Mentoring programs implementation:

differences between group and

individual mentoring
ndez-Ferrín
Nuria Gisbert-Trejo, Eneka Albizu, Jon Landeta and Pilar Ferna

1. Introduction Nuria Gisbert-Trejo is

based at the Centre for
Mentoring is a technique used mainly by large companies and associations for Human Cooperative Research on
Resource Development (HRD). In this way, the experienced mentor helps a junior Alternative Energies (CIC
professional (mentee) acquire competencies and skills to develop his/her professional energiGUNE), Basque
career (Kram, 1985) within the structure of a mentoring program (MP). Research & Technology
Alliance (BRTA),
There are up to four types of group mentoring programs (GMPs): peer group mentoring,
Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain and
one-to-many, many-to-one, many-to-many. In this paper, one-to-many GMPs will be Institute of applied
addressed (Huizing, 2012). In this approach of GMPs, an experienced mentor acts as a Business Economics,
guide, ally, catalyst and at the same time facilitates peers to mentor other individuals in the University of the Basque
group. This form of mentoring is developed when the program coordinator (PC) has access Country (UPV/EHU), Bilbao,
to few mentors or wants to leverage the experience and skills of the mentees as a source of Spain. Eneka Albizu is the
knowledge and enrichment of the mentoring process. based at the Institute of
Applied Business
Some authors have studied GMPs in-depth in the last decade (Huizing, 2012; Kroll, 2016), Economics, University of
but references addressing the particularities of setting up individual mentoring programs to the Basque Country (UPV/
compared (IMPs) are scarce (Carvin, 2011). EHU), Bilbao, Spain. Jon
Landeta Rodriguez is
Therefore, this study aims to establish the differences between the implementation of IMPs
based at the Institute of
and GMPs and serve as a guide for human resource (HR) managers and mentoring
Applied Business
program (MPs) coordinators. Economics, University of
the Basque Country (UPV/
2. Mentoring program implementation: step by step EHU) Bilbao, Spain.
Pilar Fernandez-Ferrı́n is
MP implementation can be described in eight sequential stages (Vance et al., 2017): based at the Institute of
Applied Business
1. Establishment of the purpose (1-EP): reflecting the MP objectives following the
Economics, University of
organization’s mission and needs.
the Basque Country (UPV/
2. Form a mentoring Committee (2-FMC): appointment of the MP’s committee and PC. EHU) Bilbao, Spain.

3. Structure the program (3-SP): definition of communication and dissemination

strategies, recruitment strategies, matching criteria, evaluation tools and program
calendar.
4. Recruit participants (4-RP): establishment of dissemination channels to recruit mentors
and mentees.
This paper is part of the EHU-
5. Match mentors and mentees (5-MMM): making pairings or groupings according to the Fundación Vital project (VITAL
objectives of the program and needs of the mentees. 20/07).

DOI 10.1108/DLO-05-2021-0091 j
© Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1477-7282 DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL j
 6. Communicate with program participants and provide guidance (6-CP): establishing the
necessary tools for developing the mentoring processes: communication with
participants; initial training; mentoring agreement; development of the mentoring
sessions; meetings follow-up; formative evaluation; improvement/development actions.

7. Solicit feedback from program participants (7-SF): systematic evaluations tend to be

more comprehensive when the successive editions progress.

8. Produce a concluding report and evaluation (8-PCR): elaborating concluding reports to

evaluate MPs efficacy and improve MP for the subsequent editions.

