
of their mentorship program (Business Week Online 2005). This program at Texas
Instruments allowed upper level executives to nurture and keep top employees with the
firm.
Additionally in 1985, Former Chief of Staff for the Army General John A.
Wickham Jr designated leadership as that years Army theme and addressed a framework
designed to produce more effective Army leaders (Hunsinger 2004). General Wickham
used a framework for his program that revolved around senior leaders challenging all
16

Mentorship Programs
leaders within the Army to be mentors to their subordinate (Hunsinger 2004). This edict
quickly led to mentoring becoming an Army paradigm and way of developing personnel.
According to Colonel Steven L. Bailey (with over 25 years of service),
Commander of Operations Group, he believes that everyone does not deserve a mentor
and that the protégé may not have the same mentor forever (Bailey 2005). Colonel
Bailey also stated that if you do the numbers for mentorship there just not enough
mentors to go around because of the limited number of mentors available. He also
believes that being a mentor is no substitute for the protégé’s current leadership. Lastly
Colonel Bailey says he became a mentor because it benefits the Army and that he
recognized future potential in the persons he mentored (Bailey 2005).
Conclusion
Developing and managing your mentorship program can be challenging and very
rewarding if done correctly to benefit your organization. In addition, true mentorship can
not be ordered, forced or taught; it is a natural result of harmonious rapport inherent in
the people themselves and the relationship they develop (Hunsinger 2004). The research
data gather from Operations Group seems to suggest there is a need for a mentorship
program and that he or she should have a quality mentor they can seek out for
professional advice. However, they also feel that no one should be forced into a
mentorship program; and that the mentor protégé relationship should be entered into
freely and be allowed to happen naturally between the two individuals.
17

Mentorship Programs
Study and Findings
GENDER
57
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
MALE FEMALE
MALE
FEMALE
Of the participants surveyed, 78 percent were male and 22 percent were female.
The majority of personnel in Operations Group are male resulting in the high percentage
of males taking the survey. The preponderance of females was government civilian
service employees.
18

Mentorship Programs
AGE
0
5 4 3 2 22
10
27
8
3
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
21-26 27-32 33-38 39-44 45-50 Over
50
FEMALE
MALE
The majority of males were between 33-38 years of age and the majority of
females were in the 27-32 years of age category. The age category of males indicates
they have had several jobs or careers and have a maturity level needed to be open to some
form of mentorship either formal or informal.
19

Mentorship Programs
ETHNICITY/RACE
5 0 5 4 0 0 0
7
1
43
6
0 0 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
African
Am
erican
Asian
CaucasianHispanic
Native
Am
erican
Pacific
Islander
O
ther
FEMALE
MALE
The ethnicity for females was 31 percent for both African American and
Caucasian females indicating a diverse group for research purposes. On the other hand
the male grouping was dominated by Caucasians, while African Americans and
Hispanics only had 12 and 11 percent respectively.
20

Mentorship Programs
RANK/GRADE
2 1 2
0 0
5
3
1 22
9
22
13
1 2 3
0
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
E5-
E6
E7-
E9
O1-
O3
O4-
O6
WO1-
CW5
GS 5-
7
GS 9-
11
GS
13+
Other
FEMALE
MALE
For the male static’s, the Company Grade Officer rank was 39 percent followed
closely by the Field Grade Officers, which had 23 percent that were surveyed. The
female population was dominated by the Government Civilian Service category GS 5-7
(31 percent) and GS 9-11 (19 percent).
21

Mentorship Programs
MILITARY/CIVILIAN SERVICE
2
4 3 2
5
0 0
2
12
22
8 7
3 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31 +
FEMALE
MALE
The number of service for males was 11-15 years of service which relates to 38
percent of all males surveyed. The female participants overall high were 21-25 years of
service for 31 percent.
22

Mentorship Programs
EDUCATION LEVEL
5 2 3 5
1 02
7 8
32
8
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
High
School/GED
Some
College
Associate's
Degree
Bachelor's
Degree
Master's
Degree
Doctorate
Degree
FEMALE
MALE
The female population showed 31 percent highs in two categories. From the
sixteen females surveyed 11 of the participants had Some College to a Master’s Degree
which shows the importance of education for women. These educated women will allow
organizations to use their knowledge and skills for a mentorship program. The males
surveyed had 56 percent of their population having a Bachelor’s Degree. This pool of 32
males clearly show this organization has a need to mentor this up and coming group of
supervisors, lower level and mid-level management.
23

