Presenting the Business Case:
A National Mentoring Program for
Evaluators
CES National Capital Chapter Annual
Learning Eve...
Core Mentoring Working Group
 James Coyle
 Natalya Kuziak
 Dominique Leonard
 Judy Lifshitz
 Kathryn Radford
 Lisa S...
3
Agenda
 Objectives
 Background
 Methodology
 Findings by major theme
 Conclusions
 Next Steps
4
Objectives of The Mentoring
Working Group
 To research the feasibility of developing a
national mentoring program for e...
5
Background
 One new evaluator’s need for mentoring
 Need for mentoring expressed at the annual
learning event for the ...
6
Methodology
 The results from three lines of evidence
have guided the development of efforts to
date. These lines of ev...
7
Findings by Major Theme
1. The demand for a mentoring program for
evaluators
2. The advantages and disadvantages of a
me...
1. The demand for a mentoring
program for evaluators
8
9
Demand for a mentoring program for
evaluators
Year Effort and Findings/Action
2005 Evaluation practice in Canada: result...
Demand for a mentoring program for
evaluators
72% of respondents don’t have
a mentor
69% felt they would benefit
from a me...
Demand for a mentoring program for
evaluators
62% of respondents are not
mentoring anyone
56% felt they would benefit
from...
12
Demand for a mentoring program for
evaluators
Yes,
30%
No,
24%
Don't
Know,
42%
Other,
4%
Q33 Would you be interested
in...
13
Demand for a mentoring program for
evaluators
Q23. In either role, when would you be interested in
participating in a n...
14
2. The advantages and disadvantages
of a mentoring program for
participants
15
Advantages and disadvantages for mentees
Top 3 Advantages
1. Source of feedback and
strategies
2. Personal development
...
16
Advantages and disadvantages for mentors
Top 3 Advantages
1. Development of
discipline/next generation
of evaluators
2....
17
Advantages and disadvantages for organizations
•Legal risks need to be
examined
•Develop clear guidelines for
participa...
3. Dimensions of an effective
mentoring program
18
Dimensions of an effective mentoring
program: functions
 Two main functions of mentoring relationships:
a) Benefits to ca...
Dimensions of an effective mentoring
program: functions
20
3.60 3.70 3.80 3.90 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60
Support ...
21
Dimensions of an effective mentoring
program: participant attributes
• Very important attributes for both parties in a
...
Dimensions of an effective mentoring
program: types
Informal
 Relationship develops
naturally, no
organizational support
...
23
Dimensions of an effective mentoring
program: types
Q16 What type of mentoring relationship would you
prefer? (n=398)
4...
24
Dimensions of an effective mentoring
program: communications
 In-person, face-to-face
 E-mentoring (email, chat or di...
25
Dimensions of an effective mentoring
program: communications
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Other
Private e-dialogue on a dedicated...
26
Dimensions of an effective mentoring
program: supports
 Pairing/matching function
 Monthly online newsletters
 Resum...
27
Dimensions of an effective mentoring
program: supports
89.8 88.3 87.3 85.2
78.1 77.3
70.4 70.4 69.1
51.0 47.0
0.0
10.0
...
4. The issues and risks to
consider when developing a
mentoring program
29
Issues and risks: lifecycle flexibility
Initiation
(6 mos -1
year)
Cultivation (2-
5 years)
Separation
(6 mos – 2
years)
R...
31
Issues and risks: matching
 Successful matching is critical
 Strategies for successful matching:
 Informal social ga...
32
Issues and risks: critical supports
 Arrange for recruitment, training & support of
mentors
 Guidelines for the estab...
33
Other issues and risks
 Potential to become overly “bureaucratic”
 Mentoring may mitigate the loss of young
evaluator...
34
Issues and risks: Pilot program
implications
1. Be flexible
2. Matching protocol
3. Training, support, goals
4. Code of...
Conclusions: A strategy for
establishing a national
mentoring program
35
Conclusions
 There is an appetite and demand for mentoring
for evaluators in Canada
 There is a significant number of ev...
Proposed model
 Proposed model is a national on-line mentoring service
with multiple forms
 Capacity for on-line discuss...
Next Steps
Design a
model
program
Determine
costs and
methods
of cost
recovery
Develop a
business
case
Obtain
funding or
i...
Questions for Discussion
 Have we identified all the issues? What have we not
considered?
