Mentoring with(in) care: A co-constructed auto-ethnography of mutual learning

Research into workplace mentoring is principally focussed on predictors and psychosocial and instrumental outcomes, while there is scarcely any in-depth research into relational characteristics, outcomes and processes. This article aims to illustrate these relational aspects. It reports a co-constructed auto-ethnography of a dyadic mentoring relationship as experienced by mentor and protégé. The co-constructed narrative illustrates that attentiveness towards each other and a caring attitude, alongside learning-focussed values, promote a high-quality mentoring relationship. This relationship is characterised, among other things, by person-centredness, care, trust and mutual influence, thereby offering a situation in which mutual learning and growth can occur. Learning develops through and in relation and is enhanced when both planned and unplanned learning takes place. In addition, the narrative makes clear that learning and growth of both those involved is intertwined and interdependent and that mutual learning and growth enriches and strengthens the relationship. It is concluded that the narrative illustrates a number of complex relational processes that are difficult to elucidate in quantitative studies and theoretical constructs. It offers deeper insight into the initiation and improvement of highquality mentoring relationships and emphasises the importance of further research into relational processes in mentoring relationships. Introduction There is increasing consensus that learning and professional development should take place as much as possible within the workplace and in interaction, partly because this accords with the complexity of organisations and encourages the transfer of knowledge to the everyday work situation (Carmeli, Brueller & Dutton, 2009; Eraut, 2004; Snoeren, Janssen, Niessen & Abma, 2014). In line with this insight, mentoring in organisations has become increasingly popular. There is also growing interest in workplace mentoring in the literature and, since the pioneering work of Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, and McKee (1978) and Kram (1983, 1984), the concept has frequently been described and researched. Originally mentoring was portrayed as a long and continuously evolving relationship between a less experienced person (protégé) and someone more experienced (mentor), where the focus is on the protégé’s career and psychosocial development (Kram, 1983, 1984). The mentor can be a peer, the supervisor or someone else in or outside the organisation (Eby, Rhodes & Allen, 2010; Kram, 1984), who supports the protégé in learning about the organisation and preparing for a (future) function through sponsorship, coaching, setting challenging assignments, role-modelling, counselling or friendship (Kram, 1983). Over the years the concept of mentoring has been extended, and other forms of mentoring have been described that are not limited to the original proposed long-term individual face-to-face relationship. Examples include team mentoring, ementoring, and network mentoring (Higgins & Kram, 2001; Ragins & Kram, 2007; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2010). Distinction is now also made between formal (organisationally initiated) and informal (spontaneously developed) mentoring (Chun, Sosik & Yun, 2012; Eby, Rhodes, et al., 2010). The importance and value of mentoring has frequently been investigated. From these principally quantitative, correlational, and cross-sectional studies, usually from the perspective of either the protégé or the mentor (Allen, Eby, O’Brien & Lentz, 2008), it has emerged that the protégé, the mentor and the organisation all may benefit from mentoring. Results reported include, among other things, career development, job performance, work satisfaction, commitment to the organisation and interpersonal relations (e.g. Allen & Eby, 2003; Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz & Lima, 2004; Chun et al., 2012; Ghosh & Reio Jr, 2013; Hu, Wang, Yang & Wu, 2014; Kammeyer-Mueller & Judge, 2008; Lankau, 2002; Thurston, D'Abate & Eddy, 2012; Underhill, 2006). These effects can be influenced by various factors such as individual idiosyncrasies, experienced similarities, organisational characteristics, duration of the relationship, and the type of mentoring (e.g. Allen & Eby, 2003; Baranik, Roling & Eby, 2010; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000; Tonidandel, Avery & Phillips, 2007; Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller & Marchese, 2006), but also appear to be