Mentorship Programs
MARITAL STATUS
4
12
0
10
47
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Single Married Widowed
FEMALE
MALE
The importance of marriage is shown in both female and male categories with 75
percent for females and 82 percent for females.
24

Mentorship Programs
CURRENT POSITION
7 7
2 0 0
26
6
2
20
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Staff
Supervisor
LowerLevel
Management
Mid-Level
Management
UpperLevel
Management
FEMALE
MALE
The female percentages at the Staff and Supervisor level would indicate there is a
need in this organization to provide and recruit female mentors at the Mid and Upper
Level Management positions. With 35 percent of males at the Mid-Level and 5 percent
at the Upper Level would suggest this organization has a good nucleus for the 46 percent
of males in Staff positions.
25

Mentorship Programs
MENTOR PRIOR TO ARRIVING AT FORT IRWIN
4
12
27
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
YES NO
FEMALE
MALE
Participants receiving mentorship prior to Fort Irwin is almost even for males, but
females surveyed show a 75 percent majority that they were not mentored prior to their
arrival in this organization.
26

Mentorship Programs
PERSONS W/CURRENT MENTORS AT FORT
IRWIN
3
13
17
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
YES NO
FEMALE
MALE
This chart indicates for both female and male participants that there is a
downward trend for mentors. This reduction in mentors maybe a reason to readdress a
formal or informal mentorship program in this organization.
27

Mentorship Programs
PERSONS IN A MENTORSHIP PROGRAM
1
1515
42
0
10
20
30
40
50
YES NO
FEMALE
MALE
This chart shows there is little participation in a mentorship program formal or
informal. This chart may also suggest that personnel with the organization want to be
involved in some program to benefit their professional development while in their current
organization.
28

Mentorship Programs
TYPE OF MENTORSHIP PROGRAM
0
11
14
0
5
10
15
FORMAL INFORMAL
FEMALE
MALE
This graph shows clearly that the majority of participants who are in a mentorship
program prefer an informal system.
29

Mentorship Programs
SECTION I: Mentorship Program Effects
The results from this section show that the majority of the participants are overall
satisfied with the effects of their mentorship program. The data has a margin of error
because numerous participants selected neither agree nor disagree regarding effects of
their mentorship program.
SECTION II: Need for a Mentorship Program
This section clearly shows a 58 percent need for a mentorship program to be
implemented their current organization whether formal or informal. Additionally the
participants are not totally satisfied with their organization’s program structure in
meeting their professional development needs.
SECTION III: Mentorship Program Maintenance
The participants in this section are deeply unhappy with the level of maintenance
given to their organization’s mentorship plan. In this section of the survey participants
believe that there is not enough time dedicated to start, maintain and continue their
mentorship program. Additionally 42 percent believe that the mentorship program will
not be around for future employees of the organization. This data may suggest that this
organization train and educate their personnel on how to start and maintain a mentorship
program for future personnel.
SECTION IV: Mentorship Program Environments
The section has positive data regarding no negative retribution for personnel
engaging in mentorship programs. In this section 44 percent of participants agree that
this organization has a positive environment and that supervisors and management work
together to foster a mentorship program.
30

Mentorship Programs
SECTION V: Mentorship for Minorities and Women
In this section, 44 percent of the participants believe there are no challenges to
mentorship by way of race or religious beliefs. However, they are divided about the
number of opportunities for minorities and women within their current organization.
SECTION VI: Mentorship Program Endstate
Participant’s surveyed expressed concern with the desired endstate to their organizations
mentorship program. Over 43 percent surveyed for each question in section VI
articulated dissatisfaction for desired endstates and their mentors plan for the program.
31

Mentorship Programs
Conclusions
Problem Statement # 1: What overall effects, both positive and negative do
organizations incur when implementing a constructive mentorship program. The
research showed there is a positive effect regarding implementation of a mentorship
program. Of those surveyed 23 percent agreed that a mentorship program either
formal or informal had a positive effect on them both personal and professional.
Problem Statement # 2: Do subordinates in the organization even want, need, or
require a mentor to guide them while employed with the firm. The majority (63
percent) of survey participants neither agreed nor disagreed that they want some type
of mentorship program in their current organization. However, 30 percent surveyed
revealed that there is a need for a structured mentorship program that will aid in their
professional development.
Problem Statement # 3: How do organizations find the valuable time to develop
maintain a mentorship program while trying to increase the overall value of the
organization leading to continued mentorship for future personnel. Of the personnel
surveyed 50 percent expressed the need for time within their organization for a
mentorship program. The research shows that organizations need to devote more
time for mentorship and make it one of their priorities.
Problem Statement # 4: Can leaders and managers work in concert to provide
positive environments without threatening retributions in regards to who mentors
whom? Participants are overall satisfied with the cooperation between supervisors
and management working together in regards to mentorship. They also feel strongly
32

