University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An evaluation of a Gallup -designed professional development mentoring program

(USC Thesis Other)

An evaluation of a Gallup -designed professional development mentoring program

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, som e thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon th e quality of the
copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand com er and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6“ x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AN EVALUATION OF A GALLUP DESIGNED PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT MENTORING PROGRAM
by
Susan J. Bath
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment o f the
Requirements o f the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3041435
Copyright 2002 by
Bath, Susan Jane
All rights reserved.
___ __®
UMI
UMI Microform 3041435
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation, written by
S u san J . B a th
under the direction o f hl£=JDissertation Committee, and
approved by all members o f the Committee, has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the School
of Education in partialfulfillment o f the requirementsfor
the degree of
D o c t o r o f E d u c a t io n
Date
Disst ' ^
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to all of my Gallup associates, clients, friends and family
who have experienced the benefits of a mentoring relationship in their lives. This
dedication also extends to those who have yet to encounter a mentor in their lives. Life
can be so much richer when there is someone helping you to discover your riches for
yourself.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation would not have been possible without the tremendous support,
encouragement, and guidance o f many individuals. I would like to thank the following
very special people.
First, I would like to thank my husband and best friend, Steve Bath. His support
since beginning this program of study in 1995 is, without a doubt, very much appreciated.
There have been many nights and weekends that I have been completing coursework and
working on this dissertation and Steve always encouraged me to keep going, while he
was home taking care of our two small children and managing our household.
I would also like to thank my two children: Morgan Joy and Mollie Marilyn
Bath. One year into this program Morgan was bom and Mollie was bom 2 V 2 years later.
I spent a few weeks away from Morgan during my residency when she was only 9 weeks
old and both Morgan and Mollie have endured countless hours away from their mommy
during my coursework and dissertation completion. Just thinking o f their sweet smiles
throughout the duration of this experience kept me going.
I extend my thanks to my parents: William “ Bill” and Joy Osterberg. Their
financial support, their belief in my persistence, and their wonderfully caring “ baby
sitting service” made this achievement possible. A thank you goes out to my friends at
Gallup who encouraged me to take time off from work to finish my dissertation. Connie
Kreikemeier, Susan Pleiss, Lori Stohs, Cindy Fritton, Thom Reeves, Jody VanOsdel,
Connie Rath, Kerry Davis, Rosemary Travis, Cheryl Beamer, Mark Eberly and Christy
Hammer are all wonderful friends who have encouraged and pushed me to move forward.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Without their kind focus, I doubt that I would have finished this program.
A special thank you goes out to Connie Rath. You have been a wonderful Coach
who knows my strengths. Thank you for giving me the “ focus time” to finish this
rigorous dissertation process.
Thank you Karen Bums and Kerry Davis for assisting me with the participant
interviews. Without your partnership, I would not have completed this very important
part of my study.
Inspirational friends are the best kind to have. One o f these friends is Edward
“ Buzz” Haskell. Buzz’s positivity about mentoring and the existing mentoring
instrument and data that Gallup held, helped me to see the possibilities for this
dissertation. Thank you Buzz for your encouragement and friendship and for providing
some excellent discoveries regarding mentoring.
To Dr. Phil Stone from Harvard, a sincere thanks for your dissertation
consultation and for running my content analysis. You are the expert in this area and you
are brilliant. I feel so very lucky to have had a chance to work with the
best scientist in the world in this area. Your recommendations challenged my thinking
and made my study better.
My final thanks are reserved for members of my Dissertation Committee. First, I
would like to thank Dr. Sydney Blake who was my first committee chair, but who left
USC and no longer could serve on my committee. You have a gift for making statistics
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
understandable. You have been one of only two teachers in my life who has been able to
“ reach” me in this area. Thank you for your friendship and for the difference you made
in my life.
To Dr. Robert Baker, your enthusiasm to bring this distance learning program to
Gallup is what prompted me to sign up for this adventure 5 years ago. Thank you for
your support throughout the process and smarts. Your positivity is very contiguous!
If there was a chief advocate of this study, it was Dr. Richard “ Dick” Harding.
Thank you for giving so much of your valuable time to help me think of questions and
methodology. Your recommendations are priceless. I feel so lucky to have had a
resident research expert right on the same floor at Gallup with me. You
are one o f the best teachers that I have ever known.
Finally, I offer a special word of thanks to m y Chair, Dr. Dennis Hocevar. Your
wealth o f information regarding research and the USC process got me through this. You
are incredibly patient and a wonderfully nice human being. Thank you
for your understanding and guidance throughout the entire experience. You are a true
difference maker in so many lives. I am so glad that I got to be one of the people who
you made a difference with.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
ABSTRACT xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 5
Assumptions of the Study 6
Significance o f the Study 6
Limitations 7
Delimitations 8
Summary 8
Definition of Terms 9
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELEVENT LITERATURE 11
Definition of the Mentoring Relationship 11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Outcomes of Mentoring Programs
Effectiveness of Formal Mentoring Programs
CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Participants
Mentoring Process
Research Design and Instrumentation
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
CHAPTER V
RESULTS
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 1
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 2
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 3
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 4
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 5
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 6
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 7
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 8
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 9
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V l l l
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 11
103
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 12
111
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 13
117
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 14
121
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 15
129
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 16
135
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 17
140
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 145
Statement of Purpose 145
Research Questions 145
Methodology and Major Findings 146
Major Findings for Sub-questions 149
Major Findings for Grand Tour Questions 155
Conclusions 175
Recommendations for Further Research 178
REFERENCES 180
APPENDICES 185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Major Findings for Learner Goals Met
Table 2: Summary of Major Findings for Learner and Coach
Productivity Increase
Table 3: Summary o f Major Findings for Learner and Coach Positivity
Towards Program
Table 4: Summary o f Major Findings for Learner and Coach
Developmental Impact On Each Other
Table 5: Summary o f Major Findings for Coach — Learner Proximity
for Match
Table 6: Case Coach-Leamer Pair 1 Summary of Findings
Table 7 : Case Coach — Learner Pair 2 Summary o f Findings
Table 8: Case Coach - Learner Pair 3 Summary o f Findings
Table 9: Case Coach — Learner Pair 4 Summary o f Findings
Table 10: Case Coach - Learner Pair 5 Summary of Findings
Table 11: Case Coach - Learner Pair 6 Summary o f Findings
Table 12: Case Coach — Learner Pair 7 Summary of Findings
Table 13: Case Coach — Learner Pair 8 Summary of Findings
Table 14: Case Coach - Learner Pair 9 Summary of Findings
Table 15: Case Coach - Learner Pair 10 Summary of Findings
Table 16: Case Coach — Learner Pair 11 Summary of Findings
page
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
162
163
164
166
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 17:
Case Coach - Learner Pair 12 Summary of Findings
168
Table 18:
Case Coach - Learner Pair 13 Summary of Findings
170
Table 19: Case Coach - Learner Pair 14 Summary o f Findings
171
Table 20:
Case Coach - Learner Pair 15 Summary of Findings
172
Table 21: Case Coach — Learner Pair 16 Summary o f Findings
173
Table 22: Case Coach - Learner Pair 17 Summary of Findings
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
XI
ABSTRACT
Susan J. Bath Dennis Hocevar, Ph.D.
AN EVALUATION OF A GALLUP DESIGNED PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT MENTORING PROGRAM
This pilot study measured the effectiveness o f the Professional Development
Mentoring Program, designed by The Gallup Organization, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Participants were given a 357-item matching instrument and 50-item post-
qualitative in-depth interview. Correlations were run on the matching instrument sections
giving both coach and learner participants their ranked correlation to each other in each of
the 6 areas. Learners then used these data as a tool to select their coach. Each of the 31
post-qualitative in-depth interviews collected were transcribed and text was analyzed by
the researcher by case pair. In addition, an analysis of the matching instrument data was
completed in order to assess most frequently matched proximity area for learner to coach.
All coaches and learners revealed positive effects o f the Gallup Professional
Development Mentoring Program. In addition, results indicate that the Gallup
Professional Development Mentoring Program should be offered as a company-wide
program at Gallup with several modifications noted in this study. Future research is
recommended before expanding this program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this study was to measure the effectiveness of a
Professional Development Mentoring Program designed by The Gallup Organization,
Lincoln, Nebraska. This pilot study was designed specifically for Gallup employed
selection analysts and in-depth interviewers. This study is presented in six chapters.
Chapter 1 is the introduction of the study, including (a) background o f the
problem, (b) statement o f the problem, (c) purpose o f the study, (d) research questions,
(e) assumptions of the study, (f) significance of the study, (g) limitations, (h)
delimitations, and (i) definition of terms. Chapter 2 is a review of the relevant literature
and addresses the following topics: (a) definition o f the mentoring relationship, (b)
outcomes o f mentoring programs, and (c) effectiveness o f mentoring. Chapter 3 provides
the methods and procedures, specifically the mentoring process, research design and
implementation. Chapter 4 introduces the data analysis. Chapter 5 presents the results of
the study. Chapter 6 includes the summary, conclusions and recommendations for the
study.
Background of the Problem
During the last quarter of 1996, Dr. Cheryl Bearner, Senior Analyst and
Director of Analyst Development with The Gallup Organization, approached me
to solicit my help in development and implementation of a mentoring program
with Gallup analysts and in-depth interviewers for 1997. The goal, she said, would be to
"help beginning analysts and in-depth interviewers to develop a plan with a senior
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
analyst, which will lend congruency to beginning analysts’ pictures o f themselves." In
addition, she wanted to increase productivity of beginning analysts and in-depth
interviewers. Furthermore, she wanted to provide Senior Analysts with the opportunity to
share their vast knowledge with beginning analysts and in-depth interviewers. For many
years The Gallup Organization has offered a mentoring program called Career
Development Boards. This program consists o f the Gallup associate serving as their own
chair of their board and then choosing, at minimum, two other Gallup associates to serve
on their board. One of the board members must be the associate’s manager or "go-to"
person. The program is optional and it is recommended that associates meet with their
boards at least once per year. The purpose of this program is to provide the Gallup
associate with a constituency from whom they can obtain advisement regarding their
goals and professional development, as well as share their successes. However, this
program, in many cases, did not provide the structure and content needed for many
beginning analysts and in-depth interviewers to help them meet their goals.
Given that there was not a current structured mentoring program at Gallup that
would provide the components which beginning analysts and in-depth interviewers
needed, Dr. Beamer and I sought out Dr. Kathie Sorensen, Senior Analyst and Consultant
with The Gallup Organization. Dr. Sorensen had previously designed a Professional
Development Program for agents o f Farm Bureau o f Des Moines, Iowa and had extensive
knowledge regarding mentoring research. Dr. Sorensen recommended that we customize
a mentor/protege matching instrument, which was used with agents of Farm Bureau. In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
addition, she advocated that we use a modified mentor/protege workbook, originally
designed for Farm Bureau by Gallup.
The next step was to get Dr. Richard Harding, Senior Research Consultant with
The Gallup Organization, involved with redesigning the mentor/protege matching
instrument and Dr. Sorensen, Dr. Beamer and m yself to redesign the workbook. The
process of customizing the instrument and workbook was ongoing until the end of
December, 1996. Recruitment o f coaches (mentors) and learners (proteges) was
completed during the month of December, 1996. Coaches and Learners completed the
matching instrument by January 10, 1997 and were given their matching data at a group
meeting on January 17, 1997. At the meeting, Dr. Sorensen explained the specifics for
participation in the program, including sections of the workbook, and Dr. Richard
Harding asked potential learners to use the matching instrument as tool to decide who
they would like to ask to be their coach for the one year long Professional Development
Mentoring Program. Learners then chose their coaches by asking them directly and set up
an initial meeting with their coach to do the introductory interview with one another.
Coaches and learners were previously instructed to meet not less than once a
month for the next 11 months, following the Professional Development Workbook. The
methodology section of this document addresses the instrumentation used to evaluate the
effectiveness o f this program.
Statement of the Problem
The Gallup Organization did not provide its associates with a matching tool to
aid in the learner selection o f their mentor. Furthermore, the Gallup Organization did not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
have a program which helped to link new associates to more experienced associates
within the organization, in order to foster learning about the culture history, mission, and
services o f the organization, as well as the individual talents of the associate.
Moreover, there was not a structured workbook or journal to help guide associates
with their learning in their work relationships. In addition, there needed to be an increase
in analyst and in-depth interviewer productivity at the time o f this study. This program
hoped to link the benefits of a mentoring relationship to an increase in productivity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a Gallup designed
professional development mentoring program for Gallup analysts and in-depth
interviewers.
Research Questions
The following grand tour research questions guided the investigation of this study:
1. How will the Gallup Professional Development Program affect participants?
2. What modifications to the program should be made when the Gallup
Professional Development Program is rolled out company-wide?
The following sub-questions narrowed the focus of this study and helped to
answer the two grand tour questions:
1. Will learners and coaches report learners met their goals for 1997 as a
result of their participation in the Gallup Professional Development
Mentoring Program?
2. Will learners’ and coaches’ productivity increase as a result of their
participation in the program?
3. Will learners’ and coaches’ overall experience with the program be
positive?
4. Will learners and coaches feel like they had a developmental impact on
their each other?
5. What areas of proximity were used to match coach/leamer pairs?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Assumptions of the Study
Assumptions for this study were:
1. Only volunteers were involved in the study. Both beginning analysts/in
depth interviewers and Senior Analysts elected themselves to take part in
this pilot program.
2. Learners and coaches answered interview questions accurately.
3. No two learners or coaches were the same. The learners had the following
similarities in common: all were employed with The Gallup Organization,
either in a analyst or in-depth interviewer position, and all were assigned
to the Lincoln, Nebraska Gallup office.
