Mentoring in Ministry Survey

Transcription

1 Mentoring in Ministry Survey Findings Report September 2013 Prepared by Revd Dr Lee Longden, Diocese of Manchester, Senior Lecturer, North-West University, South Africa.

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 1. Introducing the Mentoring in Ministry Survey The Survey Questionnaire 6 2. The Findings of the Survey The Shape of Current Mentoring Practice Curacy First Incumbency What Makes An Effective Mentor? Mentoring Practice Additional Observations The Possibilities of E-mentoring Attitudes to E-mentoring in the MMS Survey Comparison With Other Contexts Who Might Be An Effective E-mentor? E-mentoring Additional Observations 15 References 16 2

3 Executive Summary The Mentoring in Ministry Survey is an independent research project seeking to understand how mentoring is currently used by dioceses to support clergy in ministry, compare this practice with that of other professions and latest mentoring research, and offer recommendations for how mentoring might be extended and developed. It also considers whether online resourcing (e-mentoring) might play a valuable part in this provision. 35 Diocesan Directors of Ministry (or equivalent) completed the online survey, from 33 dioceses. A small number of Directors delegated this to IME or CMD officers. The survey asked a range of questions, some surveying current practice in curacy and at the point of transition into first incumbency, others assessing attitudes to what makes a good mentor, and some evaluating attitudes to e-mentoring. There is a good level of mentoring provision currently across the dioceses, reflecting an acknowledgement of its effectiveness in supporting clergy, but much of it follows the traditional pattern of one mentor working with one mentee. This expression was the dominant model across business and the professions. But questions have been raised of the ability of one mentor to offer support in all three mentoring realms career development, personal development and nurture, and modelling appropriate behaviours. In some professions, a mentor also having a gatekeeper or reporting role exacerbates this difficulty, which reduces their effectiveness as a personal development mentor. In the Church, this is perhaps more significant than it has previously been in the light of Common Tenure and the Clergy Discipline Measure. Comparable mentoring practice from other professions and current mentoring research have largely moved away from this model to a broader one in which a number of mentors contribute to a mentee s development, both concurrently and over time the developmental networks model. The range of perspectives, and choice of one or more mentors for each mentoring realm, helps the mentee to be better equipped to work effectively across a number of contexts, to learn quickly and to be more flexible in their approach to work and personal development. Just under half of the responding dioceses offer mentoring other than that of the training incumbent during curacy, so are already moving towards this model, in some way. All of the mentors at the two stages are either experienced clergy or laity from within each diocese. The majority are experienced clergy, and a range of factors influences their choice. At the curacy stage, choice is mainly through perception of effectiveness as a mentor by an IME Officer, but perception of effectiveness as an incumbent by Senior Staff is almost as influential. At first incumbency stage, the single most influential factor for appointment as a mentor is perception of effectiveness as an incumbent. Whilst using in-house mentors offers some advantages, particularly in terms of socialising a new curate or incumbent into the culture of a diocese, and understanding the contexts in which they work, much wider mentoring research advocates using a broader pool of mentors in order to find the most appropriate person and a range of perspectives for the mentee. The survey revealed some inconsistency in thinking here, as a question ranking traits of a good mentor did not rate effectiveness as an incumbent and proven ability to grow churches highly. Current mentoring research has raised significant questions about whether age, seniority and experience alone are a sufficient guarantee of effectiveness as a mentor. The adult development perspective advocates considering the mentor s own stage of personal development alongside their professional development and seniority, as an indication of their ability to move a mentee 3

4 towards developing both their personal identity as a priest and professional identity within the Church in ways that result in appropriate accountable autonomy. Currently, although contact plays some part in mentoring relationships, e-mentoring is not widely used. There is considerable doubt within dioceses about its value, and a feeling that not enough is known about it yet to make an informed choice. E-mentoring could add value to mentoring practice in terms of convenience (greater flexibility in scheduling appointments and on the job responses as questions come up); expanding the pool of potential mentors worldwide; and undermining barriers to effective mentoring through using mentors who are not also the mentees superiors within a diocese or people who they are likely to run into in other contexts. E-mentoring does not necessarily require investment in technology, as , readily available video conferencing software such as Messenger, SKYPE or Facetime, and social networking sites such a Twitter or Facebook, offer convenient ways of facilitating mentoring. The skills needed to mentor online are fundamentally the same as those needed to mentor effectively face-to-face, and the choice of technology can be tailored to the technical abilities of the mentor and mentee, without loss of effectiveness. Some degree of training in effective communication and appropriate behaviour online would be needed, however, if both mentors and mentees are to get the most out of these relationships. Further work could usefully be done to survey how well dioceses promote a culture of mentoring currently, and whether any provision is made for whole ministry mentoring. Only one respondent to this survey indicated that this is the normative practice in their diocese currently. 4