 How do we keep the momentum g...
40
Acknowledgements
 Supporters of the Core Mentoring Working Group:
 Anna Engman
 Claude-Anne Godbout Gauthier
 Lisa ...
41
References
Allen, T. & Eby, L. (2007). The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A
Multiple Perspectives Approach. Blackwell...
Appendix: Survey
Demographics
42
4343
Survey Demographics
By gender (n = 392) By age range (n = 391)
Female
73%
Male
27%
•Cross tabs for gender X preferenc...
4444
Survey Demographics
 Highest level of education obtained (n = 393):
2.3%
13.2%
3.8%
60.1%
20.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30....
4545
Survey Demographics
 Province/territory of primary workplace
or place of study (n = 390):
52.8%
13.6% 11.5%
6.2% 2.8...
4646
Survey Demographics
 What sector do you work in? (n = 389)
22.1% 21.3%
12.6% 12.3%
10.3%
4.9%
2.8% 1.8%
11.8%
0.0%
5...
4747
Survey Demographics
 How many years have you been
working in evaluation? Avg: 9.62 yrs
44.7%
21.7%
14.4%
7.6% 6.5%
3...
of 46

Presenting the business case for an evaluator specific national mentoring program

Published on: Mar 4, 2016
Source: www.slideshare.net


Transcripts - Presenting the business case for an evaluator specific national mentoring program

  • 1. Presenting the Business Case: A National Mentoring Program for Evaluators CES National Capital Chapter Annual Learning Event Nov. 23, 2010 Core Mentoring Working Group 1
  • 2. Core Mentoring Working Group  James Coyle  Natalya Kuziak  Dominique Leonard  Judy Lifshitz  Kathryn Radford  Lisa Styles  Jane Whynot
  • 3. 3 Agenda  Objectives  Background  Methodology  Findings by major theme  Conclusions  Next Steps
  • 4. 4 Objectives of The Mentoring Working Group  To research the feasibility of developing a national mentoring program for evaluators  To seek the input from attendees at the NCC Annual Learning Event  To develop a business case and model for a pilot project or several pilot projects  To facilitate the roll out of a national mentoring program
  • 5. 5 Background  One new evaluator’s need for mentoring  Need for mentoring expressed at the annual learning event for the NCC in Oct 2009  Presentation on mentoring at a L&L session in Ottawa, Nov 2009  Breakfast sessions at the CES Conference in Victoria 2010  Formation of the Mentoring Working Group in 2010
  • 6. 6 Methodology  The results from three lines of evidence have guided the development of efforts to date. These lines of evidence have included: Literature review Secondary survey data review National on-line survey on mentoring (n=432) Informal consultations (CES, AEA)
  • 7. 7 Findings by Major Theme 1. The demand for a mentoring program for evaluators 2. The advantages and disadvantages of a mentoring program for participants 3. The dimensions of an effective mentoring program 4. The issues and risks to consider when developing a mentoring program
  • 8. 1. The demand for a mentoring program for evaluators 8
  • 9. 9 Demand for a mentoring program for evaluators Year Effort and Findings/Action 2005 Evaluation practice in Canada: results of a national survey* 50% respondents indicated that lack of mentor availability is a barrier 2008 Will they join the team and stay? A study of potential and new program evaluators* Individuals with mentor more likely to feel that evaluation is prestigious (49%vs.31%) Individuals with mentor felt evaluators held enviable position (43%vs.24%) 2009 Mentoring via the Independent Consulting TIG: Enhancing the Value of Professional Affiliations* 80% expressed interest in mentoring program (73% mentee, 52% mentor) 2009 Lunch & Learns for Evaluators of Ottawa session on Mentoring Working group struck to investigate possibilities of a national program * Denotes references available in the bibliography
  • 10. Demand for a mentoring program for evaluators 72% of respondents don’t have a mentor 69% felt they would benefit from a mentoring program as a mentee 10
  • 11. Demand for a mentoring program for evaluators 62% of respondents are not mentoring anyone 56% felt they would benefit from a mentoring program as a mentor 11
  • 12. 12 Demand for a mentoring program for evaluators Yes, 30% No, 24% Don't Know, 42% Other, 4% Q33 Would you be interested in volunteeringin another capacity?