Significance of the Study
There are indications that the incidence of mentor-protege relationships in certain
occupations and industries are as high as 75% or more (Laband & Lentz, 1995).
However, many corporations do not have formal mentoring programs which provide the
employee with the structure that they need to meet their goals. Proteges and mentors may
seek out each other on their own, but for a great percentage of the workforce, there is not
a third party matching them or providing a workbook to
follow. Such was the case at The Gallup Organization. This study explored the effects of
having a structured mentoring program.
Much of the literature confirms that a mentoring relationship provides positive
outcomes. Mentoring is a significant determinant in a person’s early career, as measured
by the following outcomes: progress, well-being, income, advancement, and satisfaction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
(Whitely, 1993). This study will add to this grouping o f research findings for proteges. In
addition, virtually none of the literature measures the effects o f the mentoring relationship
on the mentor. Consequently, this study will provide insights in this area of research.
Limitations
The following limitations were noted regarding this study:
1. Although there are over 90 Gallup analysts and in-depth interviewers
employed at The Gallup Organization, only 17 coach-leamer pairs were
considered in this study. They were not randomly assigned; rather, they
were volunteers.
2. The learner selection of a coach included a matching tool, providing
information to both the Coach and learner regarding their correlation to
each other in the areas of talent, coaching style, processes/products,
applications/programs, research techniques and industry experience in a
forced response questionnaire format.
3. Learners chose their coach based on a combination of data. Some learners
chose their coach based on their highest correlation to their coach on the
matching tool data. In addition, coach availability, previous relationship
with coach and referrals from others within the organization played a part
in learner selection of their coach.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
Delimitations
The following delimitations were made relative to this study:
1. All who participated in this study were Senior Analysts, Professional
Analysts or in-depth interviewers employed by the Gallup Organization
and were located in Lincoln, Nebraska.
2. This study concentrated on the perceptions of their experience in The
Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program during 1997.
Summary
This chapter provided an introduction to the study of establishing a Professional
Development Mentoring Program at The Gallup Organization.
The method o f matching coaches to learners at The Gallup Organization was nonexistent
at the time of this study. In addition, new associates needed a more structured method of
learning about the organization, increasing productivity and establishing relationships
with other Gallup associates.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
Definition of Terms
Gallup Coach: A Gallup Senior Analyst who has been asked by the Gallup learner
to be their coach in the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program and who
participated in the 12 month long program.
Gallup In-depth Interviewer: Those associates, employed at The Gallup
Organization, who get paid to interview clients in an unbiased manner regarding their
talents. There are many career in-depth interviewers at The Gallup Organization. In
addition, there are many in-depth interviewers who start with the organization in this
position and then go on to become professional and Senior Analysts.
Gallup Learner: A Gallup In-depth Interviewer or Gallup Professional Analyst
who participated in the 12 month long Gallup Professional Development Mentoring
Program.
Mentoring: A relationship in which a person with greater experience and wisdom
guides another to a higher level of personal and professional excellence.
Gallup Professional Analyst: Those associates, employed at The Gallup
Organization, who have reached a first level of certification through competency, quality
and productivity attainment. This certification level is most likely attained during the first
year of employment as an analyst at The Gallup Organization. Professional Analysts are
responsible for interviewing clients, analyzing the interview data, and giving feedback to
clients in either a verbal or written format.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
Gallup Senior Analyst: Those associates, employed at The Gallup Organization,
who have reached a senior level of certification through competency, quality and
productivity attainment. This certification level is most likely attained
somewhere between the 3rd and 4th years of employment as an analyst with The Gallup
Organization. Senior Analysts are responsible for interviewing clients, analyzing the
interview data, and giving feedback to clients in either a verbal or written format.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE
Chapter 2 represents a comprehensive review of the literature related to this
research topic. Chapter 2 addresses the following participant matter: (a) an exploration of
the origin of mentoring, (b) ambiguity with the definition of mentoring, (c) characteristics
of mentors and proteges, (d) the mentor - protege match, (e) mentoring as a way to
enhance employee productivity, (f) outcomes of mentoring programs and how they have
been measured, and (g) effectiveness of formal mentoring programs.
Definition o f the Mentoring Relationship
The Origin of Mentoring
Mentoring has become such a buzzword of late, that one might think that it is a
relatively new concept. Actually, mentoring, as a human resource development technique,
goes back far beyond the The Dictionary o f Occupational Titles (1987) definition of
mentoring as a highly complex people-related skill involving comprehensive concern for
life-adjustment behavior. Greek mythology tells how Ulyssess, embarking on one o f his
epic voyages, left his son, Telemachus, in the tutelage of his old friend Mentor. On one,
occasion Mentor’s advice saved Telemachus from certain death (Merriam, 1983).
Through the ages, this name has been given to an older, wiser, more experienced person
who offers a younger or less experienced person advice, support, and patronage (Carter,
1994).
In recent times mentoring has been seen as an important role, undertaken with the
aim of developing employees within the context of a particular organization (P. A.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
Personnel Services, 1986). This has offered a wide range of benefits to the organization.
A PA survey on mentoring in eight countries and 67 organizations highlighted a number
o f perceived benefits of mentoring schemes to an organization. These included: improved
succession planning and management development, faster induction o f new employees,
improved communications, reduced labor costs, reduced labor costs, and increased
productivity. Similarly, there have been a number of studies of managers in corporate
settings which assert that mentoring can facilitate socialization into an organization
(Clawson, 1980; Berlew & Hall, 1966), reduce turnover among valued young
professionals (Dalton, Price, & Thompson, 1977; Kram, 1985), and facilitate the transfer
o f knowledge and value that supports an organization’s mission (Peters & Waterman,
1982).
Ambiguity with the Definition of Mentoring
Perhaps the single largest problem with mentoring is its many associated
definitions. In a mentoring study where the definition of mentor was purposely omitted,
76 managers reported 214 different mentoring relationships (Clawson, 1985). In another
study where were asked, "Have you been mentored?" 67% responded positively that they
had been mentored; however, stricter criteria found that only 43% truly met the criteria
(Riley & Wrench, 1985). Unfortunately, mentoring research lacks either a precise
definition or a commonly accepted definition (Bowen, 1985). Almost every selection o f
literature reviewed defined mentoring in a different way. However, what makes
mentoring so different in scope is most often caused by what mentoring involves in
practice from one organization to another. Throughout the organizational literature,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
mentoring is seen to involve both career and psychosocial functions. The career functions
of mentoring are seen by Kram (1985) to include such activities as sponsorship, coaching,
protection, exposure and challenging work and the psychosocial functions to involve role
modeling, counseling, acceptance and confirmation, and friendship. However, it seems
that the term mentor is often used to describe someone who only assumes only a few of
these functions and that, in practice, the process o f mentoring may mean quite different
things in different settings (Kram, 1985). Overall, mentoring, throughout the literature,
usually describes some sort of a situation where an experienced employee/manager acts
as an adviser and coach to a younger employee (Jackson, 1993). Mentoring, therefore,
seems to be a term in need of clarification. Therefore, for the purpose of this study,
mentoring will be defined as, a relationship in which a person with greater experience and
wisdom guides another to a higher level of personal and professional excellence.
There is confusion in the corporate world as to the difference and similarities
between mentoring and coaching. Unlike teaching, tutoring, coaching or counseling,
mentoring is unique in that it focuses "almost entirely on meeting the needs o f the
mentee" (Shea, 1994). Coaching focuses on the remedying o f specific problems as they
occur. You can also coach many people with varying levels of experience at the same
time (Darby, 1999). Mentoring involves the establishing o f a bond based on the desire of
the mentor to help and be responsive to the needs of the protege, whether explicit or not.
This requires a mentor to be constantly aware o f both the organizational atmosphere and
the development of the protege. Mentoring, therefore, involves a constant monitoring of
the progress of the mentee, whereas coaching deals with the teaching of skills to serve a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
particular aim/objective/project, and requires a persistent effort to recognize the needs,
aspirations, talents or difficulties the mentee may face (Shea, 1994).
Another term referenced in the literature is mentorship, rather than mentoring. A
mentorship is "a social process and intense work relationship" (Waltz & Gardener, 1992)
in which a higher-status professional’s presence or actions serve to guide or direct
workers to realize their full potential (Johnson, Simpson, Williams, & Kotarba, 1993) as
related to career progress, organizational influence, and advancement in organizations
(Ragins & Cotton, 1991).
Another definition of mentoring links the interpersonal relationship of mentoring
to career progress and personal well being. This definition talks about two distinct
conceptual views of the mentoring construct. The classical or primary construct views
mentoring as a relatively long-duration, intense developmental relationship in which
proteges receive a broad range o f career and psycho-social help exclusively from one
senior manager (Clawson 1980; Kram 1985; Levinson, 1978). In contrast, the career
oriented or secondary construct views mentoring as a short duration, less intense and less
inclusive developmental process. It involves multiple relationships that are more
specialized in the kinds of developmental functions proteges receive (Phillips-Jones,
1982; Zey, 1984). Thomas (1986) delineated a continuum o f developmental relationships
varying according to duration o f contact, degree of mutuality, and relationship functions
served. Secondary or career mentoring tends to focus on external, career progress-
oriented functions, such as sponsorship, coaching, protection, and visibility and exposure,
rather than on inner-oriented psycho-social developmental functions (Kram, 1985).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
Characteristics o f Mentors and Proteges
Some researchers have suggested that mentors and proteges attract one another
because of actual or perceived similarities in personality or background (Henning &
Jardim, 1977; Kanter, 1977). Other researchers believe that certain personality
characteristics predispose an individual to assume either the mentor or the protege role
(Darling, 1986). Still others propose an interpersonal attraction to an ideal superior or
subordinate prototype, based on perceptions o f ability, commitment, and potential
(Bowen, 1982; Collins & Scott, 1978; Kram, 1985; Lord, Foti, & Phillips, 1981;
Zaleznik, 1977). Alleman (1982) challenged all three assumptions. She compared 48 men
and 52 women employed in organizationally based occupations from heavy
manufacturing and high technology to direct service in 29 mentor-protege pairs with
those in 21 non-mentor-protege pairs. One hundred twenty-three specific behaviors,
rather than any innate personality characteristics or preferences based on similarity or
ideal prototypes, differentiated the individuals in Alleman’s four groups (mentors, non
mentors, proteges, and non-proteges).
In a study of public sector mentoring undertaken to complement Roche’s (1979)
study of private sector mentoring, Henderson (1985) analyzed data from 822
questionnaire respondents and from follow-up interviews with more than 100 public
managers. He identified 11 mentor behaviors: teaching, guiding, advising, counseling,
sponsoring, role modeling, validating, motivating, protecting, communicating, and being
subtle and not expecting credit and five protege behaviors: having upward mobile
attitude, being competent in one’s role, being dependable, being interested in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
mentor’s work, and having discretion and a sense of propriety. Whereas most researchers
consider role modeling a function or behavior of mentors, Bolton (1980), Shapiro,
Haseltine and Rowe (1978), Young, MacKenzie and Sherif (1980), and Yoder, Adams,
Grove and Priest (1985) have argued that role modeling, a passive process not requiring
interpersonal contact, is distinct from mentoring, an essentially interactive process.
Mentoring is not for everyone. A mentor and a mentee have to have specific qualities
(Darby, 1999). A review of mentor and protege qualities follows.
The Mentor: Who makes a good mentor? The literature reveals many conclusions,
but there is no commonly accepted definition or set of characteristics, skills or qualities.
The average or typical mentor is 42.7 years old, predominantly male (78%), holds
significant tenure, including 85% with one of the following titles: Manager, Director,
Supervisor, President, or Owner (Burke, 1984). Other characteristics include: the mentor
initiates approximately 28% of the relationships, meets several times per week, their
relationship lasts between 2 and 5 years, only 20% ended their relationship, and the
reason for ending a mentor relationship is typically due to "transfer" (Burke, 1984). A
mentor has been defined as a senior organizational member (Kirchmeyer, 1995), who is
higher ranking, influential, (Baugh, Lankau, & Scandura, 1996) with advanced
experience and knowledge, who is committed to providing upward mobility and support
to a protege’s professional career (Ragins, 1989; Ragains & Cotton, 1991). Additionally,
the mentor is often called a coach, teacher of the ropes, and a role model (Riley &
Wrench, 1985).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
What strengths or talents are needed in order to be a good mentor to a protege?
The Gallup Organization, through interviews with 800 successful mentors, discovered
five themes (reoccurring patterns of thought, feeling and behavior). These five themes
were: (a) belief — facilitating the growth of another person and taking a satisfaction from
seeing the increments o f success of another person; (b) arranger — setting up others for
success, which includes designing growth experiences for others by helping them to have
the materials and equipment they need as well as teaming with others who have
complementary talents; (c) self-efficacy - inner strength to know that they have
something to offer their mentee, that they can help them to know the right things to do,
and that they can be a role model for them; (d) developer — knowing that building a
relationship with a person is essential to their growth and also taking satisfaction from
helping the individual grow, and resonate with the building of the relationship; and (e)
relater/trust - caring enough to do things with the mentee for the mentee’s own good. As
the relationship develops, the mentor recognizes what is confidential to the relationship
and then is absolute in maintaining that confidence. Trust grows. Supporting this concept
that there are definite characteristics which a mentor should possess in order to be
successful are studies related to "role modeling" (Bowen, 1985). The six most common
"roles" or "functions" o f a mentor include: (a) positive model, (b) self-confidence builder,
(c) protector (Whitely & Coetsier, 1993), (d) teacher, (e) coach (Whitely & Coetsier,
1993), (f) trainer, and (g) advisor (Burke, 1984). In 1985, the roles were simplified to
teacher, counselor, and sponsor (Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991). Similarly, the
three developmental activities for mentors were also simplified. They included personal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
and professional growth, supervisory or peer collaboration, and community or corporate
involvement (Edmeier & Hart, 1992).
