Almost all of the mentoring that occurs in the way I describe does so within the dynamic of the crew of two. Although staff may approach me in other ways there is no method of facilitating their desire for a mentored relationship other than entirely informally as an unrecognised “friendly” arrangement. Shift times and location of staff countywide make regular contact very difficult. Working alongside my “mentee” as a crew means that boundaries become much more of an issue than in other, formalised mentoring situations. “Like any close involvement, the relationship between the mentor and prot�g� has the potential to become emotionally charged”( Murray & Owen 1991) .
On operational duties crews routinely spend twelve hours together and witness a variety of emotive situations that can force them together. Where there is a burgeoning mentor/mentee relationship it becomes incumbent on the mentor to carefully consider the limits. Mentor qualities such as trustworthiness, credibility, commitment, discipline, patience, communication skills etc, all become tested in an intense atmosphere of long day and night shifts in sometimes difficult circumstances. Anna Guest suggests that, “Companies have a duty to provide mentors and mentees with a clear framework for the relationship” (Coaching & Mentoring Network 2001) Clearly this is not presently happening in my workplace. But would the situation improve if a structured scheme were put in place?
I would like now to look at the potential advantages and disadvantages of a structured mentorship model in my workplace. Advantagesurray and Owen (1991) list some of the benefits of a structured program as follows: Productivity. This has limited validity in my workplace. In fact it has been shown that where training is going on, productivity in the form of turnaround is reduced. As this is so important to managers it becomes an area of conflict between the operational and training departments.
Communication Structured schemes can undoubtedly enhance communication and understanding, especially when those involved work in different departments. In the crew relationship communication is vital. Using counselling techniques and psychological models I can try to use Gerard Egan’s “person-centred” approach to my trainees and establish trust. I can use other techniques, such as the cognitive behavioural approach to enhance their understanding and confidence. (Elbaz 1993) talks of “empowering” the mentee, giving them greater control over their practice. In the intimate and sometimes intense operational setting it is very important to establish confidence but it can be easy to overpower the mentee by taking a hierarchical approach. Thus it is necessary to encourage trust and foster a relationship that will facilitate their development to “self-actualisation”.
In a recent study FENTO showed that most students value understanding and supportive qualities as being the most important qualities of a good teacher. (FENTO Press Release 2001) Motivation This can be enhanced for both parties. “As the fires of his dreams and ambitions are banked, the mentor enjoys the stimulation of tutoring and guiding a younger person who is full of idealism and potential.” (Groder, 1980 P.5) I have certainly found that this is true and that the process of guidance can be very revitalising. The Maynard and Furlong model of teacher development also applies to my experience of my ambulance career to date. Having hit the “plateau” stage of development, guidance of new staff has helped me avoid cynicism and complacency.
Trainees in the “idealistic” and “survival” stages can achieve greater understanding more quickly and learn the practicalities of their job. They become better able to cope and adjust to changes. Disadvantages A structured programme could well create an expectation of career progression for mentees that does not exist. Chances for advancement in career are limited.. In the present relationship trainees quickly become aware of this problem because a mentor/crewmate can make them aware of it.
A structured programme requires commitment from mentors, mentees and management. At present some instructors are disinclined to enhance their role further when they feel it would not be recognised by management. For their part management would have to commit to allowing both parties to come together, probably necessitating release from operational duties. Where mentees choose their mentors this creates further problems. This is an essential prerequisite of the structured approach but release of staff from duties has traditionally caused major problems to the “bums on seats” approach of the operational management.
Another aspect is the hierarchical influence of the workplace. Strictly speaking, as a station officer I am my mentees line manager. Luckily in the operational ambulance workplace discipline seldom takes a great role in the crew dynamic because by necessity informality rules. A structured programme typically recognises mentors as having special qualities such as wisdom, counselling and guidance skills and professional authority. (Murray ; Owen 1991) P 56) Selection of mentors can make some staff feel pressured to volunteer for the role even though they may not be suited to it.
A valid screening process must therefore take place, to ensure that those selected have the interpersonal skills discussed earlier. Andrew Gibbons suggests: “There are too many “Be like me and you’ll be okay” people out there, and mentoring relationships can be abused by those who see it as an imprinting exercise.” ( Coaching & Mentoring Network 2002). The insular setting of the ambulance workplace creates an environment in which this sort of abusive dynamic could flourish Mentorship can be seen by some as a form of elitism Mentees also bring a responsibility to the relationship. In the ambulance workplace these may not be enshrined in a contract but are implicit in the working relationship.
Mentees have commitment to their own progress because their own inexperience becomes obvious to them in an immediate and challenging way Ambulance mentorship is therefore unstructured, and open ended. Nevertheless it does have clear and obvious benefit to those involved. The mentor clearly provides teaching, sponsors and encourages the mentee by protecting them. He also uses core counselling skills to council and befriend. In short the generic conditions which apply to all mentorship, described as: “support given voluntarily by one person to another” (Coaching & Mentoring Network 2002) are found in my workplace.
But my workplace “mentoring” is informal and patchy. Working alongside your menteee in ambulance conditions can make boundaries very hard to maintain and at worst the unsupervised crew dynamic could lead to abuse and manipulation with mentees pressured to adopt the style of their mentors. A formalised scheme would not necessarily prevent this but could better identify it. For all its inherent faults my mentoring does at least take place in a very natural way. When it works, it works very well. Gibbons suggests that “mentoring will only work well within supportive, rewarding organisations” (Coaching & Mentoring Network, 2002) Unfortunately the ambulance service could not be described in this way. In an environment where operational needs are given prime importance setting up a structured mentorship scheme takes low priority. Hence the current situation will continue and where it works it will continue to work well. Perhaps that is not such a bad thing.
“A deep irony is that often, the more organised and structured we make mentoring, the less likely it is to work” (Gibbons, Coaching & Mentoring Network, 2002) He adds, “even the best intentioned efforts to make mentoring work can founder as it will have its most positive effect when it evolves naturally, often without consciously considering mentoring is happening at all” This describes my workplace well. Despite a haphazard approach the natural approach works very well when it does happen. Were the ambulance service to set up a structured approach I would be worried that formality could have a negative effect.
Undoubtedly the introduction of such a scheme would be given a low priority, mainly because we have unique problems with access of the participants to each other. Other than as crews of two we are a very disparate group of workers who have always found it hard to come together. A method which allows mentees to choose their mentors though necessary would be difficult to support. A potential solution would possibly be the introduction of I.T. as a means of enhancing communication. The service is due to introduce networking to stations across the county soon. Its possible that this will facilitate communication in a way which we have not seen before.
Bibliography
Murray.M & Owen.M (1991) Beyond the Myths and Magic of Mentoring Jossey-Bass