  • 13. 13 Demand for a mentoring program for evaluators Q23. In either role, when would you be interested in participating in a national mentoring program? 19% 52% 32% 19%20% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Asa mentor As a mentee Longer term Within 1-2 years Immediately
  • 14. 14 2. The advantages and disadvantages of a mentoring program for participants
  • 15. 15 Advantages and disadvantages for mentees Top 3 Advantages 1. Source of feedback and strategies 2. Personal development 3. New or more challenging work projects Top 3 Disadvantages 1. Mismatch within the dyad 2. Inappropriate behaviour by mentor 3. Distancing or neglect by mentor •Screening and matching is important Implications • These are therefore success factors to monitor and evaluate
  • 16. 16 Advantages and disadvantages for mentors Top 3 Advantages 1. Development of discipline/next generation of evaluators 2. Obtain fresh perspectives, knowledge and skills 3. Opportunity to demonstrate and enhance leadership skills Top 3 Disadvantages 1. Legal complications (grievance, nepotism) 2. Negative reflection on mentor (low-performing mentee) 3. Dysfunctional relationships • Could be focus of messaging for recruitment strategy Implications •Legal risks need to be examined •Continuous monitoring •Develop clear guidelines for participants
  • 17. 17 Advantages and disadvantages for organizations •Legal risks need to be examined •Develop clear guidelines for participants and code of ethics Implications • Could be focal points for the marketing a national mentoring program Top 3 Advantages 1. Lower turn-over, employee retention 2. Organizational cohesiveness 3. Succession planning and organizational growth Top 3 Disadvantages 1. Lowered morale or grievances 2. Perpetuation of inequalities (uncontrolled informal mentoring) 3. Poaching of employees
  • 18. 3. Dimensions of an effective mentoring program 18
  • 19. Dimensions of an effective mentoring program: functions  Two main functions of mentoring relationships: a) Benefits to career  Challenging projects  Feedback  Visibility  Strategies  Protection b) Psychosocial support  Friendship  Counselling  Role-modelling 19
  • 20. Dimensions of an effective mentoring program: functions 20 3.60 3.70 3.80 3.90 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 Support in adapting to a new workplace, culture, language, profession Advice on navigating work relationships Career planning advice Advice on avoiding mistakes Exposure to new contacts and opportunities in evaluation Advice on ethical questions in evaluation Expert skills in a subject matter Rating Average
  • 21. 21 Dimensions of an effective mentoring program: participant attributes • Very important attributes for both parties in a mentoring relationship – Understanding – Availability/consistency – Enthusiasm – Willingness to share resources – Personality/interpersonal compatibility – Experience/interest in specific content areas
  • 22. Dimensions of an effective mentoring program: types Informal  Relationship develops naturally, no organizational support Formal  Supported and sanctioned  Presence of structure, guidelines, poli cies  Provision of assistance for mentoring lifecycle Traditional/hierarchical form  Dyad Non Traditional forms  Peer/lateral  Team/group  Multiple  Functional/needs driven 22
  • 23. 23 Dimensions of an effective mentoring program: types Q16 What type of mentoring relationship would you prefer? (n=398) 49% 23% 14% 9% 5% One-on-one relationship Access to a network of multiple mentors Group mentoring Functional mentoring for a defined project only Other
  • 24. 24 Dimensions of an effective mentoring program: communications  In-person, face-to-face  E-mentoring (email, chat or discussion groups, E-forums)  Blended E-communications as primary (50% on-line) E-communications as supplemental
  • 25. 25 Dimensions of an effective mentoring program: communications 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Other Private e-dialogue on a dedicated website E-forum between mentor and group of mentees Group in-person meetings Telephone E-mail Face-to-face interaction Q17 How would you prefer to communicate with your mentor(s) or mentee(s)? (n=398)
  • 26. 26 Dimensions of an effective mentoring program: supports  Pairing/matching function  Monthly online newsletters  Resume database  Resources and links  Central mentorship coordination
  • 27. 27 Dimensions of an effective mentoring program: supports 89.8 88.3 87.3 85.2 78.1 77.3 70.4 70.4 69.1 51.0 47.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 % of respondents rating program component as important or very important
  • 28. 4. The issues and risks to consider when developing a mentoring program 29
  • 29. Issues and risks: lifecycle flexibility Initiation (6 mos -1 year) Cultivation (2- 5 years) Separation (6 mos – 2 years) Redefinition (~years after separation)