Cunningham and Eberle (1993) confirmed that there are certain skills and
qualities which a mentor should possess. Mentors in the study indicated that their most
important skills and characteristics should be security, confidence, and ability to trust.
Proteges, on the other hand, felt that mentors should be patient, tolerant, and accessible.
Who do mentors select for their proteges? They tend to select proteges with whom
they can identify and with whom they are willing to develop and devote
attention (Walz & Gardner, 1992). Thereafter they signal to others via "reflected power"
that their protege has their powerful backing and resources (Ragins, 1989). Mentors select
protege’s who have a desire to leam and have a positive orientation to people
(Cunningham & Eberle, 1993).
Proteges: Who makes a good protege? Just like the mentor group, there is no
accepted sole definition o f characteristics, skills or qualities. The average or typical
protege is 24.4 years old, predominantly male (86%), with only a short period o f time in
their new job (Burke, 1984). The majority (59%) of mentoring happens spontaneously,
90% report daily mentoring, the "fairly close and intense" relationships last an average of
2 years, and typically end when one or the other leaves the organization (Burke, 1984).
The literature does not answer the question, who makes a good protege, but rather
describes who should seek a mentoring relationship. That is, a person who wants to
understand the career options open to them, become aware o f job opportunities both
inside and outside o f the organization, obtain a good understanding o f their strengths and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
weaknesses in terms of skills and interests, and develop action plans for their own
development (Jackson, 1993). Furthermore, a mentoring relationship should be sought by
a person who wants to enhance their personal development, sense of competence, self-
worth, and acquire critical skills (Green & Bauer, 1995).
The Mentor and Protege Match
Very little has been written regarding the matching of mentor and protege. The
match may range from random assignment to committee assignment, and mentor
selection may be based on protege files or protege preferences (Walz & Gardner, 1992).
Matching can be accomplished formally or informally through interviews, personal
profiles, comparative interest inventories, and get-acquainted sessions (Education
Consumer Guide, 1993). An effective match requires trust and commitment (Zagummy,
1993), but begins with a solid, interpersonal relationship (Orzek, 1984).
Orzek (1984) says that a mentoring relationship represents a "match" between the
characteristics o f the mentor and the protege, both in terms of personal needs and what
each can provide the other. Compatibility is the key to matching a relationship (Burke,
1984). Orzek (1984) proposed mentoring based upon a "match" between the particular
stage of protege development and the functions valued by the mentor. However, Gerstein
(1985) found it unnecessary to match mentor-protege pairs based on various
characteristics. Gerstein also cautions the company to carefully monitor the mentoring
relationship because of potential problems based on poor chemistry between mentor and
protege.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
Outcomes of Mentoring Programs
Mentoring as a Way to Enhance Employee Productivity
The literature indicates that there are many benefits to both employee and to the
organization as a result o f workplace mentoring. One major benefit is enhanced employee
productivity. In a survey o f 1,241 American executives, 67% of all respondents reported
having had a mentor (Roche, 1979). Further, these individuals earned higher incomes at
an earlier age than those executives who had not had a mentor, and they followed a more
definite career plan. In addition, they indicated that they were more willing to serve as a
mentor to someone else (Roche, 1979).
Dreher and Ash (1990) found business school graduates with extensive
mentorship relationships reported more promotions, higher incomes, and higher pay
satisfaction and benefits satisfaction than their counterparts who had less extensive
experiences with mentors. Furthermore, Whitely, Dougherty, and Dreher (1991) found
career mentoring practices to be significantly related to compensation and number of
promotions. Proteges typically reported greater commitment towards the organization,
higher job satisfaction, better socialization, a greater sense of career progress, and higher
salaries and promotions as a result of mentoring (Green & Bauer, 1995).
However, one study conducted by Chao, Walz and Gardner (1992), indicatedthat
proteges in informal mentorships reported more career-related support from their mentors
and higher salaries than proteges in formal mentorships. This one study alone implores
researchers to examine the type of mentoring program to develop and implement, one
which is formal or one which is informal. This could be one problem associated with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
mentoring as a way to enhance employee productivity. In addition, Whitely and
Coetsier’s (1993) study of 148 early career managers and professionals in Belgium
concluded that career mentoring was unrelated to total compensation. These results
occurred even after controlling for a variety of factors identified by Pfeffer (1977) and
Whitely, Dougherty, and Dreher (1991).
Additional Outcomes of Mentoring Programs
There are many benefits to the mentoring relationship. Those mentored are better
oriented to career opportunities, know more about the company’s culture, hold higher
expectations of themselves, and better understand and comply with company policies and
procedures (Gaskill, 1993). Protege’s typically report greater commitment towards the
organization, higher job satisfaction, better socialization (Green & Bauer, 1995) and a
greater perception of self-worth as a result of mentoring (Baugh, Lankau, & Scandura,
1996). In addition, proteges are believed to reduce their stress, role conflict, and role
ambiguity, and increase their coping skills as a result of mentoring (Baugh, Lankau, &
Scandura, 1996). Not having a mentor could be a great handicap to one’s psychological
and career development (Merriam, 1983).
Measuring Mentoring Outcomes
Positive outcomes as a result o f mentoring programs have been noted, but how do
you measure their effectiveness? The results from a formalized mentoring program can be
truly significant, but measuring such successes can be quite a challenge. Mentoring is
difficult to assess because "it goes on constantly" and "always exists" (Lawrie, 1987).
Additionally, although various barriers to mentoring were documented throughout the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
literature, no study has investigated the impact of internal and external barriers on the
mentoring process. Mentoring is still in the infant stage and since most companies seek to
develop a mentoring program from the ground up, very little research has been dedicated
to "how to evaluate a mentoring program." (Ragins & Cotton, 1991).
It is very difficult to objectively measure a mentoring relationship, primarily due
to the wide variation of evaluative questionnaires noted throughout the mentoring studies
(Merriam, 1983). There are four common types of evaluation noted in the literature. The
first, and perhaps the most common type of evaluation, is the outcome-based assessment.
This type of evaluation determines if program recipients are performing well, compares
performance of those in the program to those not included in the program, and shows
whether or not a program has improved for those participating in the program (Posavac &
Carey, 1997). The second type is a needs assessment and is valuable in determining if a
program is worthwhile before proceeding with implementation. An evaluation of need
seeks to identify and measure the level o f unmet needs within an organization or
community (Posavac & Carey, 1997). The third type of evaluation is process evaluation.
This type of evaluation assesses "a series of actions that leads to a predetermined
objective" and aims to improve or better a given process. Once a program has been
developed and is underway, evaluators should turn to the task o f documenting the extent
to which implementation has taken place, the nature o f the people being served, and the
degree to which the program operates as expected (Posavac & Carey, 1997). Finally, the
fourth type, efficiency measurements, proves useful to ensure a program is cost effective
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
in terms of personnel and equipment. Once an evaluation can show it helped program ,
this type of evaluation addresses cost and resources (Posavac & Carey, 1997).
While very little research addresses the evaluation of mentoring, the long
established and well-documented principles of evaluation apply. The research shows that
mentoring is best assessed with surveys and questionnaires. However, there are some
problems associated with this type of evaluation. While researchers tend to place great
value on received survey information, the problem is that many researchers send surveys
to "already successful" people, net close to a 50% return rate, and base their conclusions
solely on percentages of successful people rather them statistical significance o f random
sampling (Merriam, 1983). Much of the literature favored questionnaires. They provide a
great opportunity to mix open-ended questions (qualitative) with fixed response
(quantitative) questions (Burke, 1984). The literature suggests that a questionnaire need
not be too long or complicated, yet should be comprehensive enough to monitor the
attitudes o f both mentor and protege (Zey, 1985).
Selection of inappropriate criteria can result in a failed evaluation, and less than
satisfactory standards can make it impossible to draw conclusions from an evaluation
(Posavac & Carey, 1997). What is necessary in program evaluation is a criteria that
reflects the program’s intent and measurable reliability. In short, it is essential to have an
evaluation where repeated observations yield essentially the same values consistently.
Survey statements must be written clearly, simply, and concisely. The
characteristics of a good survey are many, and important to adhere to. Developers should
avoid the "negatives" and ensure survey items are single issues written with short and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
common word selections. Once prepared, survey items need to be arranged in an easy to
use and logical order. Finally, instructions for completing the survey need to be clear
since an interviewer is not available to explain any uncertainties. According to Posavac
and Carey (1997), it is best to underestimate the respondents and give additional
instructions and examples.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
Effectiveness of Formal Mentoring Programs
This section reviews the empirical literature of supporters and non-supporters of
formal mentoring programs. For the most part, the literature supports formal mentoring
programs.
There has been much empirical evidence that mentorship provides positive
outcomes for proteges. A study conducted by Johnson, Simpson, Williams and Kotarba
(1993), suggests the career paths o f workers on short-term federal projects may be
enhanced as a result of developing a relationship with a mentor through such projects.
Proteges also receive more promotions (Bachman & Gregory, 1993; Dreher & Ash, 1990;
Scandura, 1992), have higher incomes (Choa, Walz, & Gardner, 1992, Dreher & Ash,
1990; Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991), and report more career satisfaction
(Fagenson, 1989) and mobility (Scandura, 1992) than non-proteges. Mentoring has also
been found to be related to job stress (Ford & Wells, 1985), work alienation (Koberg,
Boss, Chappell, & Ringer, 1994), organizational socialization (Chao et al., 1992; Ostroff
& Kozolowski, 1993), career commitment (Bachman & Gregory, 1993), positional power
(Fagenson, 1988), turnover intentions (Scandura & Viator, 1994), job satisfaction (Chao
et al., 1992; Fagenson, 1989; Koberg et al., 1994), and role stress and burnout (Ford &
Wells, 1985). There are no documented empirical studies which confirm negative
outcomes for proteges as a result of mentoring relationships. Potential costs would be a
good topic for future research.
Although there has been little research on the benefits for mentors, one study
found that individuals with mentorship experience reported more benefits and fewer costs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
to being a mentor than individuals lacking experience (Ragins & Scandura, 1993).
Another study focused on mentorship from the mentor’s perspective and found that
mentors were motivated by personal satisfaction (Wright & Wright, 1987). There are no
documented empirical studies which confirm negative outcome for mentoring
relationships. Research which would investigate potential negative outcomes, such as
negative visibility from poorly performing proteges, displacement by high performing
proteges, charges of favoritism, and the time and energy spent maintaining the
relationship is needed.
There are few documented successful formal mentoring programs in the corporate
setting. The few that were found are explained further here. In a survey of 240 companies
that participated in the annual Best Places to Work survey, Computerworld identified the
top 25 IS employers in retention. For the most part, those IS organizations are at-large,
Fortune 500 companies. Although these "retention getters" have different formulas,
prominent features in nearly all o f their retention strategies include mentoring programs
(Earls, 1998). This study reveals the benefit of retention as a result o f formal mentoring
programs in large corporate setting.
Douglas Aircraft company has structured a mentoring program that has become
an integral part of the culture of their organization. To determine how well the mentoring
system is accomplishing its goals, Douglas uses an evaluation method that is also a
learning tool. The company measures the effects of the mentoring discussions and
evaluates the mentoring relationship. In one evaluation, 25 out o f 43 responded to a
written survey. Feedback from the respondents shows at least an 80% overall satisfaction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
rating with the mentoring process. Douglas Aircraft’s mentoring program hopes to have a
long-term effect on retention, learning and productivity.
Another study surveyed a large sample of early career business school
undergraduates and MBA alumni from three major colleges of business in the United
States who had been working from 3 to 5 years following graduation. After controlling
for several alternative sources of explanation, they found that mentoring made a
significant contribution to the prediction o f early career progress (Whitely & Coetsier,
1993). This study reveals that early career mentoring can make a difference in getting a
fast start at a company.
Another study, conducted with an unidentified organization, compared 212
proteges who were involved with informally developed mentorships, 53 proteges
involved in formal mentorship programs, and 284 individuals who did not have mentors.
All groups were compared on three outcome measures: organizational socialization, job
satisfaction, and salary. Results indicated proteges in informal mentorships reported more
career-related support from their mentors and higher salaries than proteges in formal
relationships. For all outcome variables, proteges in informal relationships also reported
more favorable outcomes than non-mentored individuals. However, outcomes for the
proteges in formal mentorships were generally not significantly different from the other
two groups (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992). This is the only empirical study found in the
literature which shows that informal mentoring programs had more benefit to the protege
than formal mentoring programs. However, it does show that mentoring, although
informal, is more beneficial then none at all.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Because of the small amount of literature related to negative outcomes of
mentorship programs and to expand upon Chao et al.’s (1992) study findings comparing
informal and formal mentoring programs, Chao et al. suggest future research possibilities.
One aspect which should be investigated is the performance level o f individuals before
and after they become proteges in a mentorship. Perhaps informal mentors accurately
identify the better performers in an organization and recruit these individuals as proteges.
Formal mentoring programs are more likely to involve individuals representing a wider
range o f performance. Although performance differences may not have a great impact on
affective outcomes, they could be instrumental in salary/merit or career advancement
decisions. Ideally, future research should track performance differences o f people before
they enter mentorships and control for these differences of people before they enter
mentorships and control these differences when evaluating the impact o f mentorship
outcomes.
Chao et al. (1992) also suggest longitudinal research to examine the impact of
time on formal and informal mentorships. In addition, longitudinal research could
separate the impact of protege performance from mentorship. It may be that mentors
accelerate the learning curve for their proteges and, regardless o f previous performance
levels, proteges benefit from the mentor’s personal coaching. Or, it may be that relatively
low performers realize the greatest gains from mentorship and high performers are able to
quickly advance their careers without the aid o f a mentor. Finally, Chao et al. suggest that
future research should examine mentorships within a larger context of interpersonal
support offered in an organizational setting. Individuals other than mentors, may be able
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
to provide some of the functions previously labeled "mentorship functions." It may be
useful to understand the functions others can provide and the context in which this is
most successful.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This section describes the methodology used in evaluating the effectiveness of the
Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. Specifically, it will describe the
mentoring process, research design and instrumentation.