3. Method
Semi-structured interviews with 16 experts were conducted between June 2018 and June
2019, mainly MP coordinators (88.9%), consultants (7.4%) and mentors (3.7%). Experts
had experience in different MPs, 37.5% in IMP, 37.5% in GMP and 25% in both. During
the interviews, the eight steps of the Vance et al. (2017) model for implementing MPs
explained in section 2 were reviewed, and those aspects that were especially relevant for
IMP or GMP were identified. The participants were asked to describe how they put each
of these phases into practice, highlighting the most relevant aspects within the individual
or group-mentoring practices depending on the program’s type. Details related to each
phase were asked, for example, step 1-PE, what were the program’s objectives? And
how were they established?; step 6-CP, what were the most distinctive roles that the
mentors and mentees had to fulfill?
During the interviews, interviewees were invited to distinguish between individual and
GMPs, especially those with experience in both types of MPs. The interviews were recorded
and transcribed. The results were distributed to all participants in summary-table format
after the interviews for additional feedback.

4. Findings
Based on the model presented and on the interviews, the authors have captured the most
relevant commonalities and differences in the application of IMPs versus GMPs.

4.1 Commonalities in the implementation of IMPs and GMPs

From the information analyzed, it can be concluded that some phases of MP
implementation are developed in the same way for IMPs or GMPs. In particular, aspects
related to MP formalizing, launching and evaluation. These common phases are: 1-EP;
2-FMC; 3-SP; 8-PCR.

4.2 Differences in the implementation of IMPs and GMPs

According to the evidence gathered, in GMPs, special attention should be paid to the
following aspects:
Recruitment of mentors (4-RP): unlike the mentor who works one-on-one, group mentors
exhibit unique characteristics to energize a mentees group. In addition to the difficulty of
finding expert mentors committed to the program, there is the added challenge of
identifying the mentor’s skill of energizing groups and exploiting the strengths and
capabilities of each mentee in a group context. This fact adds a degree of difficulty to the
management of the MP. Mentors should be trained with skills to handle group mentoring to
ensure the best results from the GMP.
Recruitment of mentees (4-RP): Some MPs manage too many mentees, or scarce mentors
through group processes. GMPs allow more mentees to access the MP than IMPs. In

j DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL j

GMPs, the PC must consider in the mentees selection that mentees will be at certain times
co-mentors of their peers and have to be willing to contribute to the group (for example,
sharing an experience or giving feedback). Thus, mentees also help maximize the group’s
learning. Experts interviewed also highlight that in GMPs, the whole group mirrors and
supports the evolution of each mentee (as the mentee declares typically his/her objectives
in front of the group who act as a witness) and engages the higher commitment of each
mentee. Although the mentor is the most experienced and knowledgeable, the mentees in
the group also share their experiences in a peer-mentoring approach, which motivates the
participants and enriches the results. Therefore, the success of the GMP is group success.
Matching (5-MMM): in contrast to the diversity of criteria used for the matching process in
the various IMPs consulted, GMPs’ matching criteria mainly focuses on the subject
addressed by the group (mainly competencies or technical skills) to leverage the expertise
of its members.
Communicate with program participants and provide guidance (6-CP): In most IMPs, there is
a confidentiality agreement between parts. In GMPs, this contract is often substituted by an
oral group-agreement. In addition, the group agrees on internal rules in terms of operation,
objectives to be addressed from session to session, and commitments.
Although the duration of the programs analyzed in both types of MPs is similar
(6–12 months), the duration of the group-sessions frequently exceeds the typical length of
individual sessions (150 vs. 90 mins approx.). The group agrees on the periodicity of the
meetings. Due to the collective character of the dynamic, it is more difficult to obtain a
precise measurement of the progress of the group in their day-to-day objectives.
Solicit feedback from program participants (7-SF). For the reasons mentioned above, the
evaluation process of GMPs tends to be less precise, and in practice, only satisfaction is
often measured. However, there is no technical reason to prevent an evaluation of each
participant’s progress in the group. Longitudinal analysis of the professional success of
each participant, assessment of the degree of achievement of the pre-set objectives,
evaluation of the behavioral changes achieved, etc., can also be carried out in the GMPs
(Carvin, 2011). Neglecting outcome evaluation could seriously limit the effectiveness of the
program.