  • 30. 31 Issues and risks: matching  Successful matching is critical  Strategies for successful matching:  Informal social gatherings  Face-to-face meetings  Seek out more than one mentor  Creating profiles based on matching criteria  E.g., gender, work styles, personality traits  88% of survey respondents said matching was important to very important
  • 31. 32 Issues and risks: critical supports  Arrange for recruitment, training & support of mentors  Guidelines for the establishment of clear goals & expectations for both mentors & mentees  Code of ethics that addresses:  Confidentiality & trust  Integrity & honesty  Conflict of interest  Professionalism
  • 32. 33 Other issues and risks  Potential to become overly “bureaucratic”  Mentoring may mitigate the loss of young evaluators from the field  Almost 53% of survey respondents were from Ontario  Costs are unknown at this point
  • 33. 34 Issues and risks: Pilot program implications 1. Be flexible 2. Matching protocol 3. Training, support, goals 4. Code of ethics 5. Simple 6. Get involved
  • 34. Conclusions: A strategy for establishing a national mentoring program 35
  • 35. Conclusions  There is an appetite and demand for mentoring for evaluators in Canada  There is a significant number of evaluators who are interested in participating as mentees, mentors or both  The advantages of mentoring for evaluators are likely to outweigh the disadvantages and disadvantages can be mitigated with a well designed program
  • 36. Proposed model  Proposed model is a national on-line mentoring service with multiple forms  Capacity for on-line discussion groups or open forums  Program Coordinator(s)  Database of profiles, screening of participants, and a matching process  Suite of support tools (e.g., participation guidelines, code of ethics, resource information, training materials, monitoring, evaluation)
  • 37. Next Steps Design a model program Determine costs and methods of cost recovery Develop a business case Obtain funding or in-kind support Pilot a few mentoring projects in Canada Determine success and areas for improvem ent Develop a national program
  • 38. Questions for Discussion  Have we identified all the issues? What have we not considered?  How do we keep the momentum going? Who will assist? e.g., creating a business case? launching pilots and the national program? Who should be approached?  Where should the program be piloted? For how long?  Are evaluators willing to pay for such a service? How much?  Is a national mentoring program for evaluators sustainable?
  • 39. 40 Acknowledgements  Supporters of the Core Mentoring Working Group:  Anna Engman  Claude-Anne Godbout Gauthier  Lisa O’Reilly  Canadian Evaluation Society  Survey respondents  To contact us: MentoringWorkingGroup@gmail.com
  • 40. 41 References Allen, T. & Eby, L. (2007). The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK. Gauthier, B., Borys, S., Kishchuk, N., Roy, S.N. (2006) Survey of evaluation practice and issues in Canada in The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. Vol.(21)3, pgs.1-42 Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Martinez-Rubin, Norma and Becky Melzer. Mentoring via the Independent Consulting TIG: Enhancing the Value of Professional Affiliations, 2009. Roy, S.N., Kishchuk, N., Gauthier, B., Borys, S. (2008) Will they join the team and stay? A study of potential and new program evaluators. Paper presented at the CES Conference, Québec, May 12, 2008
  • 41. Appendix: Survey Demographics 42
  • 42. 4343 Survey Demographics By gender (n = 392) By age range (n = 391) Female 73% Male 27% •Cross tabs for gender X preference to act as mentor or mentee probably important 1.3% 23.2% 27.6% 25.8% 19.3% 2.8% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 24 and under 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over
  • 43. 4444 Survey Demographics  Highest level of education obtained (n = 393): 2.3% 13.2% 3.8% 60.1% 20.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% High school, college, or otherBachelorsGraduate certificate or diplomaMasters Doctorate
  • 44. 4545 Survey Demographics  Province/territory of primary workplace or place of study (n = 390): 52.8% 13.6% 11.5% 6.2% 2.8% 2.3% 10.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% • Observations and conclusions •Need to discuss with Jane re. additional sampling that occurred
  • 45. 4646 Survey Demographics  What sector do you work in? (n = 389) 22.1% 21.3% 12.6% 12.3% 10.3% 4.9% 2.8% 1.8% 11.8% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
  • 46. 4747 Survey Demographics  How many years have you been working in evaluation? Avg: 9.62 yrs 44.7% 21.7% 14.4% 7.6% 6.5% 3.5% 1.6% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 30+ # of years in evaluation

Related Documents