An Example of "Cascading" Mentor Matching Criteria

An EXAMPLE of "Cascading" Matching Criteria
© Barry Sweeny, 2003

The Logic Behind Integrating Selection & Matching Criteria

Many mentoring programs deal separately with decisions about selection of mentors and about matching those mentors to the needs of their possible proteges. While this usually makes good sense in theory, in practice the two processes of selection and matching more often become related in an effort to attain the best mentoring situation.

These programs take this approach because the best match for mentors and proteges are not always possible. The perfect person to mentor may be unavailable at a specific time due to involvement in an advanced degree program, commitments to other initiatives, or personal situations such as an aging parent needing increased time and attention.

The "Cascading" Criteria Approach

Proteges still deserve the best support we can provide. To that end, some mentoring programs have found there is a need to define a "cascading" set of preferences to guide the matching of mentors and protegers. This method consists of developing several sets of criteria and arranging them in a vertical sequence with the best case scenario at the top and the least desireable, but acceptable scenario at the bottom. The intent of this approach is to select and provide the best possible match by chosing the matching strategy which is highest on the list of matching methods and which can be made to work in the specific situation.

In fact, each matching criteria set in the system is a "good" match. What is different is that the topmost criteria uses a one-to-one mentor-protege configuration, which is the simplest to set up and monitor, while the lower sets of criteria create a team of people to be the support system, because one mentor is not available and it takes a team to assemble the various qualities needed for protege support.

Also, the lower criteria sets add in other forms of support, such as access to email, reduced work load, etc, so as to supply additional opportunity for the mentoring pair's success whenever a less-than-ideal match is required.

Note #1: The reader should proceed from the bottom up, noticing that the bold items are those criteria which have been added at the next level.

Note #2: The specific criteria are only examples. Any which don't make sense in your setting or work context could easily be substituted for something which does make sense. For example, if certification is not an element of recornition of quality in your setting, perhaps a career level or "grade" is. In that case, sust switch the language to make it situation appropriate.

**An Example of "Cascading" Mentor Matching Criteria**

Mentors assignments with proteges will be made using the highest possible option:
1.	Mentor holds at least a standard certificate, and also... ï Has completed or will shortly complete mentor training ï Is currently working at the same assignment as the protege, or has within the last two years ï Has at least 2 years of experience working at a job assignment similar to the protege's ï Works in close proximity to the protege ï Shares a common break period and/or lunch period with the protege ï Has personal and professional strengths which address the apparent needs of the protege ï Is a caring, supportive, positive, and insightful person	What's missing? ï Hopefully nothing.
2.	Mentor holds at least a standard certificate, and also... ï Has completed or will shortly complete mentor training ï Is currently working at the same assignment as the protege, or has within the last two years ï Works in close proximity to the protege ï Shares a common break period and/or lunch period with the protege ï Has personal and professional strengths which address the apparent needs of the protege ï Is a caring, supportive, positive, and insightful person	What's missing? ï The mentor could have only a year or so experience in the job assignment, which may not have allowed much time to build experience in it.
3.	Mentor holds at least a standard certificate, and also... ï Has completed or will shortly complete mentor training ï Is currently working at the same assignment as the protege, or has within the last two years ï Works in close proximity to the protege & has access to released time for mentoring ï Has personal and professional strengths which address the apparent needs of the protege ï Is a caring, supportive, positive, and insightful person	What's missing? ï The mentor & protege do not share a common time during every work day. However, the mentor's access to released time will create occassional times when they CAN get together to work and for support.
4.	The mentor is from another site in the same organization, holds at least a standard certificate, and also... ï Has completed or will shortly complete mentor training ï Currently works at the same assignment as the protege, or has within the last 2 years ï Has personal and professional strengths which address the apparent needs of the protege ï Is a caring, supportive, positive, and insightful person ï Mentor & protege are trained in and have access to email for remote communication A guide at the protege's site is also assigned to orient the protege to that setting and help with any location-specific needs the protege has.	What's missing? ï The mentor & protege do not work at the same location and so getting together will be a challenge. However, they both have e-mail access and there is also a "guide" assigned at the protege's site who can help with local proceedures, etc. which the protege needs to learn but the mentor will not know.
5.	The mentor is from protege's site but has a different assignment, holds at least a standard certificate ï Another mentor from different location with same assignment is assigned to work with the protege & that mentor and the protege have email access ï The same site mentor has completed or will shortly complete mentor training ï Both mentors have some strengths which together address the apparent needs of the protege ï Both mentors are caring, supportive, positive, and insightful persons	What's missing? ï The local mentor can help the protege grow as a professional, but does not know the job the protge has to learn. ï The remote mentor can help the protege learn the job, but will only be able to help when appointments and time away from work can be made, or via email and phone. ï The same-site mentor should be charged with assuring that the combination of assistance is adequately addressing the protege's needs. If both mentors will coordinate their assistance this arrangement can still work.

NOTE:

In some cases there will be some pretty undesirable situations which are still the best possible matches. For example, consider who will mentor the art teacher when that new art teacher is the only art teacher in the building. Or who would mentor the only product manager for roofing at a site?

In such cases, best practice dictates that you think more flexibly and consider using BOTH the Mentor and GUIDE approach described on this web site under mentoring ROLES.

All materials on this web site are copyright protected and all rights are reserved to the IMA.

http://www.mentoring-association.org

However, if you do so for free, you may duplicate and distribute this information or link to it, as long as the full page and all attributions and contact information are preserved as they appear on this page. You may not sell this information in any form.