Due to the widespread positive outcomes attributed to mentoring for organizations and individuals, companies have increasingly institutionalized formal mentorship programs with the hopes of reaping benefits similar to those realized from informal arrangements. Davis’ (2005) publication compares the effectiveness of formal and informal coaching schemes by evaluating their quality, superiority of outcomes, and the associated functions. According to Davis (2005), the prevalent adoption of mentorship has been driven primarily by the realized advantages of informal mentoring. The author’s research question is whether informal mentorship schemes are more effective compared to formal arrangements.
In comparing the effectiveness of formal and informal mentorship relationships in organizations, Davis (2005) advances various critical arguments and objections. A prominent proclamation in the article is that informal mentorship programs yield greater positive outcomes than the formally structured approaches. For instance, the author illustrates that the “greatest magnitude effect sizes were found for these types of outcomes for informal relationships as compared to formal ones” (Davis, 2005, p.168). Moreover, the article underscores the fundamental significance of coaching “as a source of learning for both protégés and mentors” (Davis, 2005, p.5). The author also argues for the integration of multiple mentorship arrangements to address the diverse needs of employees and complement the rewards attributable to the two schemes. However, a salient refutation is that although an informal approach is arguably superior, institutions should tailor mentorship strategies to suit their specific functions and the desired outcomes.
Davis’ (2005) publication possesses profound practical and theoretical implications for mentorship programs. Generally, the author depicts the distinct nature of formal and informal coaching, their varying effectiveness on diverse functions, and outcomes. Further, Davis (2005) emphasizes the insufficiency of a single mentorship model and the essence of fostering the coexistence of the two schemes. A significant augmentation for the research and its findings is the extensive comparison and integration of insights from previous studies. However, the failure to observe an exclusion criterion from the respondents’ feedback can potentially discredit and invalidate the findings of the study. The author also raised the question of the distinctive characteristics of formal mentoring programs.
Reference
Davis, A. L. (2005). An investigation of formal mentoring relationships and programs: A meta-analysis (Publication No. 3187352) [Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.