Mentorship Programs
that no retributions or negative effects will occur if they seek out mentorship or a
program is started.
Problem Statement # 5: By implementing a mentorship program within an
organization, how does that influence race relations, religious beliefs, and gender
recognition once a program has been approved to put into action. They survey
showed that race and religious ideals caused no friction in the work environment
when a mentorship program was being implemented. However, 22 percent felt that
women and minorities are sometimes left out when mentorship programs are being
implemented whether formal or informal.
Problem Statement # 6: What is the desired outcome of a mentorship program,
and how do mentors ensure the plan meets the desired end state and goals of the
organization. Participants were not satisfied that the desired endstate, goals and
results from the mentorship program are being shared. Additionally, protégé were not
given clear and concise plan for mentoring from their mentor.
33

Mentorship Programs
Premise Assessment
The research shows that Operations Group at the National Training Center, Fort
Irwin has a need for some type of mentorship program that is either formal or informal in
nature. When surveyed if persons in Operations Group need a mentorship program, 47
percent agreed they would welcome a mentorship program formal or informal. Only 4
percent of respondents strongly agreed they do not require mentorship program of any
kind. However, 70 percent of the people surveyed neither agreed nor disagreed that their
current organization’s mentorship program had produced negative results. Also the
survey results revealed that 60 percent of those surveyed neither agreed nor disagreed
that minorities and women were sometimes left out of the construction or implementation
of mentorship programs.
The premise of this paper was supported through all the primary and secondary
research conducted within Operations Group. This research demonstrates the need for a
mentorship program within an organization. Additionally, mentorship is occurring at all
levels for both military and civilians assigned to Operations Group. Finally mentorship
programs either formal or informal are a much needed and integral towards improving
and providing positive effects on an organization’s culture.
34

Mentorship Programs
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES
This research was limited to Fort Irwin; California with a fractional pool of
individuals assigned or employed the Operations Group at the National Training Center.
Future studies should include several military installations within the Armed Forces to
see how other services conduct or implement mentorship programs. This research
surveyed no Air Force, Navy or Marine personnel in regards to their thoughts on
mentorship programs and its effects on their organizations. In addition future researchers
could survey Fortune 500 corporations in Los Angles; California located over 100
hundred miles from Fort Irwin along with other Armed Forces to obtain additional data
regarding mentorship programs. Competition among executives within the Fortune 500
companies could be a problem statement to research for future studies. This study could
also be expanded to numerous civilian contractors and laborers on Fort Irwin to observe
the effects of a mentorship program.
The effects of a mentorship program may also be studied with parental approval
at the Senior High School level. The researcher could survey graduating seniors to
determine if they have a mentor and what influence that adviser had on their future plans
after high school. Then the researcher could look at the backgrounds of these high school
mentors to determine education level, management position, age and gender. This
research could also analyze what the graduating senior chose to do after high school; i.e.
military, trade school, join the work force or college based upon their mentor’s guidance,
advice and direction.
Finally, conducting this mentorship program research project with more time,
various organizations and survey participants would allow for greater fidelity in the data
35

Mentorship Programs
regarding the necessity for a formal of informal mentorship program. With more time the
researcher could develop more detailed survey questions that focus on how and what
effects mentorship programs have on organizational culture.
36

Mentorship Programs
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNIT STUDIED
The Operations Group, located at the National Training Center Fort Irwin,
California has a strong nucleus of senior military and civilian leaders who understand the
importance of mentorship. The majority of personnel surveyed desire to be mentored by
someone during their assignment in Operations Group. The research conducted has
concluded several recommendations for Operations Group. First, Operations Group must
continue to ensure their leadership at all levels understands the value of mentoring.
Second, an informal mentorship program will be more successful than a formal program.
The research shows people in Operations Group do not want to be told who will give
them mentorship; but free to seek out and choose who they want to mentor them while in
the organization. Lastly, increase informal mentorship awareness to minorities and
women. These recommendations if implemented could have a positive effect on the
Operations Group culture.
37

Mentorship Programs
References
Associates, the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, United States
Military Academy. (1988). Leadership in Organizations. Garden City Park, NY: Avery
Publishing Group.
Bailey, S. L., Commander of Operations Group. personal communication, May 5, 2005.
Breen, A. (2002). An Introduction to Fundamental Concepts and Styles. Retrieved April
26, 2005, from http://www.academyleadership.com/newsletters/news11.htm.
Brinker, S., Gunn, B., & Nakai, P. (2002). Leadership from Within. Retrieved April 25,
2005, from http://www.sdlcg.com/sdlsite/Articles/articles2002/leadershipwithin.htm.
Broer, E. (1998). Maslow’s Hierachy…30 years old and Keeps Ticking: Does
Maslow’s Theories Apply in China. Retrieved April 26, 2005, from
http://www.humandimension.org.
Brown, R. (1995). No Mentors? No Problem! Develop Your Program by Leading the
Way. Retrieved April 28, 2005, from
http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com.library3.webster.edu/itw/infomark.
Business Week Online. Retention Tips from the Trenches. Retrieved April 28, 2005,
from http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com.library3.webster.edu/itw/infomark.
Cadotte, P. (1999). Human Dimension at the Strategic Level. Retrieved April 26, 2005,
from http://www.cfcsc.dnd.ca.papers/nssc1/cadotte1.html.
Chan, D. (2000). The Development of Mentorship Programs at the Chinese University
of Hong Kong. Retrieved April 28, 2005, from
Dalcourt, C. (2002). Mentoring: Establishing a Legacy, Shaping the Future. Retrieved
April 28, 2005, from
Doehrman, M. (2003). Creating Leadership Ranks High on the List. Retrieved April 25,
2005, from http://80-proquest.imi.com.library.webster.edu/pqdweb.
Druckman, D. & Swets, J.A. (1988). Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theroies,
and Techniques, 1-20. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1025.html.
Dutton, C. (2003). Mentoring: The Contextualisation of Learing – Mentor, Protégé and
Organisational Gain in Higher Education, United Kingdom. Retrieved April 28, 2005,
from http://proquest.umi.com.library3.webster.edu/pqdweb.
38

Mentorship Programs
Finkelstein, L. (2003). An Examination of the Role of Age in Mentoring Relationships.
Retrieved April 28, 2005, from
Grindel, C. (2004). Mentorship: A Key to Retention and Recruitment. Retrieved April
28, 2005, from http://web35.epnet.com.library3.webster.edu/citation.asp.
Hairston, C. (2000). Mentorship. Retrieved April 28, 2005, from
http://web35.epnet.com.library3.webster.edu/citation.asp.
Harrison, M. (2004). True Mentorship is Never Scripted. Retrieved April 28, 2005,
from http://web35.epnet.com.library3.webster.edu/citation.asp.
Harvey, A. (2002). The Call to Lead: How Ordinary People Become Extraordinary
Leaders. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from
http://www.sdlcg.com/sdlsite/Articles/articles2002/Harvey.htm.
Headquarters, Department of the Army. (1999). FM 22-100: Army Leadership.
Washington, DC.
Headquarters, Department of the Army. (1987). FM 22-103: Leadership and Command
at Senior Levels. Washington, DC.
Headquarters, Department of the Army. (1996). FM 100-6: Information Operations.
Washington, DC.
Hollingsworth, R. (1997). The Mentorship Program: A Hidden Weapon. Retrieved
April 28, 2005, from http://web35.epnet.com.library3.webster.edu/citation.asp.
Hughes, R.L., Ginnett R.C. & Curphy G.J. (2002). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons
of Experience (4th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hunsinger, N. (2004). Mentorship: Growing Company Grade Officers. Retrieved April
28, 2005, from http://web35.epnet.com.library3.webster.edu/citation.asp.
Jenkins, M. (2005). Why You Need a Mentor. Retrieved April 28, 2005, from
http://proquest.umi.com.library3.webster.edu/pqdweb.
Johnson, W. & Huwe, J. (1999). Does Mentorship Foster Success? Retrieved April 28,
2005, from http://web35.epnet.com.library3.webster.edu/citation.asp.
Laferriere, T, Breuleux, A., Baker, P., & Fitzsimons, R. (1999). In-service Teachers
Professional Development Models in the Use of Information and Communication
39

