Effectiveness of the United States Army??™s Mentorship Program

Abstract
This study assessed the view of officers assigned to Battalion, Chemical Brigade, concerning the Army??™s Mentorship Program. Forty-three students attending the Officers Basic Course ( OBC) class completed a 24-question survey. Results determined that the officers felt that overall the Army??™s mentorship program was effective, but noted some changes that could improve both the Army??™s and Company??™s mentorship programs. Conclusions revealed that these officers recognize the benefits gained from the Army??™s mentorship program, and the importance of continuing the program; however, they have some concerns and suggestions on how to make the program more effective. Recommendations include starting the mentorship program during the first week of class, and scheduling mentoring sessions during duty hours.

Situation Analysis

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

It is not definitively documented when and or where mentoring or mentorship actually started. Some believe mentoring is traced back to the classic tale of Homer??™s Odyssey. According to Homer, when Odysseus, King of Ithaca, sailed off to fight the Trojans in the 12th-century Before Christ (BC), he entrusted his son Telemachus in the care of a wise, experienced man named Mentor (BCBusiness, 2003). Mentor, would served as teacher and overseer of Odysseus??™s son during Odysseus??™s absence. Odysseus was gone from his home for twenty years. In time, Telemachus now grown went in search of his father; Telemachus was accompanied on his quest by Athena, Goddess of War and patroness of the arts and industry, who assume the form of Mentor (Warrant Officer Mentorship, 2004). Eventually, father and son were reunited and together they cast down the would-be usurpers of Odysseus??™s throne and of Telemachus??™ birthright. In time, the word Mentor became synonymous with the trusted advisor, friend, teacher, and wise person.
Mentoring is an important part of most every fortune 500 company, but is not limited exclusively to large corporations, or only to the organizations within the United States. Almost every organization (large and small) throughout the corporate world uses some form of mentoring program (whether they know it or not). Today a mentor is considered to be someone who passes on his or her experience and wisdom by coaching, counseling, guiding or partnering in every possible situation (BCBusiness, 2003). Mentoring is critical in the social, educational, and professional developmental process of millions of people. Most of us will have more than one wise person to help us negotiate our ways though life. Some mentors are encountered naturally as we grow through life, some will be made only after help is ask for, and some people learn from observing others. While mentees usually reap substantial benefits, mentors should also view such relationships as an opportunity for their own individual personal growth, and a chance to revitalize their own learning (Drew, D., 2003).
One of the most important steps in ensuring a successful mentoring relationship is matching the mentors and the mentees (proteges). Unless the mentor and mentee are comfortable with each other, the mentoring process may not be as effective as the organization would want. Although it is not always possible, it is usually better for the mentees to be afforded the opportunity to select the person he/she would want as a mentor. There are two basic forms of mentoring, formal and informal. Formal mentoring occurs when an organization has a systematic process in place to assign mentors to mentees. Informal mentoring relationships occur almost naturally, as individuals begin to have an opportunity to interact with one another.
The positive effects of mentoring relationships in private industry are well established, and are frequently associated with successful career development and a greater degree of self-efficacy among proteges (Sullivan, 1993). The corporate world is not the only place where mentoring programs are utilized; the United States (US) military have utilized mentorship programs since its inception, to develop the leaders within the armed forces. Every branch of the Armed Forces practice some form of mentoring program. The Army has mentorship programs that encompass both the enlisted soldiers and the officer corps alike. The regulation that covers enlisted soldiers is Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA Pam) 600-25 (NCO Development Program). The regulation that covers the officer corps is contained within DA Pam 600-3.
The Air force??™s regulations are, Air Force Instruction 36-3401 (Air Force Mentoring), and Air Force Policy Directive 36-34. The Air Force Mentoring Program is designed to provide guidance on how to carry out Air force Mentoring, which was established to bring about a cultural change in the way we view professional development. Mentoring is an essential component in developing well-rounded, professional, and competent future leaders. The Air Force policy applies to all commanders and supervisors/raters of Air Force military and civilian personnel (Secretary of the Air Force, 2000).
Since its inception, the Marine Corps has emphasized the importance of passing on professional knowledge to those they are privileged to lead (US Marine Corps, 1995). The Marine Corps mentorship program is entailed in the Marine Corps Commandants White Letter No. 10-95, 1995. The Commandant in this White Letter requested commanding Generals, commanding officers, and officers in charge ???to take appropriate steps to develop , and implement a voluntary, informal mentoring program that allows the opportunity for each officer to be involved throughout his or her career??? (US Marine Corps, 1995). Even with the Commandants White Letter, there is no Marine Corps Order that mandates a mentorship program. The rules that govern the Marine Corps mentorship program are informal and established by individual commands.
Mentoring begins with the leaders setting the right example. Leaders are responsible for mentoring soldiers every day, it is sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Mentoring allows junior leaders to see a mature example of values, attributes, and skills in action and develop their own leadership abilities accordingly. Military mentor will usually focus on the unique military culture, and will frequently address professional development concerns. Mentoring requires leaders to look for and take advantage of teaching/coaching moments; opportunities to use routine tasks to build skills and confidence in subordinates. Mentoring should not be limited to formal sessions; every event should be considered a mentoring opportunity, from quarterly training briefs to after-action reviews to casual, recreational activities (DA Pam 600-3, 1998). Command Sergeant Major (CSM) Larry W. Gammon expressed his thoughts on mentoring.
???One of the most important responsibilities of a leader is to train, coach and mentor subordinates??¦Some folks might maintain a relationship with an old mentor throughout their careers and use them as a sounding board and for guidance, but most people will have several mentors over their careers. Keep in mind that a mentor is not a substitute for personal research, personal planning, hard work and dedication to service??? (DA Pam 600-25, 1997).
The most important legacy of today??™s senior leaders is to mentor junior leaders to fight and win future conflicts; mentoring develops great leaders to lead great soldiers (DA Pam 600-3, 1998).

Premise

Every professional organization utilizes some variety of a mentoring system, with the goal being to increase productivity, and grow leaders from within the organization. Mentorship programs provide a support system and professional development for subordinates and junior employees who are striving to perform at a higher level both personally and professionally. Within the United States Armed Forces, service members and officers receive professional and personal guidance from more senior ranking personnel through a mentorship program. There is a need to assess the mentorship program within Company, Battalion, 3rd Brigade.

Problem Statements

1. Assess the benefits of mentorship programs.

2. Assess how effective the current mentorship program is within Company, Battalion.

3. Assess whether the mentees (Lieutenants) within Company Battalion feels that they are receiving quality mentorship.

4. Assess the mentorship needs of the officers attending Company Battalion.

Definitions

1. Coaching ??“ the act of encouraging, supporting, guiding, and aiding another person to raise competency in performance, critical thinking, and interpersonal skills.
2. Commander ??“ person (he/she) with total responsibility for the units operations.
3. Cultivation ??“ second of four stages in the mentoring process; can last several years. Protege develops self-confidence and values, while mentor provides challenging work, visibility, coaching, and sponsorship.
4. Espirit-de-Corps ??“ spirit of the individual, and unit collectively.
5. Formal Mentorship ??“ organizations with formal process that assign mentors to proteges.
6. Group Mentoring – method in which one mentor is assigned to a small group (four to six) of proteges.
7. Informal Mentoring ??“ relationships that occur naturally through interactions between mentor and mentee.
8. Initiation ??“ the first of four stages in the mentoring process; generally lasts 6-12 months. Stage, in which the mentee admires, respects and trusts the mentor.
9. Mentee ??“ a less experienced person in an organization that is professionally advised by a more experienced person. (Also referred to as protege.
10. Mentor ??“ a trusted counselor or guide, teacher, tutor, and coach.
11. Mentorship ??“ the influence, guidance, or direction exerted by a mentor.
12. MOS ??“ Military Occupational Specialty
13. Online Mentoring – mentoring done online in a chat room format; questions are answered by online mentors concerning business dilemmas.
14. Peer Mentoring – members of the same rank structure of management level who mentor each other.
15. Protege ??“ a less experienced person in an organization that is professionally advised by a more experienced person. (Also referred to as mentees).
16. Psychological functions ??“ functions in the mentoring process that include friendship, counseling, and role-modeling activities for the mentees.
17. Redefinition ??“ fourth and final stage in the mentoring process; ongoing process. Protege responds with gratitude for early years, mentor continues to support and takes pride in mentees accomplishments.
18. Role-Modeling ??“ serving as ???an example to someone else with or without a relationship with that individual???.
19. Separation ??“ third of four stages in mentoring process; protege becomes more independent and empowered.
20. Situational Mentoring- Short term mentoring addressing an immediate situational need.
21. Supervisory Mentoring- Mentoring relationship between a supervisor and their subordinates.
22. Surrogate Mentoring – mentoring relationship that enables a mentee to be paired up with someone whom is based outside of their department or unit.

Approval of Resource Reader Approval of Integrated Studies Professor

//original signed and dated //original signed and dated

Study Limitations
In this study, as is the case in probably most all studies, the researcher is constrained by certain resource limitations. A few of the limitations this researcher encountered in this survey included time constraints and sample population size.
The primary limitation to this study was the time constraint issue. Within a nine-week course there is not a sufficient amount of time to develop and distribute 43 or more surveys. Once the surveys are completed you must collect all the data, tabulate, and analyze individuals??™ responses to decipher and attempt to legitimize the survey. These time constraints limited the potential depth of the survey. Because of the time constraints, the results of the survey may not be as valid as they could have been. The amount of time required for the survey process was the most time-consuming for this researcher.
The second major limitation was the size of the sample population, compared to the overall population. The sample population was only Officer Basic Course (OBC) Lieutenants; this is a relatively small number, considering OBC Lieutenants are trained here at every year. However, as the first limitation explained; with the time constraints, it would have been impossible to survey all OBC students, in this nine-week course.
This study focused on the current view of Army officers ( OBC officers) concerning the effectiveness of the Army??™s mentorship program. The results from this study will only represent the officers who completed the surveys, officers assigned to the Officers Basic Course (OBC), assigned for training here at . It is not the authoritative opinion of all the officers, or all enlisted members throughout the Army in different Military Specialty Skills (MOSs) or specialty branches.
Limitations are an unavoidable reality associated within the field of research, and are present in nearly all studies. This study is no exception. Time and sample size, were certain limitations apparent to me; however, that is not to say that there were other limitations unbeknown to me.

Applied Research Methodology (Work Plan)

Participants:
The participants in this study were students with Company, Battalion, and Brigade, at . All of the participants were attending training in the Officers Basic Course (OBC). Participants ranged in age of 21 to over 36. Twenty-six males and seventeen females participated in this study. These individuals were commissioned officers from the rank of O-1 (2nd Lieutenant) to O-2 (1st Lieutenant); in fact only one of the participants was in the grade of O-2, the remainder of the participants were (O-1, 2nd Lieutenants). The race of the participants consisted of Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, Asian American and Other. Demographic data was included on the survey, and used in the statistical data analysis.
Apparatus:
Construction – A 24-items questionnaire was developed and administered by the researcher. The Human Resources Reader, , validated the content of the survey. Professor of Integrated Studies approved the survey instrument. For reliability and validity, a pilot survey was conducted in which the permission giver reviewed and critiqued the survey. The survey was given to , the officer in charge (OIC) of the Officer-Training Department, Company Commander, and 1ST Lieutenant . Each of these officers reviewed the survey, and presented their recommendations, and tested the survey for reliability and validity.
Secondary research included information, and data collected from Internet sources, books on the subject, and previous courses taken while attending University. These sources were reviewed, analyzed and synched to achieve the secondary research information used to reinforce the primary data collected from the researchers??™ surveys.
The survey instrument included 24 questions, consisting of four demographic questions, 18 Likert-Scale questions, and two open-ended questions. With the exception of the demographic and the open-ended questions, the same five-point Likert-scale scoring system was used consistently throughout the survey. Approximately sixty-three percent of the questionnaire contained the Likert-Scale Model including the nominal level of measurement (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Participants were asked to respond to questions regarding the effectiveness of the Army??™s mentorship program. The open-ended questions allowed the respondents an opportunity to express their open and honest recommendations on faults and improvements, to Alpha Company??™s mentorship program.
Procedures:
The first step was to gain permission and authorization from the Company Commander of the Officers Basic Course. I also requested approval from the course manager and OIC of all officer training, . The Company First Sergeant contacted the TAC (Tactical, Assessment, and Counseling) Officers and TAC Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO) . fully cooperated, and coordinated a meeting with the OBC students. After participants were contacted, the researcher determined, along with the participants, the most favorable time and location to conduct the survey. The survey was conducted at 07:45 AM, on 2004 in the students??™ classroom. This assured rapid response (15-20 minutes) and minimized turn around time (took the surveys with me) in gathering the completed surveys.
Each survey was accompanied by a cover letter informing the participants of the purpose of the survey. The purpose was to provide the primary research for this author??™s project, to complete requirements for his master??™s degree at University. The participants were briefed by the researcher, and were assured that his and/or her identity and answers would remain confidential, and that the survey was for educational purposes only, and their participation was strictly voluntary. The questionnaire was conducted in approximately 15-20 minutes. Results were then collected, analyzed and assigned scores based on the Likert-Scale. Points were assigned to each answer (1-strongly agree, 2-agree, 3-neither agree or disagree, 4-disagree and 5-strongly disagree). The results of the open-ended questions were annotated to analyze the difference in answers for each participant. A standard deviation scale was applied by using the mean for each Likert Scale question. Both the cover letter and survey are included in the appendix of this paper.
Study and Findings
Literature Review
Mentoring-we have all heard this word used in various forms. In fact, the mere mention of the word can bring to light a very positive, or a negative reaction, depending on your own personal experiences (Hairston, 2000). Long before personal coaches and business schools, there was a much less costly and informal approach for instructing and inspiring young, ambitious individuals. Mentoring was the traditional method of passing on wisdom and knowledge from fathers to sons, geniuses to their proteges, and from coaches to their athletes (Hung, 2003).
It has been disputed where mentorship first originated, but not the benefits of mentoring, both tangible and intangible (Hung, 2003). Some believe mentoring is traced back to the 1500s, in the Greek myth of Odysseus, in the classic tale of Homer??™s Odyssey (Roman, 2001). According to Homer, when Odysseus, King of Ithaca, sailed off to fight the Trojans in the 12th-century Before Christ (BC), he entrusted his son Telemachus in the care of a wise, experienced man named Mentor (BCBusiness Magazine). Mentor, would served as teacher and overseer of Odysseus??™s son during Odysseus??™s absence. Odysseus was gone from his home for twenty years. In time, Telemachus now grown went in search of his father; Telemachus was accompanied on his quest by Athena, Goddess of War and patroness of the arts and industry, who assume the form of Mentor (Warrant Officer Mentorship, 2004). Eventually, father and son were reunited and together they cast down the would-be usurpers of Odysseus??™s throne and of Telemachus??™ birthright. Telemachus learned his most significant lessons about life and about becoming an effective ruler from Mentor. From this myth, qualities of a mentor have been described. These include coach, guide, protector, advisor, friend, teacher, and wise person (Roman, 2001).
Mentoring has been described as a process that helps an individual relates to new and expanded professional roles. The art of mentoring involves a nurturing relationship between a mentor and a mentee. A successful mentor helps the mentee recognize his/her strengths and weaknesses; encourages the mentee to establish goals for future performance improvement; monitors and reviews progress in achieving acknowledged goals; identifies problems that may be affecting progress; generates an action plan for dealing with recognized problems; and assist in realizing his/her potential (Roman, 2001).
According to Mathes and Jackson (2003) mentoring is a long term relationship that processes through four separate distinct stages: initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition. Initiation is the first stage, and is where the mentee admires the senior??™s (mentor) competence: recognizes him/her as a source of support and guidance. The initiation stage can last anywhere from 6-12 months. The mentor realizes the mentee has potential and is coachable. The second stage is the cultivation stage. In this stage the mentee gains self-confidence, new attitudes, values, and styles of operations. The cultivation stage can last somewhere between 2-5 years. In this stage the mentor provides challenging work, coaching, visibility, protection, and sponsorship. The third stage is the separation stage, where the mentee experiences independence and autonomy; has feelings of turmoil, anxiety, and loss at times. The separation stage last 6-12 months, at this time the mentor demonstrates his/her success at developing management talent as they move apart. The final stage in the mentoring relationship is the redefinition stage, in this stage the mentee responds with gratitude for the early years, but is no longer dependent; the relationship now becomes a friendship. This stage is ongoing, and may last the remainder of the mentors and mentees lifetime. During this stage the mentor continues to be a supporter; takes pride in the mentees accomplishments, and the relationship is now a friendship (Mathes, R. and Jackson, J., 2003).
Mentoring is an important part of most every fortune 500 company, but is not limited exclusively to large corporations, or only to organizations within the United States. Almost every organization (large and small) throughout the corporate world uses some form of mentoring program (whether they know it or not). Today a mentor is considered to be someone who passes on his or her experience and wisdom by coaching, counseling, guiding or partnering in every possible situation (BCBusiness Magazine, 2003). Mentoring is critical in the social, educational, and professional developmental process of millions of people. Most of us will have more than one wise person to help us negotiate our ways though life. Some mentors are encountered naturally as we grow through life, some will be made only after help is ask for, and some people learn from observing others. While mentees usually reap substantial benefits, mentors should also view such relationships as an opportunity for their own individual personal growth, and a chance to revitalize their own learning (Drew, D., 2003).
There are four types of mentoring relationships: Supervisory, Situational, Formal and Informal. Supervisory mentoring is when supervisors mentor their subordinates. That sounds like a given, but not all supervisors are mentors. Due to time constraints, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for a supervisor to mentor all her/his subordinates. It can also be awkward for a subordinate to talk openly and honestly with their boss or another supervisor within their chain of command. All good supervisors do mentor their subordinates??¦ to a degree. It is recommended that as leaders, and or supervisors to encourage outside mentoring partnerships and allow employees time to work on them (Four Types of Mentoring, 1999).
Situational mentoring is the right help at the right time, provided by someone when a mentee needs guidance and advice. It is usually short term addressing an immediate situation but can transition to a more long term connection (Four Types of Mentoring, 1999).
Formal mentoring occurs when an organization has a systematic process in place to assign mentors to mentees. In most organizations, professionals are willing to extend assistance to others when they see there is a clear need for help. But expectations in nearly every career have dramatically changed, competition, demands for improvement and cost efficiencies, requirements for access to better careers, and many other things are different. With this in mind, it is understandable that even the best employees designated as mentors, can struggle. With these constraints, informal mentoring programs are sometimes inadequate (Sweeny, B., 2001). This is exactly the reason most formal mentorship programs are begun. Formal mentoring has four characteristics:
1. It has a beginning and an end.
2. It has a method for no-fault termination.
3. It has some type of formal matching process.
4. It has one or more checkpoints, such as a meeting at mid-point in a one year mentoring connection during which the partners can discuss how the connection is going and reset goals or termination (Four Types of Mentoring, 1999).
Informal mentoring relationships occur almost naturally, as individuals begin to have an opportunity to interact with one another. This type of partnership occurs when one person (the mentee) seeks out another (mentor) for career advice or to be their career guide. It can also occur when the mentor reaches out to someone they know could benefit from their experiences (Four types of Mentoring, 1999). Some of the factors to consider when deciding on the level of formality needed for mentoring in an organization. Informal mentorship program are those that possess these organizational qualities:
1. Low expectations make mentoring easier to do, but less effective.
2. Little or no training needs.
3. Employees who need and/or want to grow often don??™t ask for help they need as they don??™t want to appear dumb.
4. Experienced employees often don??™t help since they don??™t want to look like know-it-alls.
5. Individual informal help is hard to identify, & hard to support, or affirm.
6. The need to be productive and to deal with all the work overwhelms the desire to use time to learn, improve, and to help others recognize.
7. Veterans support tends to further the status quo and current problems rather than promote new practices, norms, and improved results.
8. Veterans don??™t want to intrude and don??™t want to appear critical or negative (Sweeny, B., 2001)
One of the most important steps in ensuring a successful mentoring relationship is matching the mentors and the mentees (proteges). Unless the mentor and mentee are comfortable with each other, the mentoring process may not be as effective as the organization would want. Although it is not always possible, it is usually better for the mentees to be afforded the opportunity to select the person he/she would want as a mentor.
The mentoring process is composed of a relationship developed by a mentor and a mentee (Protege). Conceptually, mentoring is often described as a close, developmental relationship between experienced and less experienced individuals. The mentoring relationship typically connotes a mentor-protege or senior-subordinate dyad, where the mentor oversees the protege??™s career to facilitate her/his professional development (Sullivan, M., 1993).
The mentor must possess certain characteristics if they are to be successful in developing their mentees. A credible person is someone who can be believed and is trustworthy. The mentor should have a similar educational background, and be in the same field as the protege. This will allow the mentor to empathize with the mentee. Ideally the mentor should base their advice or guidance on real world experiences, and not on materials gathered from textbooks. The mentor should be able to provide information of how they themselves negotiated their path up the corporate ladder. When mentoring with your mentee:
1. Allot sufficient time.
2. Ensure that there are no distractions.
3. Listen carefully to the issues.
4. Reflect and summarize the discussions.
5. The mentor should communicate their advice free of judgments and negativity, and inspire the mentee through carefully selected words of advice.
6. Offer advice only when solicited (Hung, V., 2003).
Mentors have a greater responsibility for the results of the mentorship relationship than a coach or a teacher would. A mentor knows it is a time consuming process, which requires a great deal of patience??™s, and leadership abilities to bring out the best in others. Mentors should get satisfaction from knowing that their mentees are learning and developing. The mentors aid his/her mentees personal and professional growth, and aid the company in the process. Mentorship does many things to assist a company including the following:
1. Adds to existing on-the-job training and performance enhancement.
2. Increases productivity and motivation.
3. Makes mentors aware of staff concerns and issues.
4. Attracts and grooms future leaders.
5. Improves communications between different levels in the organization (Hung, V., 2003).
Although most of this paper deals with individual mentoring, there are other forms of mentoring. One of these approaches is group mentoring. Group mentoring places an experienced veteran (such as a commander or supervisor) with four to six less experienced subordinates. It would involve a forum type setting, with mentor and mentees exchanging ides, feedback, and guidance through a group environment. One advantage to this approach is it helps to develop a group mentor/mentee bond, emphasizing interrelationships among all its members. With the lack of available qualified mentors, group mentoring multiplies the experience by the number of people within the group (Adams, D., 1997).
The positive effects of mentoring relationships in private industry are well established, and are frequently associated with successful career development and a greater degree of self-efficacy among proteges (Sullivan, M., 1993). The corporate world is not the only place where mentoring programs are utilized; the United States (US) military have utilized mentorship programs since its inception, to develop the leaders within the armed forces. Every branch of the Armed Forces practice some form of mentoring program. Mentorship continues to be an important topic to the United States (US) Army. General (R) Eric K. Shinseki, Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, says that mentorship is essential to growing the next generation of Army officers (Military Review, 2002). The Army has mentorship programs that encompass both enlisted soldiers, and the officer corps alike. The regulation that covers enlisted soldiers is Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA Pam) 600-25 (NCO Development Program). The regulation that covers the officer corps is contained within DA Pam 600-3.
The Air force??™s regulations are, Air Force Instruction 36-3401 (Air Force Mentoring), and Air Force Policy Directive 36-34. The Air Force Mentoring Program is designed to provide guidance on how to carry out Air force Mentoring, which was established to bring about a cultural change in the way we view professional development. Mentoring is an essential ingredient in developing well-rounded, professional, and competent future leaders. The Air Force policy applies to all commanders and supervisors/raters of Air Force military and civilian personnel (Secretary of the Air Force, 2000).
Since the inception of the Marine Corps, the Corps has emphasized the importance of passing on professional knowledge to those we are privileged to lead (US Marine Corps, 1995). The Marine Corps mentorship program is entailed in the Marine Corps Commandants White Letter No. 10-95, 1995. The Commandant in this White Letter requested commanding Generals, commanding officers, and officers in charge ???to take appropriate steps to develop , and implement a voluntary, informal mentoring program that allows the opportunity for each officer to be involved throughout his or her career??? (US Marine Corps, 1995). Even with the Commandants White Letter, there is no Marine Corps Order that mandates a mentorship program. The rules that govern the Marine Corps mentorship program are informal and established by individual commanders.
Mentoring begins with the leaders setting the right example. Leaders are responsible for mentoring soldiers every day, it is sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Mentoring allows junior leaders to see a mature example of values, attributes, and skills in action and develop their own leadership abilities accordingly. Military mentor will usually focus on the unique military culture, and will frequently address professional development concerns. Mentoring requires leaders to look for and take advantage of teaching/coaching moments; opportunities to use routine tasks to build skills and confidence in subordinates. Mentoring should not be limited to formal sessions; every event should be considered a mentoring opportunity, from quarterly training briefs to after-action reviews to casual, recreational activities (DA Pam 600-3, 1998). Command Sergeant Major (CSM) Christine E. Seitzinger expressed her thoughts on mentoring.
???Becoming a mentor should not be a hasty endeavor. It should not be a part-time job. It is an intense relationship between teacher and student. The process requires time and caring. Effective mentors are totally committed to spending the necessary time and attention it takes to share values, attitudes, and beliefs. This includes helping a soldier make career decisions and providing support and encouragement that allows leaders to grow??? (DA Pam 600-25, 1997).
The most important legacy of today??™s senior leaders is to mentor junior leaders to fight and win future conflicts; mentoring develops great leaders to lead great soldiers (DA Pam 600-3, 1998).
The Marine Corps defines mentoring as: a formal or informal program that links junior Marines with more experienced Marines for the purposes of career development and professional growth, through sharing knowledge and insight that have been learned through the years (US Marine Corps, 1995). Mentor is defined by the Marine Corps as a senior Marine who voluntarily undertakes to coach, advise, and guide a younger marine in order to enhance technical/leadership skills and intellectual/professional development (US Marine Corps, 1995). Mentee (or protege as it is sometimes called) is a term used to describe a junior Marine who voluntarily accepts tutelage from a more senior Marine for the purpose of enhancing skills and professional development (US Marine Corps, 1995). The Air Force, Army, and Navy all have similar definitions and terminology for these responsibilities.
Women soldiers have achieved what most would describe as equality with male soldiers; others, however, argue that because some branches, such as the infantry and armor, are closed to women, female soldiers have not reached full equality. In many organizations where there is a predominantly all male environment, women are often stereotyped as being at a lower status. There are other circumstances that restrict quality of a mentoring experience for women. One is the possibility of anxiety, connected with intimacy and physical attraction. Women may fear initiating a desired mentoring relationship, because it may be misconstrued as a sexual approach. Cross-gender mentoring has always had, and continues to have a stigma of ???perception??? associated with it. Even if a mentoring relationship has no romantic attachment associated with it, may still be looked upon as negative, thus leading to adverse consequences for both mentor and mentee. Females that develop mentoring relationships fare better in organizations than those who do not. Mentors help women, advance in their organizations by helping to build there self-confidence, and providing career guidance and direction (Adams, D., 1997)
Company, Battalion, is organized to provide newly commissioned officers the training they need to be successful in the field. Training consists of the technical aspects of .The curriculum is intense and can be overwhelming; however, mentoring is included in the curriculum because the Army and Company understand the need to ensure young leaders are allowed to gain professional development from experienced senior leader within the corps. This research project is designed to gain an understanding of the effectiveness of Company??™s current mentorship program.

Survey Findings:
To attain an understanding of the current concerns, and views of Lieutenants at , on the issue of mentorship, this researcher designed and distributed a questionnaire. The following demographics data were collected (Questions 1-4 covered demographics)
Questions #1 (Age Group): The age factor includes both females and males as a whole. The results were: Age 21-25: 60% (ratio= 26 of 43), Age-26-30: 26% (ratio= 11 of 43), Age-31-35: 9% (ratio= 4 of 43), and over the age of 36: 5% (ratio= 4 of 43). (See Figure #1)

Figure 1:

Question #2 (Race/Gender): Of 43 participants, 17 (40%) were females and 26 (60%) males. 52% (ratio= 9 of 17) of the female participants are Caucasian, 24% African American (ratio= 4 of 17), 12% Hispanic (ratio= 2 of 17) and 12% (ratio=2 of 17) identified themselves as other. For male participants, the distribution was as follows: 73% were Caucasian (ratio=19 of 26), 19% were African American (ratio= 5 of 26), 4% Asian (ratio= 1 of 26), 4% other (ratio= 1 of 26), and they were no male participants who identified themselves as Hispanic. (See Figure #2)
Figure 2:
Questions # 3 (Rank): Of the 43 respondents 42 Lieutenants (98%) who participated in this study were in the rank of 0-1 (2nd LT); the other Lieutenant (1, 2%) was in the grade of 0-2 (1st LT). (See Figure #3)
Figure 3:

Problem Statement #1: Assess the benefits of mentorship programs.
This problem statement was supported through secondary research. The research information was collaborated within the literature review study and findings section of this research project.
Problem Statement #2: Assess how effective the current mentorship program is within Company, Battalion.
Questions 5-11 supported this problem statement, by asking questions regarding the effectiveness of Company??™s mentorship program. Each question used the Likert Scale format, with the points system being, 1-5 (1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3= neither agree nor disagree, 4=disagree, 5= strongly disagree). Question 5 stated, ???I feel that we should be afforded more time to interface with our mentors.??? Question 6 stated, ???I have gained professional knowledge from the mentorship program.??? Question 7 stated, ???I am a better officer because of the mentorship program.??? Question 8 stated, ??? I learned something new and valuable from my mentors.??? Question 9 stated, ???I believe the mentorship program will make me a better leader.??? Question 10 stated, ???The mentorship program provided me with more confidence in being a officer.??? Question 11 stated, ???I believe the mentorship program is beneficial to my professional development???.
The following graph indicates the overall outcome of the lieutenant??™s responses for problem statement two. See figure 4 for graphical representation of the combined results of the mean for problem statement two.
Figure 4:

Question #5: I feel we should be afforded more time to interface with our mentors. 30% (13 of 43) of the participants answered strongly agree, 42% (18 of 43) of the respondents answered Agree, 19% (8 of 43) of the participant responded Neither Agree nor Disagree, 7% (3 of 43) responded Disagree, and 2% (1of 43) responded Strongly Disagree. The implications from the results are that these Lieutenants desire more time to interact with their mentors. 72% strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. The mean for this question was 2.40, medium 2 and the mode was 2. See Figure 5 for a graphical representation of the mean.
Figure 5:

Question #6: I have gained professional knowledge from the mentorship program. 12% (5 of 43) of the participants strongly agreed with the statement, 40% (17 of 43) agreed, 23% (10 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 13% (6 of 43) disagreed and 12% (3 of 43) strongly disagreed with the statement. The implications from these results are that these Lieutenants feel that with the limited amount of interaction with their mentors, 52% either strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. The mean for this statement was 2.74, medium 2, and mode was 2. See Figure 6 for a graphical representation for the mean.
Figure 6:

Question #7: I am a better officer because of the mentorship program. 2% (1 of 43) of the participants strongly agreed with the statement, 35% (15 of 43) agreed, 35% (15 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 16% (7 of 43) disagreed, 9% (4 of 43) strongly disagreed, and 2% (1 of 43) gave no response to this statement. This is a significant issue because only 1 respondent strongly agreed with this statement. The majority of the respondents (60%) neither agreed nor disagreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. The mean for this statement was 2.95, medium 2.5, and mode was 2.5. See Figure 7 for a graphical representation for the mean.
Figure 7:

Question #8: I learned something new and valuable from my mentor. 9% (4 of 43) of the participants strongly agreed with the statement, 44% (19 of 43) agreed, 26% (11 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 12% (5 of 43) disagreed, and 9% (4 of 43) strongly disagreed with this statement. The implications from these results are that these Lieutenants (53%) learned something valuable from the mentorship program; however, 21% said they learned nothing of value. The mean for this statement was 2.67, medium 2 and mode was 2. See Figure 8 for a graphical representation for the mean.
Figure 8:

Question #9: I believe the mentorship program will make me a better leader. 23% (10 of 43) of the participants responded strongly agree, 40% (17 of 43) agree, 26% (11 of 43) neither agree nor disagree, 9% (4 of 43) disagree, and 2% (1 of 43) strongly disagree. The Lieutenants perception is that the mentorship program will make them a better leader. The mean for this statement was 2.28, medium 2, and mode was 2. See Figure 9 for a graphical representation for the mean.
Figure #9:

Question #10: The mentorship program provided me with more confidence in being a officer. 9% (4 of 43) of the participants responded strongly agree, 16% (7 of 43) agree, 44% (19 of 43) neither agree nor disagree, 21% (9 of 43) disagree, and 9% (4 of 43) strongly disagree. The implications from these results are that these Lieutenants perception is that the mentorship program did not provide them with more confidence as a Officer. Only 25% felt they gained more confidence from their interaction with their mentors. The mean for this statement was 3.05, medium 3, and mode was 3. See Figure 10 for a graphical representation for the mean.
Figure #10:

Question #11: I believe the mentorship program is beneficial to my professional development. 28% (12 of 43) of the participants responded strongly agree, 47% (20 of 43) agree, 14% (6 of 43) neither agree nor disagree, 9% (4 of 43) disagree, and 2% (1 of 43) strongly disagree. The implications from these results are that these Lieutenants perception is that the Army??™s mentorship program is beneficial to their professional development. Only 11% of the respondents felt negatively about this statement. The mean for this statement was 2.12, medium 2, and mode was 2. See Figure 11 for a graphical representation for the mean.
Figure #11:

Problem Statement two assessments:
Problem statement two assesses how effective the current mentorship program is within Company, Battalion. The results show that the mentees desire more time with their mentors. 72% feel like they did not get enough interaction with their mentors. The response to general questions about the benefits of the mentorship program proved extremely positive. 73% agreed that the mentorship program was beneficial to their professional development. 60% said that the mentorship program would help make them better leaders. 52% felt that they gained professional knowledge from their interaction with their mentors, and 53% said they learned something of value from their mentors. On two of the more specific questions (numbers 7 and 10) the responses were very much negative. Only 1 respondent strongly agreed that he/she was a better officer as a result of the mentorship program; and only 25% said they had gained confidence in being a Chemical officer as a result of their mentors.

Problem Statement #3: Assess whether the mentees (Lieutenants) within Company Battalion feels that they are receiving quality mentorship.
Questions 12 thru 18 supports problem statement #3. Each question was constructed using the Likert Scale format, with assigned points from 1-5 (1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3= neither agree nor disagree, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree). Question 12 stated, ???I feel my mentor was easily accessible and approachable.??? Question number 13 stated, ???My mentor listens to my ideas, problems, and comments.??? Question number 14 stated, ???I believe that my mentor had specialized mentorship training.??? Question number 15 stated, ???I respect my mentors not only professionally, but personally as well.??? Question number 16 stated, ???I feel that the Company??™s mentorship program is effective.??? Question number 17 stated, ???I believe that the mentorship program could be improved.??? Question number 18 stated, ???I believe that my mentor is legitimately concerned about my success as a Officer.??? See figure 12 for a complete graphical representation of the combined results of the mean, for problem statement three.

Figure 12:

Question #12: I feel my mentor was easily accessible and approachable. (Likert Scale)
The results indicated that 12% (5 of 43) of the participants strongly agreed, 33% (14 of 43) agreed, 26% (11 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 21% (9 of 43) disagree, and 9% (4 of 43) strongly disagree. The implications from these results are that these Lieutenants perception is that the mentors provided them were not very accessible or approachable. 56% responded that they neither agreed or disagreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with this statement. The mean for this question was 2.84, medium 2, and mode 2. See figure 13 for a graphical representation of the results.
Figure 13:

Question #13: My mentor listens to my ideas, problems, and comments. (Likert Scale) The results indicated that out of 43 participants, only 14% (6 of 43) strongly agreed, 37% (16 of 43) agreed, 32% (14 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 7% (3 of 43) disagreed, and 9% (4 of 43) strongly disagreed. The results show that these Lieutenants perception is that their mentors weren??™t good listeners; only 51% believed the mentors listened to their ideas, problems, and comments. The mean for this question was 2.60, medium 2, and mode was 2. See figure 14 for the graphical representation of this question.
Figure 14:

Question #14: I believe that my mentor had specialized mentorship training. (Likert Scale) The results indicated that out of 43 participants, only 2% (1 of 43) strongly agreed, 16% (7 of 43) agreed, 49% (21 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 14% (6 of 43) disagreed, and 19% (8 of 43) strongly disagreed. The results are that these Lieutenants didn??™t feel that their mentors had any formal mentorship training. Only 18% strongly agreed (2%), and or agreed that their mentors had any specialized mentorship training. 82% responded that they neither agreed or disagreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with this statement. The mean for this question was 3.30, medium 3, and mode was 3. See figure 15 for the graphical representation of this question.

Figure 15:

Question #15: I respect my mentors not only professionally, but personally as well. (Likert Scale) The results indicated that out of 43 participants, 26% (11 of 43) strongly agreed, 40% (17 of 43) agreed, 28% (12 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 4% (2 of 43) disagreed, and 2% (1 of 43) strongly disagreed. The implications from these results are that these Lieutenants perception is that they respect their mentors both professionally and personally. 66% responded positively that they respected their mentors both professionally and personally. The mean for this question was 2.19, medium 2, and mode was 2. See figure 16 for the graphical representation of this question.
Figure 16:

Question #16: I feel that Company??™s mentorship program is effective. (Likert Scale) The results indicated that out of 43 participants, 9% (4 of 43) strongly agreed, 33% (14 of 43) agreed, 30% (13 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 16% (7 of 43) disagreed, and 12% (5 of 43) strongly disagreed. The results revealed that only 42% (18 of 43) of the Lieutenants believed that Company??™s mentorship program is effective. The mean for this question was 2.88, medium 2, and mode was 2. See figure 17 for the graphical representation of this question.
Figure 17:

Question #17: I believe that the mentorship program could be improved. (Likert Scale)
The results indicated that 30% (13 of 43) of the participants strongly agreed, 56% (24 of 43) agreed, 12% (5 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 0% (0 of 43) disagrees, and 2% (1 of 43) strongly disagree. The implications from these results are that these Lieutenants (82%) perception is that the mentorship program in Company could be improved. This is a significantly large number and should be addressed by the leadership within Company. The mean for this question was 1.88, medium 2, and mode 2. See figure 18 for a graphical representation of the results.
Figure 18:

Question #18: I believe that my mentor is legitimately concerned about my success as a l Officer. (Likert Scale) The results indicated that only, 7% (3 of 43) of the participants strongly agreed, 42% (18 of 43) agreed, 28% (12 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 19% (8 of 43) disagrees, and 5% (2 of 43) strongly disagree. The results conclude that only 49% of the Lieutenants perceived that their mentor was legitimately concerned about their success as a Officer. The mean for this question was 2.72, medium 2, and mode 2. See figure 19 for a graphical representation of the results.
Figure 19:

Problem Statement three Assessment: (Likert Scale)
Problem statement three assesses whether the mentees (Lieutenants) within Company Battalion feels that they are receiving quality mentorship. Only 42% (18 of 43) of the mentees felt that the mentorship program in Company was effective. This was echoed in question 17, when 82% (32 of 43) responded that Company??™s mentorship program could be improved. Some of the areas that were recommended for needing improvement were that the mentors needed to be more accessible and approachable; only 51% (22 of 43) thought that their mentors listened to the mentees issues; only 18% (8 of 43) felt that their mentors had received ant type of mentorship training; and only 49% of the lieutenants believed that their mentors were legitimately concerned about their success as a Officer. On a positive note, 66% of the respondents acknowledged a sense of respect both professionally and personally toward their mentors.
Problem Statement #4: Assess the mentorship needs of the officers attending Company Battalion.
This problem statement was addressed in questions 19-22. Each question was constructed using the Likert Scale format, with assigned points from 1-5 (1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3= neither agree nor disagree, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree).
Question 19 stated, ???I need more guidance concerning the officer promotion system.??? Question 20 stated, ???I need to learn more about the history of the Army and the .??? Question 21 stated, ???I would like to learn more about experiences from the field regarding my career field.??? Question number 22 stated, ???I felt comfortable discussing personal issues with my mentors.??? See figure 20 for a graphical representation of the combined results of the mean for problem statement four.
Figure 20:

Question #19: I need more guidance concerning the officer promotion system. (Likert Scale) The results indicated that 21% (9 of 43) of the participants strongly agreed, 42% (18 of 43) agreed, 23% (10 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 14% (6 of 43) disagrees, and 0% (0 of 43) strongly disagree. The implications from these results are that these Lieutenants perception is that they would like to get more information and guidance on the officer promotion system. 63% (27 of 43) of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. The mean for this question was 2.30, medium 2, and mode 2. See figure 21 for a graphical representation of the results.

Figure 21:

Question #20: I need to learn more about the history of the Army and the Corps. (Likert Scale) The results indicated that only, 14% (6 of 43) of the participants strongly agreed, 51% (22 of 43) agreed, 16% (7 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 9% (4 of 43) disagrees, and 9% (4 of 43) strongly disagree. The results indicate that these Lieutenants perception is that they need more information on the history of the Army and the Corps. 65% (28 of 43) of the respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. The mean for this question was 2.49, medium 2, and mode 2. See figure 22 for a graphical representation of the results.
Figure 22:

Question #21: I would like to learn more about experiences from the field regarding my career field. (Likert Scale) The results indicated that, 33% (14 of 43) of the participants strongly agreed, 56% (24 of 43) agreed, 4% (2 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 4% (2 of 43) disagrees, and 2% (1 of 43) strongly disagree. The conclusion from this statement is that these Lieutenants are adamant in the fact that they would like to learn more about experiences from the field regarding their career field. 89% (38 of 43) of the lieutenants responded positive to this statement, by either strongly agreeing or agreeing with the statement. The mean for this question was 1.88, medium 2, and mode 2. See figure 23 for a graphical representation of the results.
Figure 23:

Question #22: I felt comfortable discussing personal issues with my mentors. (Likert Scale) The results indicated that only, 2% (1 of 43) of the participants strongly agreed, 26% (11 of 43) agreed, 42% (18 of 43) neither agreed nor disagreed, 16% (7 of 43) disagrees, and 12% (5 of 43) strongly disagree. The results for this statement are that these Lieutenants perception is that they don??™t feel comfortable discussing personal issues with their mentors. Only 27% (12 of 43) strongly agreed or agreed with this statement, and only 1 lieutenant strongly agreed. The remaining 73% (32 of 43) responded with the latter three responses for this statement. The mean for this question was 3.02, medium 3, and mode 3. See figure 24 for a graphical representation of the results.
Figure 24

Problem Statement four Assessment: (Likert Scale)
Problem statement four assesses the mentorship needs of the officers attending Company Battalion. The mentees expressed a need to receive more information and guidance on the officer promotion system. Of the 43 respondents, 27 or 63% either strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. 65% (28 of 43) indicated the need to receive more information on the history of the Army and the history of the Corps. The lieutenants felt strongly (89%, 38 of 43) that they would like to learn more about experiences from the field regarding their career field. Another issue of consternation is that only 1 lieutenant strongly agreed that she/he felt comfortable discussing personal issues with their mentors. Eleven lieutenants agreed that he/she felt comfortable discussing personal issues with their mentors. This left 31 lieutenants that neither agreed nor disagreed, disagreed, and or strongly disagreed with this statement.
Primary research concluded that most lieutenants felt strongly that the mentorship program is a good program, and that the program is beneficial to their professional development and growth as a leader. The respondents expressed reservation in regards to the effectiveness of the mentorship program as it is currently designed in Company, Battalion.

Conclusions
Problem Statement #1: Assess the benefits of mentorship programs.
This problem statement was supported through secondary research. The research information was collaborated within the literature review study and findings section of this research project.
Problem Statement #2: Assess how effective the current mentorship program is within Company, Battalion.
The results show that the mentees desire more time with their mentors. 72% feel like they did not get enough interaction with their mentors. The response to general questions about the benefits of the mentorship program proved extremely positive. 73% agreed that the mentorship program was beneficial to their professional development. 60% said that the mentorship program would help make them better leaders. 52% felt that they gained professional knowledge from their interaction with their mentors, and 53% said they learned something of value from their mentors. On two of the more specific questions (numbers 7 and 10) the responses were very much negative. Only 1 respondent strongly agreed that he/she was a better officer as a result of the mentorship program; and only 25% said they had gained confidence in being a officer as a result of their mentors. Problem Statement Three: Assess whether the mentees (Lieutenants) within Company Battalion feels that they are receiving quality mentorship.
Only 42% (18 of 43) of the mentees felt that the mentorship program in Company was effective. This was echoed in question 17, when 82% (32 of 43) responded that Company??™s mentorship program could be improved. Some of the areas that were recommended for needing improvement were that the mentors needed to be more accessible and approachable; only 51% (22 of 43) thought that their mentors listened to the mentees issues; only 18% (8 of 43) felt that their mentors had received ant type of mentorship training; and only 49% of the lieutenants believed that their mentors were legitimately concerned about their success as a Officer. On a positive note, 66% of the respondents acknowledged a sense of respect both professionally and personally toward their mentors.
Problem Statement Four: Assess the mentorship needs of the officers attending Company Battalion.
The mentees expressed a need to receive more information and guidance on the officer promotion system. Of the 43 respondents, 27 or 63% either strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. 65% (28 of 43) indicated the need to receive more information on the history of the Army and the history of the Corps. The lieutenants felt strongly (89%, 38 of 43) that they would like to learn more about experiences from the field regarding their career field. Another issue of consternation is that only 1 lieutenant strongly agreed that she/he felt comfortable discussing personal issues with their mentors. Eleven lieutenants agreed that he/she felt comfortable discussing personal issues with their mentors. This left 31 lieutenants that neither agreed nor disagreed, disagreed, and or strongly disagreed with this statement.
Primary research concluded that all personnel have an opportunity to succeed in the military. The participants in this study understand that in order to succeed in the military and in any other organization, members must join together and work to achieve both unit and individual goals, and accomplish the mission.

Premise Assessment
Secondary research concludes that the Army??™s Mentorship Program is essential to the professional and personal development of individual leaders within the Armed Forces. If it is essential to the success of individuals, then it is most certainly a key element in the successful operations of all military units throughout all branches of the Armed Forces. Each branch of service has dedicated policies and regulations to ensure all junior personnel have the opportunity for professional and personal development from more senior ranking and experienced leaders. This is one reason why the United States Military is unsurpassed throughout the world.
The study revealed the level of effectiveness, quality and some additional concerns of the Lieutenants attending the Officers Basic Course, in Company, Battalion. The respondents in the study expressed a very high confidence in the benefits of the mentorship program. The participants had positive views on their ability to achieve professional as well as personal development, and see the benefits for leadership growth. The respondents voiced their concerns about several issues that may need to be addressed by Company, and perhaps the Army as a whole.
Through primary and secondary research the premise was proved accurate. Mentoring (whether formalized or informal) has been critical to the past successes of our country (both personally as individuals, and economically throughout the world of business), and the Army. It is, and will continue to be extremely important to the continuing development and future success of these young Lieutenants as they embark upon their leadership responsibilities as officers in the United States Army. Company is advancing the current Army initiatives on mentorship, helping to shape the future leaders in the Corps; however, the mentorship program needs to be more carefully tracked to ensure all lieutenants are receiving quality mentoring. ???

Recommendations for Future Studies
Future research is warranted in order to more thoroughly examine a larger representative population of officers. This study included only 43 Officers ( OBC Students) of Company, Battalion, out of the thousands of Officers in the U. S. Army. If a larger population were surveyed, the results of the study would be more representative of the total officer population. The survey instrument should be revised and broadened to be more thorough, so as to gather a more in depth view of the overall attitudes, and feeling of the participants.

Recommendations for the Unit Studied
The United States Army Chemical Corps, particularly the leadership of the Officers Basic Course ( OBC) should invest more time in identifying the concerns of its attendees about their needs as to the mentorship program. At the Lieutenant??™s level, it is important that a foundation for mentoring be developed. Officers attending this course will be future platoon leaders, and or battalion/brigade level staff officers; therefore, it is imperative that the United States Army embed the importance of the Mentorship program in these future leaders. These young leaders can then ensure that they provide the proper mentorship to their subordinates, and that will ensure that future military leaders, continue to benefit from the experiences of the great leaders of the past.

References

Adams, D., (March 1997). Mentoring women and minority officers in the US Military. Retrieved January 12, 2004, from InfoTrac database.
Canabou, C. & Haley, F. (October 2003). Fast talk: The mentor??™s mentors.
Fast company, 75, pp. 59. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from website: http://us.f142.mail.yahoo.com/ym/showletter.
Department of the Army pamphlet 600-3. (1998). Mentoring. Retrieved January 17, 2004, from AKO Web Site.
Desimone, R., Werner, J., & Harris, D. (2002). Human Resource Development (3rd ed.).
Orlando: Hartcourt, Inc.
Dudley, D. (October 30, 2003). Canada newswire president named as first honorary chair of University of Toronto at Scarborough Mentorship program. Retrieved January 11, 2004, from LexisNexis database.
Field Manual 22-600-20. (