5 1. Introduction to the Mentoring in Ministry Survey The Mentoring in Ministry Survey (MMS) is a stand-alone piece of research, which formed the final project for the author s MSc degree course in multimedia and e-learning at the University of Huddersfield. It aimed to find out how clergy are currently being supported through mentoring across the Church of England, and consider if there are ways in which this support might be extended in cost-effective yet productive ways. It also explored whether online resources could potentially add value to any extension of mentoring practice. The research builds on several, smaller, projects undertaken within that course, and the author s doctoral research into curacy at the University of Birmingham. Through collaboration with Dr Tim Ling, National Adviser for Continuing Ministerial Development, the project seeks to contribute to the further development of effective support strategies for clergy across the Church in contemporary contexts of great challenge and opportunity. The research draws on the developmental networks model of mentoring (e.g. Higgins and Kram, 2001) and the adult development perspective (e.g. Chandler and Kram, 2005) for its theoretical foundations. The developmental networks model has formed one of the most significant developments in mentoring practice across the professions over the past 30 years. It emerged in response to profound changes in the world of work, in which the assumption of a job for life, based in one organisation or context, was being replaced by work patterns characterised by collaboration across organisations and contexts, greater mobility, and the need for flexibility in how employees learn and work. This changed the way in which employees needed to be supported and developed. The traditional model of mentoring, in which an experienced professional worked oneto-one with a new employee, socialising them in the culture of the organisation and teaching them the skills needed to succeed in that context, started to appear less effective than it had been. The developmental networks model assumes that a mentee will need a number of mentors, each of whom offers different ways of looking at things and different types of support within the three realms of mentoring: career related (aimed at career development); psychosocial (nurturing personal development); and role modelling (modelling appropriate behaviours and attitudes). Through receiving this range of support from a diverse group of mentors, a mentee becomes more able to learn quickly, negotiate changing contexts for work effectively, and deepens their ability for reflective practice. The adult development perspective considered why some mentoring relationships work well, whilst others fail. In particular, it challenged the assumption that age, status, and experience necessarily make a good mentor, and investigated whether the personal development of mentors and mentees plays a significant part in predicting how successful a mentoring relationship might be. It uses Kegan s (1982) six stage developmental theory, which claims that in a lifetime, a person passes through distinct developmental stages. Gradually they become better at integrating their experiences into how they understand themselves. The last three stages, the interpersonal, institutional and interindividual self, most accurately describe the developmental level of adults. Adults at the interpersonal stage can develop mutual relationships, but often they struggle with making significant decisions, as they can lack a clear personal identity. So a mentee at this stage needs a mentor to help them develop that identity. Mentors who are at this stage may struggle to allow their mentee to develop their own voice. They can, instead, try to make the person in their own image, largely to reinforce their own identity. At the institutional stage, a person has formed an identity, and can begin and sustain relationships that will enable personal learning and growth. But their position, status and networks within the institution of which they are a part can mostly determine their identity. This can make it difficult for individuals to work beyond the confines of the institution in an effective way. A clergy mentee at 5

6 this stage may need a mentor to help them work beyond being chaplain to a congregation, or partner effectively with organisations beyond the Church, and so may need a mentor who can introduce new perspectives. A mentor at this stage may not be able to think outside the inherited culture of the Church, or may allow issues of status to undermine an effective mutually beneficial mentoring relationship. At the final, interindividual, stage, a person's sense of self is grounded in a wider sense of connectedness. Their institution informs who they are, but does not determine it. Consequently mentees at this stage will probably have developmental networks that include a wide range of people: peers, superiors, and subordinates. The relationships they generate will likely evidence mutual benefit and highly creative learning. The Adult Development perspective suggests that those responsible for matching mentors and mentees in formal programmes, and mentees who are looking for informal mentoring, should consider the developmental stage of both mentor and mentee, alongside more traditional markers of skill competence, when choosing a mentor. It also encourages organisations to promote other expressions of mentoring, such as peer coaching and group mentoring alongside mentor/mentee networks. Ethically, this project works to the guidelines of the British Educational Research Association, a copy of which can be found here: The Survey Questionnaire The MMS questionnaire, an online survey using the Survey Monkey interface, was developed during It contains questions that survey current practice in mentoring across the Church of England during curacy and transition to first incumbency, invite opinion on what makes a good mentor, and consider whether online resources (e-mentoring) might add value to mentoring practices. None of the questions required a response, which led to some participants skipping different questions. In presenting the data below, the number of respondents will be shown for each question. A majority of the questions also allowed multiple-choice responses, to allow for multiple approaches within dioceses to be reflected where there is not a single approach. The content of the questions was reviewed both by Andrew Youde, Senior Lecturer at the University of Huddersfield, and Revd Canon Peter Reiss, Diocesan Director of Discipleship and Ministry Training in the Diocese of Manchester. Revd Professor Julia Davies, Associate Diocesan Director of Ordinands in the Diocese of Manchester, and retired Professor of Management Studies in the University of Lancaster, offered further advice on effective question formulation. The questionnaire was sent to Diocesan Directors of Ministry, or equivalent, across the 44 dioceses. 35 responses were received from 33 dioceses, giving a response rate of 75% (not including duplicate responses provided by two dioceses). No further sampling techniques were used in selecting the potential respondents to be surveyed, and the analysis of data is deliberately simple, being limited to percentages or means. 6

7 2. The Findings of the Survey 2.1 The Shape of Current Mentoring Practice The questionnaire surveyed current mentoring practice at two stages: curacy and transition to first incumbency Curacy 42% of responding dioceses (33) offered mentoring to curates from somebody other than their training incumbent. 58% did not. In a majority of responding dioceses (21), these mentors are not part of the formal reporting structures for curacy. Figure 1. Inclusion of mentors in formal reporting structures Most of the mentors used by responding dioceses (15) are experienced clergy from within the diocese (53%), but some also use lay people from within the diocese (47%). 7

8 Potential mentors in the responding dioceses (13) are identified in a number of ways, mainly by IME Officers thinking them competent as a mentor, or Senior Staff thinking them competent as an incumbent. Figure 2. Ways in which potential mentors are identified Against published criteria IME Officer perception of competence as incumbent Senior Staff perception of competence as incumbent IME Officer perception of competence as mentor Senior Staff perception of competence as mentor Most mentors (in 85% of the 13 responding dioceses) are trained by an informal conversation or phone discussion about what the role involves, and 46% of dioceses also offer a face-to-face training course. No diocese uses online resources or a training manual to train mentors. Mentors are mainly formally matched to curates by the IME Officer (or equivalent) in the responding dioceses (93% of 14). 36% of dioceses allow a curate to choose a mentor, who is then approved by diocesan staff, and in 7% of dioceses, the curate can choose from a diocesan list of approved mentors. The model of mentoring used is mostly one-to-one, face-to-face, meetings, though phone and contact play a significant part, and some peer group mentoring is also taking place. 8

9 Figure 3. Models of mentoring currently being used First Incumbency At first incumbency stage, 81% of responding dioceses (32) offered mentoring. 19% did not. In 78% of responding dioceses (23), the mentors are experienced clergy from within each diocese. In 22% of dioceses experienced laity from within each diocese supplement the clergy. The mentors are identified in a number of ways, but predominantly impressions of competence as an incumbent by a CMD Officer or Senior Staff: Figure 4. Ways in which potential mentors are identified Against published criteria CMD Officer perception of competence as incumbent Senior Staff perception of competence as incumbent CMD Officer perception of competence as mentor Senior Staff perception of competence as mentor 9

10 Most mentors (in 73% of responding dioceses [22]) are trained by an informal conversation or phone discussion about the role. 45% of dioceses offer a face-to-face training course. No diocese uses online training or a training manual. In 67% of responding dioceses (21) mentors are matched to first incumbents formally by a CMD Officer (or equivalent). In 29% of dioceses first incumbents make their own arrangements, with the encouragement of diocesan staff, and in 5% of dioceses first incumbents choose informally from an approved diocesan list. A small number of respondents also indicated that Bishops or Archdeacons are actively involved in the matching process. In 88% of responding dioceses (25), the mentors do not give reports on those being mentored. In 12% of dioceses, the mentors also have a reporting role. The strongest mentoring model is again one-to-one, face-to-face, meetings, though and phone contact continue to play a part and a small number of dioceses offer peer group mentoring. Figure 5. Models of mentoring currently being used 10

11 2.1.3 What Makes An Effective Mentor? The survey deliberately did not offer a definition of mentor or mentoring. When asked to rate character traits and skills typical to an effective mentor, drawn from both mentoring literature and Christian leadership texts, the participants (31) responded, as follows, where 4 is very important and 1 is not so important : Figure 6. Gifts and skills of an effective mentor Mean Being a reflective practitioner 3.81 Flexibility in approach to mentoring to accommodate the mentee s learning style 3.63 Empathy 3.53 Good communication 3.52 Willingness to engage in lifelong learning 3.40 Ability to facilitate transformative learning 3.39 Commitment to shared ministry 3.35 Being a reflexive practitioner 3.27 Flexibility in own preferred leadership/working style 3.13 Understanding how adults learn 3.03 Competence as an incumbent (or equivalent) 2.77 Ability to evaluate progress accurately 2.74 Good level of theological knowledge 2.68 High Expectations 2.29 Demonstrated competence in growing churches % of responding dioceses (31) have these in mind but do not consciously apply them when looking for new mentors. 23% consciously apply them and 6% do not. 6% responded that they do not offer mentoring. 11

12 2.1.4 Mentoring Practice Additional Observations Across the professions, and in previous research, a very wide range of practices is included under the heading mentoring. Within the developmental networks approach, three key areas of support can be included: career related, psychosocial, and role modelling. The first is help targeted at career advancement. The second is the nurturing support that facilitates personal growth. The third is consciously or subconsciously modelling appropriate behaviour. Asking one person to mentor in all of these ways places considerable demands on them. Some research has also raised questions of how appropriate it is for somebody who also has a gatekeeper or reporting role to try to be a nurturing mentor. This is, perhaps, more significant now than it has been in the light of Common Tenure and the Clergy Discipline Measure. Currently, although some account is taken of the various traits and skills conventionally identified as being those of a good mentor, very few dioceses consciously apply them. This raises questions of professional development in terms of how somebody who would like to be a mentor might grow into being one, and how dioceses ensure that some potentially effective mentors are not overlooked. The adult development perspective also advocates considering the personal development stage of the mentor and mentee when matching them, in order that the most appropriate support can be provided for a mentee at each stage of their development. Developing mentoring programme goals and fostering a culture of mentoring within dioceses may act to address these issues. 12

13 2.2 The Possibilities of E-mentoring There are many different definitions of e-mentoring, but at heart it means using technology to develop and sustain mentoring relationships. The survey deliberately did not offer a definition of e-mentoring to participants. The technology that can be used ranges from advanced bespoke software that matches mentors to mentees, and contains everything needed to run and manage the mentoring programme, to using readily available interfaces such as , social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, video conferencing software such as Messenger, SKYPE and Facetime, and private discussion forums such as Yammer. Technology is grouped into two categories: asynchronous (participants do not have to be online at the same time to use it , bulletin boards, social networking sites are examples) and synchronous (participants have to be online at the same time mainly video conferencing interfaces such as Messenger, SKYPE and Facetime). Each category offers benefits and drawbacks, but the two are not mutually exclusive for use in mentoring Attitudes to E-mentoring in the MMS Survey There is considerable openness to using e-mentoring among the responding dioceses (29). 69% would consider using it in addition to face-to-face mentoring, and 31% would not. No diocese would consider using it instead of face-to-face mentoring. No diocese claims to use it already, despite some having responded to other questions that they use contact as part of current mentoring practice. 82% of responding dioceses (28) thought e-mentoring might be a good add-on to face-to-face mentoring. 36% thought it would be less time intensive, and the same percentage recognised its potential to expand their pool of mentors outside their diocese. 29% thought it might encourage a wider range of mentors to take part, 25% that it would be less expensive, 18% that it would be more convenient, and 7% that people might be more honest or open online than in person. Despite this largely positive picture, some 75% of responding dioceses (28) also expressed some doubt about its value against face-to-face mentoring, and 54% claimed not to know enough to make an informed choice. 46% are concerned about excluding those who cannot easily use technology, and 36% have never thought of using it. Potential further barriers to the use of e-mentoring are creating expectations that mentors will be available 24/7 (32%), people finding it harder to express themselves online than in person (18%), no suitable diocesan technological infrastructure (11%), it being too time intensive (4%) and a lack of in-house technical support (4%) Comparison With Other Contexts Much of the wider literature shows that e-mentoring is best used as part of a broader mentoring network that also uses face-to-face expressions. It has been found to offer a range of benefits in other settings: o Expansion of the Mentoring Pool E-mentoring potentially has no barriers, so mentors can be recruited from anywhere. This brings greater numbers of mentors, which is useful in contexts where currently used mentors are overstretched or reducing in number. It offers a wider range of perspectives that can be sought and greater ease in finding mentors for each mentoring realm. It further makes it possible to broaden diversity, 13

14 o Convenience particularly for those who have experienced glass ceilings in their various forms. Mentees can pose questions as they arise and get responses, rather than waiting until the next mentoring session. This can creates availability issues, but once boundaries and expectations are clarified, tends to work well. If asynchronous technologies are used, mentors can take time to consider questions and respond to them. There is also a record of interactions that can be referred back to by both mentor and mentee to reflect on progress and the relationship to date. For those with a pressured working life, there is also no need for mentor and mentee to be online at the same time, so the mentoring relationship can be adapted to busy lifestyles. If synchronous technologies are used, it can be easier to schedule video conferences than travel to and from meetings. o Breaking Down Barriers A wider pool of mentors from beyond a mentee s organisation means they do not have to have somebody who is their senior or who they might encounter regularly in other settings. This can make the mentoring relationship more honest. Taking status and visual perception out of the equation can lead to a levelled relationship between mentor and mentee, which in turn removes some of the inhibitions some mentees feel in face-to-face expressions. Psychologists have also traced how some people find it easier to disclose more about themselves online than face-to-face. This tends to be less the case when videolink technology is used Who Might Be An Effective E-mentor? When asked to rate character traits and skills typical to an effective e-mentor, drawn from both mentoring literature and Christian leadership texts, the participants (19) responded, as follows, where 4 is very important and 1 is not so important : Figure 7. Gifts and skills of an effective e-mentor Mean Good communication 3.74 Ability to use the technology effectively 3.68 Being a reflective practitioner 3.63 Empathy 3.53 Understanding how people communicate effectively online Flexibility in approach to mentoring to accommodate the mentee s learning style

15 Willingness to engage in lifelong learning 3.47 Ability to facilitate transformative learning 3.42 Commitment to shared ministry 3.42 Being a reflexive practitioner 3.35 Flexibility in own preferred leadership/working style 3.16 Understanding how adults learn 3.11 Ability to evaluate progress accurately 2.95 Good level of theological knowledge 2.84 Competence as an incumbent (or equivalent) 2.42 High expectations 2.16 Thorough understanding of technology to solve technical issues Demonstrated competence in growing churches The wider e-mentoring literature shows that the basic mentoring skills hold true also for e- mentoring, but that there are additional skills that need to be developed. Whilst it is not necessary to be a technical expert to be an e-mentor, an ability to use the chosen technology in ways in which it facilitates rather than gets in the way of the mentoring relationship is essential. Additional issues include how to build trust between two people who may never meet; the importance of communicating effectively and behaving appropriately online; and mentors and mentees finding ways to express who they are without the help of non-verbal cues. These issues can be addressed by training E-mentoring Additional Observations E-mentoring is best used as part of a broader network of mentoring relationships. For the Church of England, it might be most productively introduced to facilitate mentees building up informal mentoring networks, with active diocesan encouragement. E-mentoring can be developed and sustained effectively without investment in technology. The technology chosen for the mentoring relationship needs to match the lifestyle of the participants, their experience of technology and their context. For example, a mentor/mentee used to social networking and video conferencing may find a mentoring relationship involving short, regular, public exchanges using social networking sites coupled with longer, less frequent, private video sessions rewarding. Whereas a busy mentor/mentee match with very different life and work patterns may find asynchronous and/or bulletin board expressions work for them. 15

16 References Chandler, D. and Kram, K. (2005) 'Applying an adult development perspective to developmental networks'. Career Development International. 10(6), pp Higgins, M. and Kram, K. (2001) 'Reconceptualizing Mentoring at Work: A Developmental Network Perspective'. Academy of Management Review. 26(2), pp Kegan, R. (1982) The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Adult Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 16