The Learners
The opportunity to be a learner in the Gallup Professional Development
Mentoring Program was given to all Gallup talent management analysts and in-depth
interviewers. The learner sample, who chose to participate and who were asked to
evaluate their experience, was comprised o f 17 Gallup Strength Management Analysts
and in-depth interviewers. Nine of the learners were women and eight were men. The
length of service with Gallup ranged from 6 months to 15 years.
The Coaches
Coaches were asked by the developers of the program to take part in the program
based on their level of experience with Gallup strength management practices, past
experience, and success in a developmental role. The coach sample, who were asked to
participate and elected to do so, was asked to evaluate their experience. This group was
comprised o f 12 Gallup Strength Management Analysts. Ten of the coaches were women
and 2 were men. The length of service with Gallup varied from 6 to 25 years.
The Mentoring Process
Each Coach and learner was given a Professional Development Mentoring
Notebook which contained five sections for the learner’s version and a coach’s guide
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
giving suggestions and containing a log for keeping track o f meetings and progress. The
five sections in the learner guide were as follows: I. Talents, Competencies, Strengths and
Successes; II. Baseline for Growth; III. Goals, Milestones; Strategy and Basics; IV.
Building Constituency and Support Teams; and V. Results and Recognition. The
workbook was primarily learner centered. Ideally, the learner completed a variety of
personal assignments in advance before meeting with their mentor.
The coach and learner pairs were asked to meet once in the month of January 1997
to ask each other a set of questions which allowed them to find out about each other’s
talents, education, skills and experience. In addition, the coach and learner pair were
asked to set up a regular monthly meeting time for the next 11 months. Furthermore, they
were given the assignment to complete the section III, Goals, Milestones, Strategy and
Basics, of the workbook for the learner.
Directions, although brief, were provided to the coaches and learners before the
study began. The pairs were told to use the workbook as a tool however they saw fit in
preparation for and during their monthly meetings. They were also reminded that the
workbook was theirs to keep and personalize.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Research Design and Instrumentation
Two instruments were used to evaluate the effectiveness o f the Gallup
Professional Development Mentoring Program. A qualitative summative evaluation
method was used and served the purpose o f rendering an overall judgment about the
effectiveness of the program. This form of evaluation was used because it had the greatest
potential of being generalizable to other situations (Patton, 1990). This was an important
factor in the pilot study, as it could lead to a decision to expand this program to other
areas o f The Gallup Organization. Please see the questionnaire as a part of Appendix A
and B. Further explanation of the rationale for this type o f qualitative research method is
as follows. Patton (1990) notes the desire to evaluate individualized client outcomes is
one reason why case studies may be conducted. Patton also notes that case data may be
present whether the unit of analysis is an individual, program, organization, or
community. A statewide or national project may spin off an innovative local program that
is o f special interest to decision makers, thereby indicating the appropriateness of
conducting a case study of that particular program. Such is the case with this particular
study. It is a pilot study with a small number with varying backgrounds and situations.
Stake (1983) has presented an excellent epistemological argument explicating how case
studies can contribute both theoretically and pragmatically in educational research. He
then demonstrates the value o f case study methodology for policy makers in his rigorous
review of a national urban youth program (Stake, 1986). Case studies have become a
mainstay of educational research and evaluation (Merriam, 1988). Patton (1990) also
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
suggests that qualitative methods are particularly useful for conducting studies of
program evaluation, and describing individual outcomes.
Patton (1990) goes on to support the rationale for using the qualitative summative
research design in this study by saying the summative evaluations serve the purpose of
rendering an overall judgment about the effectiveness of a program for the purpose of
saying the idea itself is or is not effective and, therefore, has the potential of being
generalizable to other situations. This generalization may take the form of deciding that a
program should be continued; it may lead to a decision to expand a pilot program to new
sites; or it may lead to a program termination. Such is the case o f this study. In addition,
Patton (1990) explains that these types of evaluations seldom rely entirely, or even
primarily, on qualitative data because o f the interest in controlled comparisons,
generalization, and relatively larger samples. Summative evaluation research tests the
effectiveness of some human intervention or action for the purpose of deciding if that
program or policy is effective in other situations or places.
The 50 item post-qualitative in-depth interview with each participant was
designed to help evaluate both learner and coach participant experience with the program.
Specifically, the in-depth questionnaire asked questions related to learner goal attainment
as a result of the program, learner and coach productivity increase, level o f positivity
regarding Coach and learner experience with the program, coach’s developmental impact
on the learner, learner’s developmental impact on coach, and validation for a Gallup
company-wide Professional Development Mentoring Program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
The program participants were asked three demographic questions and 47
questions in the body of the interview. The participants were told in the introduction that
their answers would remain confidential and would be grouped together with no names
attached to the data. In addition, they were told that their data would be used as
dissertation research. Furthermore, they were informed that the interview would take
them anywhere from V i hour to 1 hour to complete, depending on how they answered.
Finally, they were asked by the interviewer for their permission to record the
interview, so that it could be transcribed for further examination. All interviews were
completed over the phone and were conducted by Sue Bath, the primary dissertation
researcher, by Karen Bums, who was interested in the mentoring topic as part of her
master’s work and by Kerry Davis, who partnered with Sue Bath on projects at Gallup.
All tapes were transcribed by a confidential transcriptionist in Gallup’s transcription
department.
The second instrument used was a proximity analysis paired comparison survey,
in the study were given a 357-item matching instrument. The matching instrument
assessed talent (66 items), coaching style (28 items), processes/products (78 items),
applications/programs (66 items), research techniques (28 items) and industry experience
(91 items) in a forced response questionnaire format.
A correlation matrix was run, using SPSS, per learner, indicating their proximity
to each coach participant in each of six areas. Please see this instrument as a part of
appendices C and D. The matching instrument was designed as a tool to help learner to
select their best coach match.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
Each o f the 31 post-qualitative in-depth interviews collected were transcribed and
the researcher analyzed text by case pair. In addition, an analysis of the matching
instrument data were completed in order to assess most frequently matched proximity
area for learner to coach. The data were analyzed and categorized into the following six
areas for evaluation.
Demographic Background
Demographic data are presented to inform the reader o f the participant’s current
position, length of time in position, gender and length of employment with the Gallup
Organization. In addition, reporting of number o f times met during 1997, as well as
length of time Coach and learners met for, is noted. Finally, typical meeting place, as
described by both Coach and learner, is documented.
Report o f Goals Met
This section discusses learner and coach responses from the following two
questions from the in-depth interview: Did you set monthly goals? If so, how many of
these goals did you meet?
Productivity Increase
The focus o f this section is the learner’s perception of their own productivity as a
result of their relationship with their coach and vice versa. Coach and learner responses
from two in-depth interview questions are analyzed. These two questions were: Did your
mentor help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
Perception of the Program
This section analyzes the learner and coach’s responses to eight questions from
the in-depth interview. These eight questions were as follows: On a one to five scale with
five being high, how effective do you think this program has been for you? Would you
recommend this experience to others? Why or why not? What one thing would you tell a
leaner to help them to be successful in this program? What did you like best about the
experience? What did you like least about the experience? In what ways would you
improve the experience? What lessons did you leam from your experience?
Developmental Impact
The focus of this section is on the developmental impact the coach had on the
learner and vice versa. The analysis is based upon three in-depth interview questions
which were asked of the coaches and learners, in order to determine their perception of
their impact on their learner and vice versa. These questions were as follows: On a one to
five scale, with five being high, how would you rate how well you feel you helped your
leamer/coach to grow and develop? What is the single best thing that your coach/1 earner
did for you? What developmental opportunities has your coach/leamer provided you?
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Results in this section are discussed based upon data from three in-depth
interview questions asked o f both learners and coaches. The three questions asked were:
Should this program be available to Gallup associates company-wide? If yes, with what
modifications? If no, why not?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
Coach-Leamer Match
The findings in this section are based upon three questions asked of both coach
and learner on the in-depth interview. The three questions are: On a one to five scale with
five being high, how successful do you think the matching process was with your coach
(for learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would you be a
coach (for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person? Why or why not? In
addition, this section reveals the proximity analysis results of learner to coach in six
areas: (a) talent, (b) coaching style, (c) processes/products, (d) applications, (e) research
techniques, (f) industry expertise.
Conclusion and Discussion
At the end of each coach-leamer pair case study, the results of the six areas are
compared, contrasted and summarized in relation to answering the sub-questions o f the
study and then further, the grand tour questions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
CHAPTER V
RESULTS
This pilot study analyzed case studies using the qualitative summative evaluation
research method as Patton (1990) describes, which is a perfect fit for this study.
The scope of this research study was limited to Senior Analysts as coaches and
Professional Analysts and In-depth Interviewers employed by The Gallup Organization in
Lincoln, Nebraska. The primary purpose o f this study was to explore the effectiveness of
the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program, designed by The Gallup
Organization, Lincoln, Nebraska. This study evaluated the experience of 17 Gallup
Senior Analysts matched with 17 Gallup Professional Analysts and In-depth Interviewers
in this program. Two grand tour questions guided this investigation:
1. How will the Gallup Professional Development Program affect
participants?
3. What modifications should be made to the program when the Gallup
Professional Development Mentoring Program is rolled out company-
wide?
The following sub-questions narrowed the focus of this study and enabled the researcher
to answer the two grand tour questions:
1. Will learners and coaches report learners met their goals for 1997 as a
result of their participation in the Gallup Professional Development
Mentoring Program?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
2. Will learners’ and coaches’ productivity increase as a result of their
participation in the program?
3. Will learners’ and coaches’ overall experience with the program be
positive?
4. Will learners and coaches feel like they had a developmental impact on
each other?
5. Will the matching instrument have an effect on the outcome of the coach-
leamer relationship?
This chapter summarizes the results o f the analysis. Based on the in-depth
interview and matching proximity analysis, research questions were answered per coach-
leamer pair. The framework o f this chapter consists of the following areas: Demographic
Background, Report of Goals Met, Productivity Increase, Perception of the Program,
Developmental Impact, Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program, Coach-
Leamer Match, and Conclusion and Discussion.
Demographic Background
Demographic data are presented to inform the reader of the participant’s current
position, length of time in position, and gender and length of employment with the Gallup
Organization. In addition, reporting of number o f times met as well as length of time
Coach and learners met for during 1997 is noted. Finally, typical meeting place, as
described by both Coach and learner, is documented.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
Report o f Goals Met
This section discusses learner and coach responses to the following two questions
from the in-depth interview. Did you set monthly goals? If so, how many of these goals
did you meet?
Productivity Increase
The focus o f this section is the learner’s perception of their own productivity as a
result of their relationship with their coach and vice versa. Coach and learner responses
from two in-depth interview questions are analyzed. These two questions are: Did your
mentor help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Perception of the Program
This section analyzes the learner’s and coach’s responses to eight questions from
the in-depth interview. These eight questions were as follows: On a one to five scale, with
five being high, how effective do you think this program has been for you? Would you
recommend this experience to others? Why or why not? What one thing would you tell a
leaner to help them to be successful in this program? What did you like best about the
experience? What did you like least about the experience? In what ways would you
improve the experience? What lessons did you learn from your experience?
Developmental Impact
The focus o f this section is on the developmental impact the coach had on the
learner and vice versa. The analysis is based upon three in-depth interview questions
which were asked o f the coaches and learners, in order to determine their perception of
their impact on their learner and vice versa. These questions were as follows: On a one to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
five scale, with five being high, how would you rate how well you feel you helped your
leamer/coach to grow and develop? What is the single best thing that your coach/leamer
did for you? What developmental opportunities has your coach/leamer provided you?
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Results in this section will be discussed based upon data from three in-depth
interview questions which were asked o f both learners and coaches. The three questions
asked were: Should this program be available to Gallup associates company-wide? If yes,
with what modifications? If no, why not?
Coach-Leamer Match
The findings in this section are based upon three questions asked of both coach
and learner on the in-depth interview. The three questions are: On a one to five scale,
with five being high, how successful do you think the matching process was with your
coach (for learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would you
be a coach (for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person? Why or why not?
In addition, this section reveals the proximity analysis results o f learner to coach in six
areas: (a) talent, (b) coaching style, (c) processes/products, (d) applications, (e) research
techniques, (f) industry expertise.
Conclusion and Discussion
At the end of each coach-leamer pair case study, the results of the six areas are
compared, contrasted and summarized in relation to answering the sub-questions of the
study and then further, the grand tour questions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 1
Demographic Background
Learner 1 was a male and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 9 years. He
was a selection analyst at the time of the study and had been in that role for 2 years.
Coach 1 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 10 V * years. She
was worked as a leader o f education and had been in that for 5 years. Learner 1 reported
that he and Coach 1 met roughly about eight times for an hour over the course of 1997.
Coach 1 reported that she and Learner 1 met probably nine times for an hour over the
course o f 1997. Learner 1 reported that he and Coach 1 typically met at Gallup.
Congruently, Coach 1 reported that she and Learner 1 met at Gallup in her office.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Report of Goals Met
Learner 1 and Coach 1 both responded affirmatively that goals were set for
Learner 1 in conjunction with Coach 1. Learner 1 ’s and Coach 1 ’s responses to the
question, How many of these goals did you meet? is as follows:
Learner 1 :1 met every one o f the monthly goals that we had set out. Some o f them
were weekly goals, they wrapped around monthly objectives.
Coach 1 :1 think that he met all o f them, and there were, I think he had almost ten
(goals).
Obviously, Case Coach-Leamer Pair 1 ’s time together focused a great deal on the
progress of meeting Learner 1 ’s goals.
Productivity Increase
Learner 1 reported the following, when asked the questions, Did your mentor help
you to increase your productivity? If so, how? (There was no response indicated to how.)
Learner 1: Not directly, but indirectly she encouraged me.
Coach 1 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 1: Yeah. Well, I think that I also was helping him to think about goals for
the future, and so I was thinking about my goals, too. It motivated me to do that.
Perception of the Program
Learner 1 and Coach 1 both reported positive outcomes as a result of the Gallup
Professional Development Mentoring Program. Learner 1 reported a four, when asked to
rate the effectiveness of the program for himself on a one to five scale. Coach 1 reported
a five for her experience with Learner 1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others? Why
or why not? Learner 1 and Coach 1 responded in the following manner, indicating
positive responses:
Learner 1: Yes, I think it would be invaluable for a new person. I’d actually
been in the role for some time, about a year, and if I’d had this the day I walked
in, it would have been great.
Coach I : Yes. I would recommend it just because it can help to increase
productivity, and I think it builds relationships, strong relationships, and can build
friendships, and you can learn about the mission of the company.
Advice was given from both Coach 1 and Learner 1 when asked the question,
What one thing would you tell a learner (asked of leamers)/coach (asked o f coaches) to
help them to be successful in this program?
Learner 1 :1 would say how important it is to, if you are within the company, that
you are particular about who you decide to partner with.
Coach 1: Oh, I would tell them to use the workbook if they’re a structured person.
I would say to set celebrations out there, to work for those celebrations and make
it fun that way.
An inaudible response was given by Learner 1 on the tape and Coach 1
responded as follows to the question: What did you like best about the experience?
Coach 1 :1 think that I liked the friendship that I kind of renewed with my Learner
because we had worked together 10 years ago: he was really one o f the first
people I worked with here at Gallup, but we’d kind of gotten out o f touch until we
started up the program again together. So just kind o f that renewed friendship.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 1: The part I like least — this is pretty petty, but it’s simply finding the
time (inaudible phrase) or the feeling I would get when we would say we were
going to do things to celebrate and we just didn’t get around to doing that.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
(Inaudible phrase) make more of a push to say, we are going to celebrate this,
w e’re going to see this movie, meet me at 6:00, we’re going. I didn’t do it, she
didn’t do it, so we didn’t celebrate as much as we should have.
Coach 1: Probably just no ongoing education with mentors and proteges from an
outsider, outside source, just to kind o f keep things motivated.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked of both the learner
and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 1 :1 would expand the part in the book in the program about making more
connections (inaudible rest o f response).
Coach 1: I’d improve it in that way (same response as previous question).
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coach and
learner:
Learner I : The biggest lesson I learned is that it’s always important to be a
hundred percent honest with who you are. When you’re at that level with
somebody, your expectations are real, the rewards are better (inaudible phrase).
Coach 1 :1 learned that I can leam things as a mentor, as well as the protege
learning and think that I learned that I could be more productive as a result of that
relationship, and I think that is it.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one another
by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how would
you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and develop?
Learner 1: A four.
Coach 1: A four.
Coach and learner were also asked, What developmental opportunities has your
coach/leamer provided you?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
Learner 1: The main developmental opportunities-she was very much pro at
encouraging me to find partners within Gallup. At that point, I’d been here for a
long time, but on the other side of the company, and I was never in Selection. She
very much encouraged me and gave me good ideas (inaudible phrases).
Coach 1:1 would say he helped me to think about my growth, too. Just by talking
about his growth, I kept thinking, gosh, my learner’s such a disciplined person,
maybe I can partner with him in some way because I’m not so disciplined, or
maybe use some o f the tools that he uses or something like that.
In addition, they were asked, What is the single best thing your coach did for you?
Learner 1: She allowed me to share, you know (inaudible phrase) things beyond
work that in a way, you know, affected my work life. There’s nota lot o f people
(inaudible phrase) and she gave me that feeling o f camaraderie and
confidentiality.
Coach 1 :1 would say that he helped me to-I learned some lessons on how to
structure my time from him. And he helped me to increase my productivity.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Recommendations for expansion of this program company wide were given by
both coach and learner. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to
Gallup associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not?
Their responses were as follows:
Learner 1: Yes. I think it could be effective across the board. There was a lot to
handle. I would like the board or the program to iron out whatever kinds of
objectives we want to start, whether do it on a quarterly, weekly or monthly basis,
(inaudible phrase) get a lot o f measurement in there, a lot o f objectivity for the
goals that are set, and also to include some (inaudible phrase). Who have you
made connections with over this past month? How can you grow those
connections? Those are the two points I would (inaudible word) the most
(inaudible phrase).
Coach 1: Yes. The assessment throughout the program and ongoing education
with both mentors and proteges.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked of both coach and learner to explore the
effectiveness o f the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale
with five being high, how successful do you think the matching process was with your
coach (for learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would you
be a coach (for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person? Why or why not?
Learner 1: A four. Sure. There’s few people I could say I could partner with as
well. Perhaps having known the person forever, I would include others now I’d be
interested in working with. Absolutely, it was a great experience.
Coach 1: A five. Yes. Because I think he did appreciate me, and he was
productive because o f me. I think I held him accountable towards his goals. I kept
asking him about them.
In addition, the proximity analysis results of learner to coach in six areas
were: (a) talent = .873, (b) coaching style = .612, (c) processes/products = .-428,
(d) applications = No results, (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry expertise =
no results.
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall, Case Coach-Leamer Pair 1 had a successful experience with all areas of
the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. Both reported the learner as
meeting their set goals. Both reported that they had an effect on each other’s increase in
productivity. Both Coach and learner reported positive perceptions of the program. In
addition, the pair reported that they did have a developmental impact on one another.
Further, both indicated that they would like to see the program offered to other associates
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with some modifications. Finally, the learner obviously used the available matching tool
to make their coach selection, as both the talent and coaching style sections matched at or
above the .5 correlation.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 2
Demographic Background
Learner 2 was a male and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 4 years. He
was an in-depth interviewer at the time o f the study and had been in that role for 2 years.
Coach 2 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 10 V z years. She
had worked as a leader of education for 5 years. Learner 2 reported that he and Coach 2
met initially twice and then once a month formally for an hour and a half over the course
of 1997. Coach 2 reported that she and Learner 1 met 12 times for an hour over the course
of 1997. Learner 2 reported that he and Coach 2 typically met at Village Inn, a local
restaurant. Congruently, Coach 2 reported that she and Learner 2 met at Village Inn.
Report o f Goals Met
Learner 2 and Coach 2 both responded affirmatively that goals were set for
Learner 2 in conjunction with Coach 2. Learner 2’s and Coach 2’s responses to the
question: How many o f these goals did you meet? is below:
Interviewer: You did you have monthly goals then that you would review at the
subsequent meeting?
Learner 2: Right.
Interviewer: And you said the goals that you set, that were monthly goals, as a
protege, you met all but one o f them? Is that what you had said?
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
Learner 2: Right, there was an initial one that we had talked about at the
beginning that I had decided about halfway through, or about a third o f the way
through, that I didn't really want to do, and she had encouraged me to keep track
o f it and work on it, but it wasn't something, I decided that it wasn't something
that I wanted to pursue, so it was something that I had decided not to pursue.
Coach 2’s response to this same question is below:
Coach 2: Yes I think my learner had about seven goals, and he met I think five o f
them.
Productivity Increase
Learner 2 reported the following, when asked the questions, Did your mentor help
you to increase your productivity, If so, how?
Learner 2: Oh, absolutely.
Interviewer: And she did that because the plan of, and the participant of your
mentoring, had a lot to do with that, is that what you mean?
Learner 2: Right, because we actually— I'd never done this before—we sat down
and actually made out an action plan on a step-by-step plan of how we were going
to— identifying my goals, how we were going to achieve my goals, and then once
they were achieved, how we were going to celebrate those goals. And actually
made a step-by-step plan that I actually followed. And I actually exceeded the
goals that I had set. I kind o f wondered initially if I'd set them maybe a little bit
too high, or I was a little too ambitious. I actually exceeded them on a pretty wide
margin, so she was very helpful in that.
Coach 2 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 2: Yeah, I think he did just in that we were very structured about our
meetings and what we wanted to accomplish, and so it made the meetings very
productive in what we talked about. And just I guess helping someone to be more
structured about what they were getting done and their productivity, it helped me
to think about my goals and how I should maybe be a little bit more structured
and be thinking about those.
Perception o f the Program
Learner 2 and Coach 2 both reported positive outcomes as a result o f their
participation in the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. Learner 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
reported a five, when asked to rate the effectiveness of the program for himself on a one
to five scale. Coach 2 reported a five for her experience with Learner 2.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 2 and Coach 2 responded in the following manner,
indicating positive responses:
Learner 2 : 1 would definitely recommend it to everyone in Gallup. As far as
achieving personal goals, that was the most productive year that I've had for all
the goals that I set out because I had another person that sat down with me. It's
also kind o f nice to know that, you know, at the end of each month I was going to
be talking to Sue about, you know, what I'd achieved and, you know, knowing
that ahead o f time, it was easier to, just a little extra tiny incentive to achieve
those things. So I working recommend definitely to anyone at Gallup to do it. I
also got to meet a lot of, you know, new people and get to know them better
internally within Gallup, so I would definitely recommend it.
Coach 2: Yes. I would recommend it because it really helps to— I think it not only
helps the protege to grow, but it can also have benefits for the mentor, and it also
helps to establish friendships, relationships that can be long term. And I think it
can help associates to leam more about the company itself and can be a nice fit
also with the Career Board of Directors' concept that we have here.
Advice was given from both Coach 2 and Learner 2 when asked the
question: What one thing would you tell a learner (asked o f leamers)/coach (asked of
coaches) to help them to be successful in this program.
Learner 2: Definitely to sit down and write out goals, to have visible goals in front
of you so that you can look at them, see them. And the process of thinking
through them as you're writing them down, rather than having kind of a half
thought in your head of, well, I should do that, it's actually writing them down and
seeing them. And then it really helps you achieve them a lot better.
Coach 2 :1 would say use the workbook if you can. You need some sort o f a
structure. I'd really say that celebrations are important, to set goals and then also
to set goals to celebrate when those goals are achieved because it really can be
motivational and it can make the relationship very fun. So that would be my
recommendation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
Learner 2 and Coach 2 responded as follows to the question: What did you like
best about the experience?
Learner 2: Well, I think that the number one thing that I took away from it was
probably a closer relationship with my coach. I know that the other learner and I
really look at, well, I look at my coach in particular, but we also look at Judy and
Bill and Tom as just close friends of the family now.
Coach 2 :1 think what I liked best was, you know, with my learner, we got to talk
about our kids a lot because they're in the same class at the CDC and, you know,
problems that we might have been having with them or concerns about parenting.
And so I think we became good friends through that.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 2: Sometimes it was hard to sit down and write out my goals. I mean it
takes time to do that. So sometimes it was hard to do that, but it was well worth
the effort. But, you know, you have to set aside some time to do it. As well as
knowing at the end, when I gave my presentation, that it was going to be taped,
and then I was going to have to watch the tape from the year before. Since I'm not
used to being in front of groups or speaking, that's still a little bit hard for me, but
my coach made it really easy.
Coach 2 :1 didn't like that there wasn't some ongoing sort of check-in or programs
for mentors, to educator mentors on how to be a mentor. And something to kind
of motivate both mentors and proteges I guess because it was kind o f like, you
know, here's the program and then just go off and do it on your own, and there
should have been some assessment or evaluation kind of, you know, every couple
of months or something just to see how it was going. So that's probably it.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked of both the learner and
coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 2 :1 don't know if I really have any ideas on that. I was so happy with the
whole thing that I guess I've never had any thoughts throughout it of ways that I
could improve it.
Coach 2: Just what I just said probably.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coach and
learner:
Learner 2: Setting goals, how if you do set them, write them down, you can
achieve them. How much better it is to form relationships within Gallup, and how
much more you can improve your productivity, as well as it just makes you feel
better. I mean you talk to all these wonderful people at Gallup, and it always
makes you feel better. Other lessons—that's about all I can think of.
Coach 2 :1 learned that being a coach to someone can turn into a mentoring
relationship and a friendship, maybe long term, and I learned that I could learn
something from the relationship, as well as my learner. And I learned more about
myself.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one
another by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high,
How would you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and
develop?
Learner 2: There was times that I felt that when we left, my coach is such a
wonderful listener, I felt that sometimes I just dominated the whole thing because
we talked about my concerns. So as far as the formal meetings, probably a four
just because she was so focused in, and we were focused in on what I was doing.
But I found that we kind o f compensated on that by doing lunches and we've gone
out a couple of times with just our families, so that kind o f supplemented it also.
Coach 2: A four.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has your
coach/leamer provided you?
Learner 2: A number of things. One of the problems that I was having was a lack
o f feedback from some o f the interviews that I was doing, and how I could get
that feedback from some o f the analysts. And she helped me out with a couple of
analysts that I could go and talk to, set a program to get feedback with them, so I
felt more comfortable with how I was doing interviews, the good things that I was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
doing that I could really focus on, any problems that I might be having that I
could help manage, that type o f thing. So she really helped me with my quality.
Also productivity, we talked about ways how I could achieve the goals that I set,
and I set some pretty lofty goals, and we had talked about and made an action plan
o f how to achieve those goals, how many hours I'd need to work, how many
interviews that I'd want to do, that type of thing.
Coach 2: You know, he gave me some developmental opportunities in that he
helped me to, as he was thinking about himself, he would also, you know, ask me
about my experiences in certain areas, and so that helped me to make some self-
discovery, too.
In addition, they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach did for you?
Learner 2: Probably the best thing, I always knew that she cared, so she would
help me with whatever I needed, and I could always go to her for help if I needed
guidance or anything.
Coach 2: Probably helped me to make some self-discovery about myself. I mean
the program really wasn't for me, but for some reason it did, while I was helping
him, helped me to know that I had some developer talent that I hadn't maybe
tapped into for a while, and that I hadn't used, and some teaching talent. And so
that was probably the best thing that came out o f it.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion of this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to
Gallup associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not?
were as follows:
Learner 2: If it’s plausible, I think absolutely. Not that I can think of.
Coach 2: Yeah, I think at some point, it should be. I think there needs to be some
check-in. I think that the matching instrument could be more defined, and it could
really be-using StrengthsFinder, I think the matching instrument should be linked
to StrengthsFinder so it can be a part o f really all of our practices. It could fit
nicely for clients, too. With those modifications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked of both coach and learner to explore the
effectiveness of the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale
with five being high, how successful do you think the matching process was with
your coach (for learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again,
would you be a coach (for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person?
Why or why not?
Learner 2: Oh, I think it was perfect. I was kind o f reticent about doing it to begin
with . I thought well, I’ll see who my mentor is and if it’s somebody I think that,
you know, I could work with, that I’d be comfortable with, then I’ll go ahead and
do it. And my coach had actually been my team leader for a little while before
that, but she wasn’t then at the time. So I was very eager to work with her and
very excited when I found out it was her, and we just-everything just clicked.
Oh, absolutely. Just all the reasons I listed. You know, number one is I know she
cares about me, you know, and my family, and I care about her and her family,
and everything else just kind of stems from the, being comfortable and, you know,
being able to share things. And she really helped me achieve goals. It was by far
and away my most productive year.
Coach 2: Five
Yes. Because I think he did appreciate what I brought to the table for him, and I
think it helped him because he’s in a successful role now. He’s very happy in
what he’s doing, and I helped him to get there because he was doing a job that he
wasn’t necessarily challenged with, and he was looking for something different,
he was looking for something more, and now he’s in a new role where he says
he’s very happy and that he is challenged, and he loves it. So I think that’s why.
In addition, the proximity analysis results o f learner to coach in six areas
were: (a) talent = .386, (b) coaching style = .903, (c) processes/products =
.144, (d) applications = No results, (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry
expertise = no results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall, Case Coach-Leamer Pair 2 had a very successful experience with all
areas of the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. Both reported the
learner as meeting their set goals. Both reported that they had an effect on each other’s
increase in productivity. Both Coach and learner reported positive perceptions of the
program. In addition, the pair reported that they did have a developmental impact on one
another. Further, both indicated that they would like to see the program offered to other
associates. Coach 2 indicated she would like to see it offered with some modifications.
Finally, the learner obviously used the available matching tool to make their coach
selection; the coaching style section matched at or above the .5 correlation.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 3
Demographic Background
Learner 3 was a male and had worked for The Gallup Organization for over 5
years. He was an in-depth interviewer at the time of the study and had been in that role
for one year. Coach 3 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 10 X A
years. She was worked as a leader of education and had been in that for 5 years. Learner 3
reported that he and Coach 3 met close to a dozen times once a month over the course of
1997. Coach 3 reported that she and Learner 3 met five times for an hour over the course
o f 1997. Neither Learner 3 nor Coach 3 reported where they typically met.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
Report o f Goals Met
Learner 3 and Coach 3 each gave a slightly different responses when asked about
setting goals. Learner 3’s and Coach 3’s responses to the question, How many o f these
goals did you meet? were as follows:
Learner 3: Not specifically, I mean not every month, so it wasn’t really clear, each
month there would be something broken out. So it wasn’t broken out that way, but
if it so happened that the timing were right, then we would meet the next month
with the expectation of having a goal met.
Coach 3: Yes. My learner met one o f those goals out of I think he had like seven
goals.
Productivity Increase
Learner 3 reported the following, when asked the questions: Did your mentor help
you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Learner 3: Yes. Mainly by maintaining a focus on the goals and objectives set,
and establishing a certain amount of accountability.
Coach 3 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 3: No.
Perception of the Program
Learner 3 and Coach 3 both reported relatively positive outcomes as a result o f
their participation in the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. Learner 3
reported a four, when asked to rate the effectiveness o f the program for him self on a one
to five scale. Coach 3 reported a three with her experience with Learner 3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
When asked the questions: Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 3 and Coach 3 responded in the following manner,
indicating positive responses:
Learner 3: Sure. I think it’s just a learning process that is customized to each
individual and it’s also coupled with creating, because o f that, it could be as
arduous a process as you want to make it or as fun o f a process as you want to
make it.
Coach 3: Yes. Because I think some good things can come out of the relationship,
higher productivity for both , stronger relationships, and I think it’s a good way to
increase knowledge as well.
Advice was given from both Coach 3 and Learner 3 when asked the
question: What one thing would you tell a learner (asked o f learners)/coach (asked of
coaches) to help them to be successful in this program?
Learner 3 :1 would tell them to first only enter if they have goals that they want to
accomplish. If they’re not a goal-oriented person or they don’t thrive on attaining
goals or progress, or measuring their progress, and it they’re not comfortable with
a mentor, if they’re an independent individual, then they’re not going to like this
sort of thing. So I would, first o f all, have them evaluate whether they are a good
fit for the program.
Coach 3 : 1 would tell them that they should think of each person that they work
with as an individual and think about the talents o f that individual before they
really even, you know, start the relationship, and to always keep those top o f mind
when you’re going through the relationship and planning things.
Learner 3 and Coach 3 responded as follows to the question: What did you like
best about the experience?
Learner 3: Going to lunch. It was free.
Coach 3 : 1 think I liked that we did become friends and I became a confidante to
my learner and I think I helped him to make some decisions, too, about he did
finally leave, he left Gallup, and I think the reason he left was because he made
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
some self-discovery about himself here and realized that maybe Gallup was not
the place for him and that he could maybe be more successful somewhere else. So
I thought, you know, that I helped in that way.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 3: The times I had to pay. No. Gosh, I guess the aspect of it sort of forces
you to be more self-effacing and admit to some o f your limitations, and realizing
limitations, which is both good and bad. Yet, it’s probably something that’s
somewhat uncomfortable at times.
Coach 3: You know, I liked the experience with my learner. It just probably
wasn’t as fulfilling for me as the other two people that I worked with.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was given by both the learner
and coach. The question asked was: In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 3 :1 don’t have any suggestions.
Coach 3 :1 don’t think there’s anything I would have done differently to improve
it.
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coach and
learner:
Learner 3 :1 think the most, clearly the thing I came out with was the aspect of
writing things down. First of all, in planning the goals, if you write it down and
you map it out, then first of all, you’ve identified your goal in writing, and if
you’re a visual learner or if that’s something that is effective, then it’s a reminder,
a constant reminder, and then as you map your progress out, it’s sort of like eating
an elephant in small pieces. It’s not quite such a monumental task.
Coach 3 :1 learned that you need to look at each person individually and look at
their talents.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one
another by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how
would you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and develop?
Learner 3: A three.
Coach 3: A three.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has your
coach/leamer provided you?
Learner 3 :1 don’t know that there were any that were provided for me other than
just really playing the role of a sounding board, feedback, advice.
Coach 3 :1 wouldn’t say that he provided me any.
In addition, they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach did for you?
Learner 3: Single best thing. I don’t know. I mean there were probably a number
o f things. I think simply cared.
Coach 3: Well, let’s see, I think I felt that I was more of the teacher in the
relationship, and I mean I think what I learned from it and what I got out o f it was
that I realized how different mentoring relationships can be from one person to
another, since I had two other learners I was working with, and that, and a thing
you can apply with one, a method you might want to apply with one person
doesn’t always work with another person because of their own unique talents. So
probably just some lessons learned is what I go out of it.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion of this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
Gallup associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not?
Recommendations were as follows:
Learner 3:Yeah, why not? I don’t know, maybe encouraging people to meet on
line and not just segmenting or limiting it to people at your location. It would be
more effective for maybe some o f the other locations, the smaller offices too, to
branch out to someone else.
Coach 3: Yes. Assessment throughout and then also on-going education for a
learner and coach.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked o f both coach and learner to explore the
effectiveness of the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale
with five being high, how successful do you think the matching process was with
your coach (for learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again,
would you be a coach (for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person?
Why or why not?
Learner 3: Oh, I would say, that a tough one, I would say probably a four.Well, I
mean yes and no. Yes, it was fun, but since I’ve already done it, I’d probably
choose someone else. Get a different sort o f feedback.
Coach 3 : 1 would say it was a three. Yeah, I think I would have. Because I think I
did help him to make some important decisions about his life, or I had an impact.
In addition, the proximity analysis results of learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = .150 (b) coaching style = .6273 (c) processes/products = .294 (d) applications =
No results, (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry
expertise = no results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
6 1
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall, Case Coach-Leamer Pair 3 had a mediocre experience with all
areas o f the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. There were differing
opinions between Coach and learner regarding goals being set for the learner and how
many were attained. Learner 3 reported that his coach had an effect on his productivity,
but Coach 3 indicated that her learner did not have an effect on her productivity. Both
reported positive perceptions of the program, but Coach 3 less positive perceptions than
she reported with her other two learners. Further, Learner 3 reported that his coach did
have a developmental impact on him, but Coach 3 felt that she was more of the "teacher
in the relationship" and really did not indicate much of a developmental impact, but more
o f a "lessons learned" impact. Further, both indicated that they would like to see the
program offered to other associates at Gallup. Both indicated that they would like to see
the program offered with some modifications. Finally, the learner obviously used the
available matching tool to make the coach selection; the coaching style section matched
at or above the .5 correlation.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 4
Demographic Background
Learner 4 was a male and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 7 years. He
was a Professional Analyst at the time of the study and had been in that role for 2 years.
Coach 4 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 19 years. She had
worked as Director of Analysis for 4 years. Learner 4 reported that he and Coach 4 met
six times for 30 to 45 minutes over the course o f 1997. Coach 4 reported that she and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
Learner 4 met three times for 45 minutes to an hour over the course o f 1997. Learner 4
reported that they typically had lunch together. Coach 4 did not report where they met or
if there was an activity involved along with the meeting.
Report of Goals Met
Learner 4 and Coach 4 each gave a slightly different response when asked about
setting goals. Learner 4 ’s and Coach 4 ’s responses to the question, How many of these
goals did you meet? follows:
Learner 4: Uh, not monthly goals, no. We set some yearly goals. Uh, probably
met five out of eight I think.
Coach 4: You know, we did but what happened I think with this relationship was
that we would set them, but didn’t really get them done. Oh, I would say very
many. Maybe a couple. It just doesn’t stand out as an experience where there was
growth and productivity or, you know, it was more about fulfilling requirements
for the program rather than whether it benefited the person.
Productivity Increase
Learner 4 reported as follows, when asked the questions, Did your mentor help
you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Learner 4 : 1 would say yes. By helping me set concrete goals. I kind o f need uh, a
measuring stick out in front of me to help keep me motivated and help keep me
focused. So choosing the goals kind of helped me.
Coach 4 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 4: No.
Perception of the Program
Learner 4 and Coach 4 both reported relatively positive outcomes as a result of
their participation in the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. Learner 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
reported a four, when asked to rate the effectiveness of the program for himself on a one
to five scale. Coach 4 reported a four with her experience with Learner 4.
When asked the questions: Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 4 and Coach 4 responded in the following maimer, indicating
positive responses:
Learner 4 : 1 would. Uh, just for, especially for people like me. Uh, I tend to get
caught up in the day-to-day things and, and uh sometimes get lost in the, in the
big picture. You know, I tend, sometimes to focus on my thing and, and doing,
uh, the bigger picture and helping me grow in ways that I, I don’t usually think
about every day.
Coach 4: Yeah, I would. Because I really do think it works for most people.
Advice was given from both Coach 4 and Learner 4 when asked the question:
What one thing would you tell a learner (asked o f leamers)/coach (asked of coaches) to
help them to be successful in this program?
Learner 4: Uh, to really build a good line o f communication between them and,
and uh, to build a good relationship.
Coach 4: Let’s see, I think we could use our tools to know the person better when
we start. You know, like today we use StrengthsFinder and some other o f our
interviewing tools, so we’d have a clue about, you know, before you even get
started on the mentoring book, you know, who is this person?
Learner 4 and Coach 4 responded as follows to the question: What did
you like best about the experience?
Learner 4: Uh, probably actually sitting down, because I had never really talked
with anyone. I, I did at the start of my, when I started working here, and uh, about
like what I was to do eventually and things like that and how to get there, and, but
I’d kinda lost focus o f that, and so that kinda helped me refocus that goal and the
things that I needed to get done to accomplish that.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Coach 4: Let’s see, well, you know, I guess, that I mean he did finish the program,
but I don’t know if I’d say that’s the best. I don’t know, I can’t say anything.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 4: Uh, that’s hard to say. I was a little nervous getting up and doing our
presentations, but that’s really so minor that, I mean that was-but there wasn’t
really anything that bothered me about it, so I guess nothing.
Coach 4: Well, you know, that I don’t feel like I really made difference to him.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked of both the learner
and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 4 : 1 would say I probably could have met with uh, my mentor more often
and uh, and I guess that about all. I, I mean, I should have just met with her more
often.
Coach 4 : 1 think, you know, in terms of talent, the more we can know about the
person, the two people really, the better.
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coach and learner:
Learner 4:Uh, I learned to uh, kinda keep a big goal in mind instead o f just
focusing on the day-to-day tasks, and uh, to think about, you know, my future
and, and not get so caught up in the production type things.
Coach 4: Well, not everybody take to the program in the same way. It’s amazing.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one
another by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high,
how would you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and
develop?
Learner 4 :1 would say probably a three.
Coach 4: Oh, one. Not very much.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has your
coach/1 earner provided you?
Learner 4: We didn’t deal with each other where she had many opportunities to
give me, so I, I guess I would say zero.
Coach. 4 : 1 can’t really think of any.
In addition, they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach (learner)
did for you?
Learner 4: Uh, helped me set some high goals and uh, met, met with me on a
fairly regular basis to help, kind of find out how that was going and how far I was,
how close I was to maintaining the goals.
Coach 4: Well, he asked me to be on his board. That was kind of cool; I liked that.
I always like that. I wish it could have tuned out better.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion o f this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to
Gallup associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not?
were as follows:
Learner 4 : 1 think it would help. Uh, well, obviously for each department it’s
gonna be different, but I think, uh, that the way that it’s set up now, that the, the
protege is gonna have more uh, is gonna have to set their own goals, you know, or
at least talk about them, to have something in mind, and uh, so I think that that’s
something that they’re really gonna have to concentrate on.
Coach 4: Yeah. Well, I think, you know, if people are just going through the
motions of the program, we should, you know, I think if people are really
involved and they’re going through it and they’re really getting something out of
it, it’s great. But to kind of require or for people to get to thinking that they need
to do it because it’s kind of a should thing, then I think it’s dumb.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked of both coach and learner to explore the
effectiveness o f the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale
with five being high, how successful do you think the matching process was with
your coach (for learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again,
would you be a coach (for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person?
Why or why not?
Learner 4: I’d say at least a four. Yes. Uh just because the relationship that we
have and uh, the relationship that we had before and how it strengthened
throughout the uh, the mentoring program. I think it just uh, would take us farther
than trying to start over with someone else.
Coach 4: That wasn’t as successful. Maybe two. No, I don’t think I was good for
him. Well, I just couldn’t get the relationship going.
In addition, the proximity analysis results o f learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = -.433, (b) coaching style = .805, (c) processes/products = .578, (d) applications =
.-060, (e) research techniques = .634, (f) industry expertise = .315.
Conclusion and Discussion
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 4 was incredibly interesting. The observation can be
made that Learner 4 got much more out of the experience than Coach 4 thought he did.
There were differing opinions between Coach and learner regarding goals being set for
the learner and how many were attained. Learner 4 reported that his coach had an effect
on his productivity, but Coach 4 indicated that her learner did not have an effect on her
productivity. Both reported positive perceptions o f the program, but Coach 4 talked more
about her positivity towards the program working for others and not for her and her
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
learner. Further, Learner 4 reported that his coach did not have a developmental impact
on him and Coach 4 felt that she did not have a developmental impact on her learner.
Both indicated that they would like to see the program offered to other associates at
Gallup with some modifications. Finally, the learner obviously used the available
matching tool to make his coach selection; the coaching style processes and products, and
research techniques sections matched at or above the .5 correlation.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 5
Demographic Background
Learner 5 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for eleven
years. She was a Professional Analyst at the time of the study and had been in that role
for 5 years. Coach 5 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 19
years. She had worked as Director of Analysis for 4 years. Learner 5 reported that he and
Coach 5 met four or five times for an hour over the course of 1997. Coach 5 reported that
she and Learner 5 met seven times for about an hour over the course o f 1997. Learner 5
reported that they typically met in her coach’s office. Coach 5 did not report where they
met or if there was an activity involved along with the meeting.
Report o f Goals Met
Learner 5 and Coach 5 each gave a slightly different responses when asked about
setting goals. Learner 5’s and Coach 5’s responses to the question, How many of these
goals did you meet? is below:
Learner 5: No.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
Coach 5: Yes. You know, she met, every month she had a personal best, and her
client service volume - and at that time, it was over forty thousand a month, so
she was trying to hit that mark, you know, or do better than that every month.
Productivity Increase
Learner 5 reported the following, when asked the questions, Did your mentor help
you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Learner 5: No.
Coach 5 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 5: Let’s see, increase my productivity. I think I wouldn’t say increase my
productivity. I think I would say increase my kind of creativity and ideas for the
future. So maybe it is productivity, but I can’t really say I can measure it in the
same kind of way we think o f productivity.
Perception o f the Program
Learner 5 and Coach 5 both reported relatively different outcomes as a result o f
their participation in the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program.
Learner 5 reported a two, when asked to rate the effectiveness of the program for
herself on a one to five scale. Coach 5 reported a four regarding her experience with
Learner 5.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 5 and Coach 5 responded in the following manner:
Learner 5: Yes, I would. Because I saw a lot of people with their mentors have a
really positive experience. I think they set goals, they achieved their goals, they
had a great period of self-discovery and helped themselves to find exactly where
they wanted to be and what they wanted to do. An I think I even, I mean I set
some really good goals and achieved them because I think I was forced to in the
beginning by participating in the program to set goals that maybe I wouldn’t have
had the achievements that I’ve had in this past year if I hadn’t participated in the
program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
69
Coach 5 :1 would, yeah. Because I think that there’s some regularity to it and
predictability, and there is some security that is formulated when you decide
you’re going to get together once a month. When two people mutually decide
they’re going to do something, then you can use each other to make this happen.
And I do think it does increase productivity.
Advice was given from both Coach 5 and Learner 5 when asked the
question, What one thing would you tell a learner (asked of learners)/coach (asked of
coaches) to help them to be successful in this program?
Learner 5: To utilize the notebook, to make sure that they force meetings to
happen if their mentor doesn’t. I think the people who set kind o f a set date was
always, you know, the first Monday of every month at 9:00 a.m. that they met,
that seemed to work best for people rather than saying, oh, let’s try and squeeze
one in every month kind o f thing. They were real diligent about setting a precise
time to get together with their mentor, and to really maybe spend a little more
time or do, maybe speak to people who worked closely with the mentors in the
past to really - more of an interviewing process to figure out who would be the
best fit mentor-wise. I think I picked my mentor because I had a lot o f admiration
for the person and, you know, thought she could really help me with my career,
and that personality-wise, we probably weren’t the best fit, and maybe if I had
talked to other people who worked with her, I would have known more personally
about her follow through or her commitment to other people and I might have
made a different selection.
Coach 5: To try and lay out a plan and, you know, from the very beginning, and to
lay out dates and stuff ahead of time and kind of get agreement around that, you
know. So agreement, kind o f mutual agreement around the structure o f the
mentorship or partnership.
Learner 5 and Coach 5 responded as follows to the question: What did you like
best about the experience?
Learner 5 :1 think it challenged me to set some goals. I think the camaraderie of
the rest of the proteges and there we kind of think bond by expressing our goals in
the very beginning and then having to account for them in the end, there was kind
o f a bond. And when I saw people in the protege group, you know, how’s it going
with this goal you have, it really kind o f helped us
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
70
come together as a group within the company and kind o f caring about each other
more. I really liked that aspect o f it.
Coach 5 :1 liked coming together every time and learning about what had
happened since the last time, and since it was just about a month apart usually, a
month to six weeks, there was some pretty good excitement around, you know,
figuring out what had transpired between one time and the other. So I liked
knowing that.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 5: What I liked least was I really think my mentor deceived me and went
behind my back and did not have my best interests at heart. I think a mentor's
supposed to be supportive and concerned with your development, not trying to put
up roadblocks for your development, which is what I felt my mentor did to me.
Coach 5 :1 had another mentee, you know, and I don’t know about the matching
part of that thing, you know. So the matching part seemed a little confusing to me.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked of both the learner
and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 5 :1 just think a more careful matching selecting. Maybe more input from
other people about, more people that know and have experienced mentors, rather
than just letting proteges choose who they want to work with, maybe a little more
guidance. I don’t know that forced choice experience that we went through and
kind of where you picked are you this, are you this, and then we kind of compared
ourselves with the mentor group to see who we matched up with most closely, and
I think a lot of people just used that tool, and I think there’s so much more than
that result that goes into being a good mentor. So I think maybe a little more input
or structure to how mentors are selected would be important.
Coach 5: You know, I think we probably could figure out a way to better
understand that whole sequence of what went into pairing people up. It was just,
you know, I think people in general — I was confused; I think they were confused.
It worked out okay, I mean, you know.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coaches and learners:
Learner 5 :1 think a lesson is, you know, that setting the goals always helps
improve the performance, you know, by having clear, definable measures o f
performance outlined gives us something to shoot for and helps improve
performance. Gosh, I think the other lessons weren’t very good ones, or not very
pleasant ones. But I had a lesson in who I can trust round here. Who’s in my
comer.
Coach 5 :1 think one big one that always comes home is that growth occurs in
relationship to other human beings. So, you know, when you have a partnership
and there’s some regularity to it and there are some expectations around it, you
know, people rise to the occasion.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one
another by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how
would you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and develop?
Learner 5 :1 don’t think I had any effect. I’m sorry, a one-to-five, I’d say a one.
Coach 5. I’d say a four.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has
your coach/1 earner provided you?
Learner 5: None.
Coach. 5: Let’s see, I think she provided kind of a stretching around thinking
about new ways that people could, you know, gain credibility as analysts. I mean
she and another learner both got me thinking about that.
In addition, they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach (learner)
did for you?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Learner 5: I’m sorry, I really don’t have anything positive to say.
Coach 5 :1 think helped me to stretch my thinking.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion of this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to
Gallup associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not?
were as follows:
Learner 5 :1 think so. Again, like I said, I think a careful consideration of who’s
asked to be a mentor. I think there needs to be some real, you know, I think just
because you think you want to be a mentor doesn’t mean you have the right
personality or talent to be a mentor. So I think some consideration of who can be a
mentor should be given. And I also think real careful matching.
Coach 5: Well, I don’t see why not. you know, I think the length of this was a
little longer than a year, and I can’t remember if; what I’m thinking about is that it
should be maybe like six to nine months rather than a year. I can’t remember if it
was a year or not.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked of both coach and learner to explore the
effectiveness of the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale
with five being high, how successful do you think the matching process was with
your coach (for learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again,
would you be a coach (for coaches)/ a learner (for learners) to this same person?
Why or why not?
Learner 5: I’d say a one. No, absolutely not. Like I’ve said before, I don’t think
she had my best interests in mind. I don’t think she was a mentor, and maybe she
can be for other people, but not for me.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
Coach 5: With this protege, I thought it was a four. Yeah. Well, I think it was
mutually beneficial for both o f us. We both learned and, you know, it was a good
experience to be a part of it. And, you know, another thing I really liked was like
the graduation part where you could hear the growth with everybody. That was
really neat.
In addition, the proximity analysis results of learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = -257, (b) coaching style = .576, (c) processes/products = .615,
(d) applications = .587, (e) research techniques = 1.000, (f) industry expertise = .559
Conclusion and Discussion
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 5 was extremely interesting. The observation can be
made that Coach 5 got much more out of the experience than Learner 5 did. There were
differing opinions between coach and learner regarding goals being set for the learner and
how many were attained. Coach 5 reported that her learner had an effect on her
productivity, but Learner 5 indicated that her coach did not have an effect on her
productivity. Both reported positive perceptions of the program, but Learner 5 talked
more about her positivity towards the program and negativity towards her experience
with her coach. Further, Learner 5 reported that her coach did not have a developmental
impact on her and Coach 5 felt that she did have a developmental impact on her learner.
Further, both indicated that they would like to see the program offered to other associates
at Gallup. Both indicated that they would like to see the program offered with some
modifications. Finally, the learner obviously used the available matching tool to make her
coach selection; the coaching style, processes and products, research techniques, industry
expertise and applications matched at or above the .5 correlation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 6
Demographic Background
Learner 6 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 6 years.
She was a Professional Analyst at the time of the study and had been in that role for 6
years. Coach 6 was a male and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 11 years. He
had worked as Director of Training and Development for 4 months. Learner 6 reported
that she and Coach 6 met three times for 15 minutes over the course o f 1997. Coach 6
reported that he and Learner 6 met three to five times for anywhere from fifteen minutes
to an hour over the course o f 1997. Learner 6 reported that they typically met in her
coach’s office. Coach 6 did not report where they met or if there was an activity involved
along with the meeting.
Report of Goals Met
Learner 6 and Coach 6 both offered a different responses when asked about
setting goals. Learner 6’s and Coach 6’s responses to the question, How many o f these
goals did you meet? is below:
Learner 6: No.
Coach 6: We really didn’t have goals besides the fact that we wanted to just-she
really did not want a lot o f structure, and really wanted more o f me being a
sounding board, and so we almost inadvertently managed to really specify and
clarify her role and help her be okay with what her objectives were and what her
motivators were. So I think our overall goals was just to help her be clearer and
more honest about her career path.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
Productivity Increase
Learner 6 reported the following, when asked the questions, Did your
mentor help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Learner 6: No. And that’s because I have high productivity. He couldn’t push
anymore than I do, so, no, he did not.
' Coach 6 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 6: Yeah, I think so. I think she helped me realize some o f my natural
abilities as a listener and a sounding board and my comfort and desire with
people’s development and trusting their talent.