5. Final reflections and implications

Mentoring is an HRD tool that helps the mentees shorten their learning curve and develop
their professional skills. MPs contribute to the knowledge transfer, development, and
retention of talent needed by the organization. Many organizations address the deployment
of IMPs, which allows for closer and more controlled monitoring of mentee development.
Others organize GMPs, due to the lack of mentors and/or the abundance of mentees or
seeking to incorporate an additional peer-mentoring component, which enriches learning
and generates significant commitment and satisfaction (Carvin, 2011).
The phases proposed in the model seek to provide HR managers and PCs with a solid
foundation to deploy IMPs and GMPs. In GMP, special attention must be paid to the
selection and training of mentors with group-leadership skills, mentees willing to interact
with other colleagues, and the creation and acceptance of internal rules of functioning as a
group. In the case of IMP, successful mentor-mentee matching is critical. Future research
should explore the validation of this model for implementing IMPs and GMPs and its results
both at the one-time level and with longitudinal studies on different programs. Likewise, the
study sample should be expanded to a broader number of experts and broader
geographical scope.

j DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL j

 Acknowledgments
The research group would like to thank the members of the Expert Group in mentoring that
are collaborating with the Research Project: Iluminada Aparicio and Jesu lez
s Mari Gonza
(CVE); Nerea Aranguren (EHUalumni); Isabel Iturbe (AED); Oscar Garro, Araceli Cabezo n
and Ane Aguirre (Vesper Solutions); Sofı́a Barturen and Ana Arrieta (Bilbao Ekintza); Inma
Ramos and Ana Artetxe (Gaztenpresa); Ainara Basurko, Lucı́a Graña and June Sola (Beaz);
Marı́a Luisa de Miguel and Ana San Juan (Escuela de Mentoring); Carmen Mellina (PWN
Network), Cristina Andrés and Xabier Dı́az (Parque Tecnolo gico de Bizkaia), Luciano
Keywords: Azpiazu (Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros Industriales de Bizkaia); José Miguel Martı́nez
Mentoring, (Ahalbidetu); Sara Go mez (Real Academia de Ingenierı́a); Julio Rodrı́guez (Asociacio n
Group mentoring,
Española de mentoring); Marı́a Angeles Fernandez and Gloria Lorenzo (Oracle); Miguel
Human resources
development, Aurelio Alonso (Universidad complutense de Madrid); Isabel Montals (Barcelona Activa);
Individual mentoring, Elena Villanueva (Iberdrola); Karina Talone (Xerox); Javier Garcı́a (Azti-Basque Research &
Mentoring program Technology Alliance); Jaime Sagardui (Achucarro Basque Center for Neuroscience).

References
Carvin, B.N. (2011), “The hows and whys of group mentoring”, Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 49-52, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851111098162.

Huizing, R.L. (2012), “Mentoring together: a literature review of group mentoring”, Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 27-55, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.645599.
Kram, K.E. (1985), Mentoring at Work, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.

Kroll, J. (2016), “What is meant by the term group mentoring?”, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 44-58, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2016.1165488.
Vance, E.A., Tanenbaum, E., Kaur, A., Otto, M.C. and Morris, R. (2017), “An eight-step guide to creating
and sustaining a mentoring program”, The American Statistician, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 23-29, doi: https://doi.
org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1251493.

About the authors

Dr Nuria Gisbert-Trejo is the General Manager of CIC EnergiGUNE, a member of the
Basque Research & Technology Alliance (BRTA), and a researcher of the Institute of
Applied Business Economics at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). Nuria
Gisbert-Trejo is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ngisbert@
cicenergigune.com

Dr Eneka Albizu is a researcher at the Institute of Applied Business Economics at the

University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).
Dr Jon Landeta is the Director of the Executive MBA of the University of the Basque Country
(UPV/EHU) and a researcher of the Institute of Applied Business Economics at the
University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).
ndez-Ferrı́n is a researcher at the Institute of Applied Business Economics at
Dr Pilar Ferna
the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU).

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

j DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL j