Mentorship Programs in the Military Sector
Mentorship programs are often misunderstood. Historically speaking, “the term mentor is derived from both the Greek language and mythology. Mentor was the friend and counselor of Ulysses, who during his 10-year Odyssey raised Ulysses’ son.” (Hunsinger, 2004) Mentoring is a forceful, lengthy process after which the individual taught grows tutor’s guidance. After the successful completion of a mentorship program, the protege learns to adjust to the requirements of a speedy, nerve-racking environment. Mentorship programs are extremely important for both the military and the civilian sector.
In the year 1997, Chief of Staff of the US Army instructed the Professional Development of Officers Study (PDOS) to give formal suggestions for the professional growth of officers through 2025 for the whole Army. Only 59% officers stated at that time that they had a mentor. (Army Mentorship Resource Center, n.d.) As modern higher-ranking administrators confront challenges presented by speedy scientific, cultural, and economic changes, the need to locate and improve future administrators for militaries and nations is always on the rise. Once prospective leaders are spotted, military leaders have to train them so that the newcomers can face upcoming challenges in the future.
For a military mentorship course to be effective, military leaders must first comprehend what mentoring means. In the 1980s, Lieutenant General Charles W. Bagnal contributed in an article titled “Leaders as Mentors”. In this article, the authors defined the conventional features of mentorship programs by identifying the mentor’s role as assisting the mentee in simplifying career objectives and developing a durable approach for professional improvement; developing interim personal development strategies; acquiring technical and administrative expertise through training; developing the framework of recommendations and standards needed at advanced organizational phases; managing occupational or personal challenges through guidance; and obtaining the experience needed for development through intervention. (Hunsinger, 2004)
There are three possible strategies to execute a feasible mentorship program in the military. Each strategy has its advantages and disadvantages. Strategy 1 involves formation and execution of a mentorship procedure from the top down that utilizes researched metrics for each officer to apply as a benchmark for mentorship. (Hunsinger, 2004) Using this strategy, mentorship programs can fill the existing void in military policies by clearly identifying mentorship and by offering assistance on how to become a successful mentor. Moreover, mentorship programs can be subject to modifications based on comments from the field. These programs can be employed for training in military schools instead of the negligible exposure that mentoring currently receives. Furthermore, such programs can provide assistance to low-ranking leaders on how to become successful mentors in future as their expertise begins to develop. Lastly, using this strategy, mentorship programs can encourage trust and confidence as higher-ranking leaders understand the necessity for formal mentorship programs and are prepared to address it.
However, there are a few drawbacks too of this strategy. For example, a formal mentorship program might lead to doubts because the definition and application of mentorship differ from one leader to another. Moreover, military personnel will only get what they invest in a mentorship program. Furthermore, it may be problematical to evaluate the success of such programs because they are subjective.
The second strategy requires introduction of a bottom-up mentorship policy that adheres to mentorship’s basic doctrines set by a new military course of action. Furthermore, this strategy requires that military commanders report their achievements. (Hunsinger, 2004)
This methodology gives flexibility to senior and junior officers in developing appropriate programs. Furthermore, it spreads out the program with reoccurring supervision to monitor development. This strategy too encourages trust and confidence as seniors recognize the inevitability for mentorship programs. Moreover, in this strategy, mentorship programs promote professional development because a bottom-up mentorship policy is applied.
Nevertheless, there are some disadvantages of this strategy too. Firstly, assessing performance of individual programs would be subjective, not irrefutable. Furthermore, each unit would have a distinct definition of how to carry out mentoring. This can lead to confusion when officers leave for other duty stations.
In the third strategy, things are left as they are. In this way, senior leaders can characterize and instigate mentorship programs as per the need and when they feel the need. Moreover, it would not force officers to engage in mentorship programs. However, junior officers would not gain much as they would not get formal support from their seniors in prearranged mentorship programs. Moreover, junior officers would lose confidence in their seniors since mentorship would be given to only some preferred personnel. Lastly, officers would enroll in mentorship programs only because of good luck or because of the timing of such programs.
The military is organized in a chain of command. “The key to the mentorship program’s success is command emphasis and accurate and timely feedback through the chain of command to ensure its continued success.” (Hunsinger, 2004) A formal mentorship program must be designed from the top down so that it can flourish.