Mentorship Programs
Technologies. Retrieved April 26, 2005, from
http://www.tact.fse.ulaval.ca/ang/html/pdmodels.html.
Martin, G. & Reed, G. (2002). The Road to Mentoring: Paved with Good Intentions.
Retrieved April 28, 2005, from http://web35.epnet.com.library3.webster.edu/citation.asp.
Meehan, D. (2001). Conceptual Map of Leadership Development Models. Retrieved
April 26, 2005, from the Leadership Learning Community data base.
Paret, P., Gordon A. C., & Felix G. (1986). Makers of Modern Strategy: From
Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Payne, S. (2005). A Longitudinal Examination of the Influence of Mentoring on
Organizational Commitment and Turnover. Retrieved April 28, 2005, from
Pranksky, G. (2001). The Human Factor: Excerpt from Healthy Business. Retrieved
April 26, 2005, from http://www.sdlcg.com/sdlsite/Articles/healthybus.htm.
Reid, B. (1994). Mentorships Ensure Equal Opportunity. Retrieved April 28, 2005,
from http://web35.epnet.com.library3.webster.edu/citation.asp.
Rosello, V. (1996). Mentoring and Counseling: A Tag –Team Approach to Professional
Development. Retrieved April 28, 2005, from
Russell, G. (2001). Personal Leadership. Retrieved April 26, 2005, from
http://www.humandimension.com.au/Lifeworks/Lifeworks-11-2001.html.
Schettler, J. (2002). The Measure of a Mentor. Retrieved April 28, 2005, from
Sorley, L (1992). Thunderbolt: General Creighton Abrams and the Army of His Times.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Verdejo, T (2002). Mentoring: A Model Method. Retrieved April 28, 2005, from
http://proquest.umi.com.library3.webster.edu/pqdweb.
Ward, B. (2001). The Five Key Facets of High Performance Leadership. Retrieved
April 26, 2005, from http://www.affinitymc.com.Five_Facets_of _Leadership.htm.
Weigley, R. F. (1970). The American Way of War. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
40

Mentorship Programs
Wilson, J.F. (2002). Business Cultures and Business Performance: A British
Perspective. Retrieved April 26, 2005, from
http://www.neha.nl/publications/jb_index2001.html
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations (3rd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
41

Mentorship Programs
Appendix A- Survey Cover Letter
Voluntary Survey
Department of Management and Leadership
Webster University
Fort Irwin, California 92310
Dear Contributor:
The intention of this survey is to assist me in meeting the requirements of a Master’s
degree in Management from Webster University. I am requesting your participation, but
it is totally voluntary.
The information gathered from this survey will be used to assess the existence of
Mentorship Programs in the United States Armed Forces and Federal Government
civilian system.
Mentorship is defined as a personal relationship between two people where usually the
senior person serves a guide, role model or sponsor of a less experienced protégé. The
mentor also provides knowledge, advice, challenges, counsel and support regarding an
organizations policies and procedures.
Your individuality will remain private if you choose to participate in this survey. Only
the examination of the information will be presented to my professor and class mates. I
received approval from Webster University and Dr. Jack Hahm to administer this study.
The participant’s view point will not be considered for official Army policy. This is not
an official survey; however, your response is very important to the research I am
performing.
Again, I guarantee you that your answers involved with this survey will remain
undisclosed. Thank you in advance for taking the time to complete this survey. Any
questions or concerns may be directed to the undersigned at (760) 380-4281.
Respectfully,
Von M. Brickhouse
Webster University Graduate Student
42

Mentorship Programs
Appendix B - Mentorship Program Survey
Instructions: For each question listed below, please identify the best possible response
that describes you and your experiences. Please be as truthful and accurate as possible.
That data that you provide will be kept confidential and used for research project
purposes only. Thank you in advance for giving of your valuable time and assistance.
Demographics
1. Gender
a. Female b. Male
2. Age
a. 21-26 b. 27-32 c. 33-38 d. 39-44 e. 45-50
f. Over 50
3. Ethnicity/Race
a. African American b. Asian c. Caucasian
d. Hispanic e. Native American f. Pacific Islander
g. Other__________
4. Rank/Grade
a. Junior NCO (E5-E6) b. Senior NCO (E7-E9)
c. Officer (01-03) d. Officer (04-06)
e. Warrant (W01-CW5) f. GS (05-07)
g. GS (09-11) h. GS (13 or higher)
i. Other_________
5. Total years in Military or Government Civilian Service
a. 0-5 b. 6-10 c. 11-15 d. 16-20 e. 21-25
43

Mentorship Programs
f. 26-30 g. 31 or more
6. Education Level
a. High School Graduate/GED b. Some College
c. Associate’s Degree d. Bachelor’s Degree
e. Master’s Degree f. Doctorate Degree
7. Marital Status
a. Single b. Married c. Widowed
8. What best describes your current position
a. Staff b. Supervisor c. Lower level management
d. Mid-level management e. Upper level management
9. Did you have a Mentor(s) prior to arriving at Fort Irwin?
a. Yes b. No
10. Do you currently have a Mentor(s) at Fort Irwin?
a. Yes b. No
11. Does your organization have a mentorship program?
a. Yes b. No
12. If yes, select type
a. Formal b. Informal
44

Mentorship Programs
(Please use scale below to answer questions)
1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neither Agree/Disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree
If you do not have a formal or informal mentorship program skip to section II.
SECTION I: Mentorship Program Effects
13. Overall I am satisfied with my organization’s mentorship
program.
1 2 3 4 5
14. The mentorship program has had a positive effect on my
professional growth.
1 2 3 4 5
15. I want my organization to implement a mentorship program to
improve my self worth.
1 2 3 4 5
16. My organization’s mentorship program has produced negative
results.
1 2 3 4 5
17. To provide positive effects our organization needs more mentor
training and education.
1 2 3 4 5
SECTION II: Need for a Mentorship Program
18. I need a mentorship program either formal or informal. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I do not need or want a mentor to assist me while in my current
position.
1 2 3 4 5
20. Subordinates can provide mentorship as well as supervisors and
upper level management.
1 2 3 4 5
program meeting my needs.
1 2 3 4 5
22. At Fort Irwin there is a need for a structured mentorship
program that will aid in my professional development.
1 2 3 4 5
SECTION III: Mentorship Program Maintenance
23. My organization devotes time for a mentorship program. 1 2 3 4 5
24. Our mentorship program has the resolve to be in place for
future personnel who work or get assigned to our organization.
1 2 3 4 5
25. Overall, I am satisfied with the upkeep of our mentorship
program.
1 2 3 4 5
26. Overall, the value of my organization has improved because the
mentorship program.
1 2 3 4 5
27. My organization frowns upon providing time to maintain a
mentorship program.
1 2 3 4 5
45

Mentorship Programs
SECTION IV: Mentorship Program Environments
28. Overall, our organization provides a positive environment for a
mentorship program.
1 2 3 4 5
29. Personnel in my organization have no negative retribution
when conducting mentoring.
1 2 3 4 5
30. Overall, I am satisfied with the positive environment provided
by the mentorship program.
1 2 3 4 5
31. Supervisors and management work closely to provide a
positive mentorship environment.
1 2 3 4 5
32. When I arrived at Fort Irwin starting a mentorship program had
negative effects on my organization.
1 2 3 4 5
SECTION V: Mentorship for Minorities and Women
33. Overall, I am satisfied with the number and level of mentorship
programs for minorities and women.
1 2 3 4 5
34. Minorities and women can provide just as important mentoring
guidance as men.
1 2 3 4 5
35. Religious beliefs and race cause friction in my organization
when mentorship programs are implemented.
1 2 3 4 5
36. There are enough upper level minorities and women to provide
quality mentorship.
1 2 3 4 5
37. Minorities and women are sometimes left out of the
construction and implementation of mentorship programs.
1 2 3 4 5
SECTION VI: Mentorship Program Endstate
38. My organization clearly defines our mentorship programs
desired endstate and goals.
1 2 3 4 5
39. My mentor has clearly explained his or her plan for mentoring. 1 2 3 4 5
40. I am overall satisfied with the endstate of my organizations
mentoring program.
1 2 3 4 5
41. A desired endstate is not needed. 1 2 3 4 5
42. My organization monitors the success of our mentorship
program and shares results.
1 2 3 4 5
46

Mentorship Programs
Appendix C- Raw Data
Demographics
1. Gender Female Male Total
16 – 22% 57 -78% 73 -100%
2. Age a. 21-26 b. 27-32 c. 33-38 d. 39-44
2 – 3% 15 – 21% 31 – 42% 11 – 15%
e. 45-50 f. Over 50
5 – 7% 9 – 12%
3. Ethnicity/Race a. African American b. Asian
12 – 17% 1 – 1%
c. Caucasian d. Hispanic
47 – 64% 10 – 14%
e. Native American f. Pacific Islander
1 – 1% 0 – 0%
g. Other
2 – 3%
4. Rank/Grade a. Junior NCO (E5-E6) b. Senior NCO (E7-E9)
5 – 7% 10 – 14%
c. Officer (01-03) d. Officer (04-06)
24 – 33% 13 – 17%
e. Warrant (W01-CW5) f. GS (05-07)
1 – 1% 7 – 10%
g. GS (09-11) h. GS (13 or higher)
47

Mentorship Programs
7 – 10% 2 – 3%
i. Other
4 – 5%
5. Mil/Civil Service a. 0-5 b. 6-10 c. 11-15 d. 16-20
5 – 7% 16 – 22% 25 – 34% 10 – 14%
e. 21-25 f. 26-30 g. 31 or more
12 – 16% 3 – 4% 2 – 3%
6. Education Level a. High School Graduate/GED b. Some College
5 – 7% 12 – 16%
c. Associate’s Degree d. Bachelor’s Degree
11 – 15% 37 – 51%
e. Master’s Degree f. Doctorate Degree
8 – 11% 0 – 0%
7. Marital Status a. Single b. Married c. Widowed
16 – 22% 57 – 78% 0 – 0%
8. Current Position a. Staff b. Supervisor
32 – 44% 14 – 19%
c. Lower level management d. Mid-level management
4 – 5% 20 – 27%
e. Upper level management
3 – 4%
48

Mentorship Programs
9. Mentor (s) prior a. Yes b. No
32 – 44% 41 – 56%
10. Current Mentor (s) a. Yes b. No
19 – 26% 54 – 74%
11. Mentorship program a. Yes b. No
16 – 22% 57 – 78%
12. If yes, type a. Formal b. Informal
1 15
Problem Statement Questions
1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Neither Agree/Disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly Disagree
Total number of responses for each survey question shown in blue.
SECTION I: Mentorship Program Effects 1 2 3 4 5
program.
1 8 48 9 7
14. The mentorship program has had a positive effect on my
professional growth.
4 13 45 4 7
15. I want my organization to implement a mentorship program to
improve my self worth.
6 8 46 7 6
16. My organization’s mentorship program has produced negative
results.
0 3 51 11 8
17. To provide positive effects our organization needs more mentor
training and education.
4 19 45 1 4
49

Mentorship Programs
SECTION II: Need for a Mentorship Program 1 2 3 4 5
18. I need a mentorship program either formal or informal. 7 35 24 5 2
19. I do not need or want a mentor to assist me while in my current
position.
3 9 17 35 9
20. Subordinates can provide mentorship as well as supervisors and
upper level management.
17 36 12 8 0
program meeting my needs.
4 11 34 17 7
22. At Fort Irwin there is a need for a structured mentorship
program that will aid in my professional development.
8 29 22 13 1
SECTION III: Mentorship Program Maintenance 1 2 3 4 5
23. My organization devotes time for a mentorship program. 1 4 32 27 9
24. Our mentorship program has the resolve to be in place for
future personnel who work or get assigned to our organization.
1 5 36 23 8
25. Overall, I am satisfied with the upkeep of our mentorship
program.
1 6 37 21 8
26. Overall, the value of my organization has improved because the
mentorship program.
1 8 44 13 7
27. My organization frowns upon providing time to maintain a
mentorship program.
1 0 44 19 9
SECTION IV: Mentorship Program Environments 1 2 3 4 5
28. Overall, our organization provides a positive environment for a
mentorship program.
5 28 26 10 4
29. Personnel in my organization have no negative retribution
when conducting mentoring.
7 25 33 6 2
30. Overall, I am satisfied with the positive environment provided
by the mentorship program.
4 11 43 8 7
31. Supervisors and management work closely to provide a
positive mentorship environment.
5 16 33 13 6
32. When I arrived at Fort Irwin starting a mentorship program had
negative effects on my organization.
0 0 40 27 6
50

Mentorship Programs
SECTION V: Mentorship for Minorities and Women 1 2 3 4 5
33. Overall, I am satisfied with the number and level of mentorship
programs for minorities and women.
1 7 39 20 6
34. Minorities and women can provide just as important mentoring
guidance as men.
23 24 20 4 2
35. Religious beliefs and race cause friction in my organization
when mentorship programs are implemented.
0 0 38 23 12
36. There are enough upper level minorities and women to provide
quality mentorship.
9 20 28 12 4
37. Minorities and women are sometimes left out of the
construction and implementation of mentorship programs.
2 2 43 15 9
SECTION VI: Mentorship Program Endstate 1 2 3 4 5
38. My organization clearly defines our mentorship programs
desired endstate and goals.
2 2 36 24 9
39. My mentor has clearly explained his or her plan for mentoring. 3 13 27 20 10
40. I am overall satisfied with the endstate of my organizations
mentoring program.
1 10 36 20 6
41. A desired endstate is not needed. 1 7 27 30 8
42. My organization monitors the success of our mentorship
program and shares results.
2 3 38 22 8
51

Mentorship Programs
Appendix D – Survey Graphs
GENDER
16
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FEMALE MALE
FEMALE
MALE
AGE
2
15
31
11
5
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
21-26 27-32 33-38 39-44 45-50 Over 50
52

Mentorship Programs
ETHNICITY/RACE
12
1
47
10
1 0 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
A
frica
n
A
m
e
ric
a
n
A
sia
nC
a
u
ca
sa
in
H
is
p
an
ic
N
a
tiv
e
A
m
e
ric
a
n
P
a
cific
Isla
n
d
e
r
O
th
e
r
RANK/GRADE
5
10
24
13
1
7 7
2
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
E5-E6 E7-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 W01-
CW5
GS 5-7 GS9-11 GS 13
+
Other
53

Mentorship Programs
MILITART/CIVILIAN SERVICE
5
16
25
10
12
3 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31 +
EDUCATION LEVEL
5
12 11
37
8
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
HS
G
raduate/G
ED
Som
e
C
ollege
Associate's
D
egreeBachelor's
DegreeM
aster's
D
egreeDoctorate
D
egree
54

Mentorship Programs
MARITAL STATUS
16
57
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Single Married Widowed
CURRENT POSITION
32
14
4
20
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Staff Supervisor Lower Level
Management
Mid-Level
Management
Upper Level
Management
55

Mentorship Programs
MENTOR PRIOR TO ARRIVING AT FORT IRWIN
32
41
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
YES NO
CURRENTLY HAVE A MENTOR AT FORT IRWIN
19
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
YES NO
56

Mentorship Programs
MENTORSHIP PROGRAM IN YOUR
ORGANIZATION
16
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
YES NO
TYPE OF MENTORSHIP PROGRAM
1
15
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
FORMAL INFORMAL
57

Mentorship Programs
Overall I am satisfied with my organization's
mentorship program
1
8
48
9 7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
The mentorship program has had a positve effect
on my professional growth
4
13
45
4 7
0
10
20
30
40
50
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
58

Mentorship Programs
I want my organization to implement a mentorship
program to improve my self worth
6 8
46
7 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
My organization's mentorship program has
produced negative results
0 3
51
11 8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
59

Mentorship Programs
Our organization needs more mentor training and
education
4
19
45
1 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
I need a mentorship program either formal or
informal
7
35
24
5 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
60

Mentorship Programs
I do not need or want a mentor to assit me while in
my current position
3
9
17
35
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
Subordinates can provide mentorship as well as
supervisors and upper level management
17
36
12
8
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
61

Mentorship Programs
Overall I am satisfied with my organization's
mentorship program meeting my needs
4
11
34
17
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
At Fort Irwin there is a need for a structured
mentorship program
8
29
22
13
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
62

Mentorship Programs
My organization devotes time for a mentorship
program
1
4
32
27
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
Our mentorship program has the resolve to be in
place for future personnel
1
5
36
23
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
63

Mentorship Programs
Overall, I am satisfied with the upkeep of our
mentorship program
1
6
37
21
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
Overall, the value of my organization has
improved because of the mentorship program
1
8
44
13
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
64

Mentorship Programs
My organiztion frowns upon providing time to
maintain a mentorship program
1 0
44
19
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
Our organization provides a positive environment
for a mentorship program
5
28 26
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
65

Mentorship Programs
Personnel in my organization have no negative
retribution when conducting mentoring
7
25
33
6
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
Overall, I am satisifed with the positive
environment provided by the mentorship program
4
11
43
8 7
0
10
20
30
40
50
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
66

Mentorship Programs
Supervisors and management work closely to
provide a positive mentorship environment
5
16
33
13
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
When I arrived at Fort Irwin starting a mentorship
program had negative effects on my organization
0 0
40
27
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
67

Mentorship Programs
Overall, I am satisfied with the number and level of
mentorship programs for minorities and women
1
7
39
20
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
Minorities and women can provide just as
important mentoring guidance as men
23 24
20
4 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
68

Mentorship Programs
Religious beliefs and race can cause friction in
my organization when mentoring programs are
implemented
0 0
38
23
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISA
GREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
There enough upper level minorities and women
to provide quality mentorship
9
20
28
12
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
69

Mentorship Programs
Minorities and women are sometimes left out of
the construction and implementation of
mentorship programs
2 4
43
15
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISA
GREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
My organization clearly defines our mentorship
programs desired endstate and goals
2 2
36
24
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
70

Mentorship Programs
My mentor has clearly explained his or her plan
for mentoring
3
13
27
20
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
I am overall satisfied with the endstate of my
organizations mentoring program
1
10
36
20
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
71

Mentorship Programs
A desired endstate is not needed
1
7
27
30
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAGR
EE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
My organization monitors the success of our
mentorship program and shares results
2 3
38
22
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER
AGREE/DISAG
REE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
72

Thesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Thesis

Similar to Thesis (20)

Thesis