Perception o f the Program
Learner 6 and Coach 6 both reported relatively different outcomes as a result of
their participation in the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. Learner 6
reported a two, when asked to rate the effectiveness of the program for herself on a one to
five scale. Coach 6 reported a four with his experience with Learner 6.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 6 and Coach 6 responded in the following manner:
Learner 6: No. Because o f that, because of what I said three questions back. I
mean I would just say that it was, number one, I wasn’t as totally committed as I
should have been, and I can thoroughly admit that. But I did show up for the final
thing, even though I hadn’t done it all. There were a lot of people who did but
didn’t have the guts to show up. I did show up, though I hadn’t probably done it
to the extent that a lot of people had done it. But I felt that, and maybe it was more
an individual project than I thought, but I
was extremely disappointed that I would have stayed to have heard the other
people; I would not have got up and left and then showed up when the food was
there. An I thought the who conduct was extremely rude.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
Coach 6: Yeah, I think it’s probably, to be honest with you, I think it’s probably
better designed for some others. I think that some people need the clarity and
structure more than others do.
Advice was given from both Coach 6 and Learner 6 when asked the question,
What one thing would you tell a learner (asked of learners)/coach (asked o f coaches) to
help them to be successful in this program?
Learner 6 : 1 would say you need to follow maybe a more structured set guideline.
Coach 6: Gosh, I think that always, always remember it’s not about you, it’s about
the protege. That’s the key. To keep your ego out of it and really listen to who the
person is and what their real need and desires are. You know, my particular
protege, you know had some pretty specific needs, and I think that sometimes
people may want to push people into directions that aren’t necessarily who they
are. So it’s really paying attention to who that person is and what their needs are
and keep your ego out of it.
Learner 6 and Coach 6 responded as follows to the question: What did
you like best about the experience?
Learner 6: Just getting to be with my mentor more. Just different times that we did
meet, that we, you know, it was a time that we set aside and it wasn’t in a hallway
or a quick hello.
Coach 6: Just the fact that she had some really wonderful growth because she had
the opportunity to really focus her on what her desires, her expectations, her
outcomes, and her talents fit.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 6 :1 guess I liked least about it the organization of the final presentation.
Coach 6 :1 can’t say it was all that negative. I mean I don’t think I had any real
negative feelings about it. I think we kind of mad it fit who we were, so I guess
that’s another point of reference you can share with people is try to make it fit
who you are; don’t feel like you have to fall into some rigid format.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked of both the learner
and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 6 : 1 guess, number one, I don’t know if I’d go through the who thing
about the matching. I think people, most people here, unless they’re quite new,
have people that are their mentors. They might not call them a mentor per se, but
they are. And I know there was still a freedom o f choice, but not even put these
numbers in front o f people. Let people, if they want to do that, do that. I think a
year was too long. I would do it in three months and have it shortened a bit.
Coach 6: Like I said, probably loosen up, not necessarily loosen up but lighten the
materials. Try to make it as simple as humanly possible.
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned o f both coaches and learners:
Learner 6 : 1 learned I’m not nearly as organized as I thought I was. Not nearly as
disciplined as I thought I was. An I learned that I probably was not as committed
to it as I thought I was in the beginning. And I guess if I could go back just a
minute and put in the comment that I think it might have been good to bring one
time, since it was a year long program, maybe at a sixth month plate, bring the
group together and maybe renew that commitment.
Coach 6: Probably I’m a little bit better mentor than I thought I was.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one
another by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high,
how would you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and
develop?
Learner 6: A three.
Coach 6: I’d say four. I think a lot of it was her.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has your
coach/leamer provided you?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Learner 6: Gosh, the only thing I can think of is that he got me on the Searle team,
and that’s probably about it.
Coach 6: Good questions. I think just, you know, constant insight around, you
know, what needs to occur. Just being a great sounding board.
In addition, they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach (learner)
did for you?
Learner 6: He was there every minute when I needed him.
Coach 6: Oh, gosh, probably again just helping me make some realizations about
my own abilities, my own talent.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion of this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to
Gallup associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not?
were as follows:
Learner 6: Sure. I think what I said. I think it’s too long. I think it needs to be
more concise, more in-depth. I would say that maybe the people who are chosen
as mentors might need, - maybe if you had a meeting with mentors and then with
the mentorees, and kind o f — here’s kind of what you’re expected, here’s kind of
what your expectations are, now here’s what yours are. If your person isn’t
coming to you, you need to talk about it, you know both ways, vice-versa. Maybe
a little more of giving what are the expectations o f both in terms o f what you’re
doing and who you are.
Coach 6: Oh absolutely. The same, streamline. Make it simpler. I’d be happy to
help.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked of both coach and learner to explore the effectiveness
of the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale with five being
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
high, how successful do you think the matching process was with your coach (for
learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would you be a coach
(for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person?
Why or why not?
Learner 6: Four. Yes. Why, because I think, for one thing, the relationship that we
have. But most of all, because I think of my coach’s expertise, that he’s extremely
knowledgeable and he’s a wonderful teacher.
Coach 6: Sure, yeah. I still kind of am. She still thinks o f me that way. I think that
it’s not anything you kind of turn on and off. I think that any time you have the
opportunity to do that for someone, that, you know, it’s something that if you
really appreciate who they are and take the time, then it’s pretty rewarding
experience.
In addition, the proximity analysis results of learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = .418, (b) coaching style = .526, (c) processes/products = .644, (d) applications =
no results (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry expertise = .609.
Conclusion and Discussion
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 6 was had differing opinions when evaluating their
experience with the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. The
observation can be made that Coach 6 learned much more from the experience than
Learner 6 did. In addition, Learner 6 seemed happy with her relationship with her coach,
but was not happy with different aspects of the program itself. There were differing
opinions between Coach and learner regarding goals being set for the learner and how
many were attained. Coach 6 reported that his learner had an effect on his productivity,
but Learner 6 indicated that her coach did not have an effect on her productivity. Coach 6
reported positive perceptions regarding the program, however Learner 6 was not positive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
about the program, particularly regarding the final presentation time. Further, both
reported that they had some sort of developmental impact on one another. In addition,
both indicated that they would like to see the program offered to other associates at
Gallup. Both indicated that they would like to see the program offered with some
modifications. Finally, the learner obviously used the available matching tool to make her
coach selection, the coaching style, processes and products, and industry expertise
matched at or above the .5 correlation.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 7
Demographic Background
Learner 7 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 10 years.
She was a Professional Analyst at the time o f the study and had been in that role for 9
years. Coach 7 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 17 years.
She had worked with the education team developing business and servicing it for 2 l A
years. Learner 7 reported that she and Coach 7 met every couple of weeks for at least a
half-hour during the year of 1997. Coach 7 reported that she and Learner 7 met every
other week over the phone for 20 to 30 minutes during the year of 1997. Learner 7
reported that they typically met over the phone or in the office. Coach 7 reported that they
typically met over the phone.
Report of Goals Met
Learner 7 and Coach 7 both acknowledged that specific monthly goals were not
set. Learner 7’s and Coach 7’s responses to the question, How many of these goals did
you meet? is below:
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
Learner 7: Not really, no. I wouldn’t say they’re monthly, they’re probably more
around different seminars coming up.
Coach 7: The monthly goals would only be around that you promised each other
that you’d stay in contact. And since she was the one who was out o f town,
usually more than I was, she’d be the one to call it.
Productivity Increase
Learner 7 reported the following, when asked the questions, Did your mentor help
you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Learner 7: Yes. I think by just early on, I mean she was such a great model o f a
great teacher and just watched her be such an effective client manager that it
helped me have ideas about ways I wanted to serve clients.
Coach 7 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 7: Yes. Since (inaudible phrase). My learner's belief in mission always
outweighs almost anything else in terms of why she does what she does, so when
you’re around her, it’s a great reminder of why you’re doing
your thing. Why you choose to be away from home. Why you think the future of
the country is in the kids.
Perception of the Program
Learner 7 and Coach 7 both reported relatively positive outcomes. However, both
admitted that they really did not use the program tools. Learner 7 could not
report a rating because she reported that they did not use the program, when asked to rate
the effectiveness o f the program for her on a one to five scale. Coach 7 reported a four
with her experience, but she said that it was:
Coach 7: Not the program’s fault. I didn’t follow through.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 7 and Coach 7 responded in the following manner,
indicating positive responses:
Learner 7: Oh, I totally would. I mean I’ve heard great things about it. I think it’s
a very good, structured kind of way to make sure that we pay attention to each
other developmentally.
Coach 7: Sure. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with an opportunity to invest
in somebody else, and the reverse is true, too.
Advice was given from Learner 7 when asked the question, What one
thing would you tell a learner (asked of leamers)/coach (asked of coaches) to help
them to be successful in this program?
Learner 7: I’d say have a lot of flexibility.
Coach 7: Inaudible sentence.
Learner 7 and Coach 7 responded as follows to the question: What did
you like best about the experience?
Learner 7: Oh gosh. I’ll just speak to it about our mentoring experience the past
few years. What I like best is I feel lucky to be partnered with my coach because I
think she’s been very giving about opportunities.
Coach 7: The chance to have that much conversation, interaction with my leaner,
even though we aren’t in town at the same time.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience was
given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
Learner 7: Probably that we didn’t have as much time together as I would have
liked just because we were both out, you know, doing our jobs, and I understand
that we always found ways to keep in touch, but probably just having even more
time to get with each other and watch each other and do that sort of thing.
Coach 7: That we weren’t together.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked of both the
learner and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the
experience?
Learner 7: Oh, gosh, I don’t know that I would except probably in terms of my
coach and my experience, we could probably have been even more intentional
about it than we were, about meeting with each other.
Coach 7 :1 think I would try to do some more goal setting than we did so that we
could measure outcomes better.
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coaches and learners:
Learner 7: Oh, I guess I’ve learned, for a lot of years here, that it helped me
appreciate this environment and the openness, and when you provide people an
environment that supports their talent, how easy it is to just grown and get to do
more and more and more, and so I guess then I think about my husband’s work
environment, which is not like that, and I see them not taking advantage of those
factors, and so I just feel so appreciative that that’s just a given where we are.
Coach 7: Well, I think I (inaudible phrase) investing in somebody. I like watching
somebody else’s success. I don’t mind hearing people’s frustrations. I like being
supportive.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one another
by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how would
you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and develop?
Learner 7: Oh, gosh, I don’t know. Probably I hope I would be a four. I don’t
know.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
Coach 7: I’d give it a five.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has your
coach/leamer provided you?
Learner 7: Oh, my gosh, she’s been amazing. I mean for so many years, my coach
has provided me with just experiences and opportunities. She was really the first
one to help me have opportunities to teach and go out on my own. So it’s just
been pretty significant opportunities for a lot of years.
Coach. 7: Well, I always say this about my learner. I always thought I had the
core drive and stimulator until I met her. And she always helps me know that
anything is on a continuum, and people can have more. I loved watching her teach
over time, just seeing her grow in confidence and what she’s doing and why she’s
doing it. I think she always offers me new insights about myself. She asks good
questions that help me think about either what you’re doing in terms o f the work
or yourself.
In addition, they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach (learner)
did for you?
Learner 7: Oh, gosh. I just think about her being a great listener and being really,
how should I put it - it’s always very facilitating. I think she just lets me kind of
say what I need to say and explore. She’s always very affirming about that; so I’d
say being a great listener and being a greater affirmer about things I’ve done.
Coach 7: Watching her teach always reminds me of how fabulous it is (inaudible
phrase) a great teacher.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion o f this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to Gallup
associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not? were as
follows:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
Learner 7: Oh, I think so. Gosh, I would just probably say understanding that
according to people’s roles and their availability and their scheduling, I mean I
think just appreciating, which I think people have done, about the fact that it may
not always be able to take place here in the office, that it can take place in a lot of
ways.
Coach 7: Sure. Well, let’s see, we need enough structure so that you know what
you’re doing, why you’re doing it, and what happens because you do it. So there
needs to be that much structure. Beyond that, I think it’s up to the two people.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked of both coach and learner to explore the
effectiveness o f the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale
with five being high, how successful do you think the matching process was with
your coach (for learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would
you be a coach (for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person? Why or why
not?
Learner 7: Oh, I’d say five. Oh, absolutely.
Coach 7: Sure. We get along very well. She has such potential and growth. I’m
never even sure that she knows how much she can be and do.
Learner 7 did not complete the proximity analysis. Therefore, she sought out
her coach on her own, without using the proximity analysis as a tool.
Conclusion and Discussion
The observation can be made that Coach-leamer Pair 7’s experience was a
positive one with many good outcomes. However, Learner 7 did not complete the
proximity analysis, which prevents the researcher from analyzing effects for the matching
instrument. In addition, both coach and learner reported that they did not really follow the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
program structure, therefore, it is hard for the researcher to evaluate program success
from their experience. However, both coach and learner provided information related to
enhancing future programs, if this program where to expand to other area’s of the Gallup
Organization. Both indicated that they would like to see the program offered to other
associates at Gallup. Both indicated that they would like to see the program offered with
some modifications.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 8
Demographic Background
Learner 8 was a male and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 4 years. He
was Director of Operations at the time of the study and had been in that role for 3 years.
Coach 8 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 13 years. She had
worked as a Senior Developmental Analyst for not quite a year. Learner 8 reported that
he and Coach 8 met 10 to 12 times for one half hour over the course o f 1997. Coach 8
reported that she and Learner 8 met for five times for an hour to an hour and a over the
course of 1997. Learner 8 did not report where he typically met with his coach. Coach 8
reported that they usually met in a restaurant.
Report o f Goals Met
Learner 8 and Coach 8 both reported that they did not set monthly goals.
Learner 8’s and Coach 8’s responses to the question, How many of these goals did you
meet? is below:
Learner 8: Probably pretty loosely defined. I would say we didn’t do the job we
should have up front in being specific about the goals, so the measurement on the
tail end was pretty difficult.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
Coach 8: No.
Productivity Increase
Learner 8: reported the following, when asked the questions, Did your mentor
help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Learner 8: No.
Coach 8 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 8: No.
Perception of the Program
Learner 8 and Coach 8 both reported their perceptions o f the program. Learner 8
reported a four, when asked to rate the effectiveness of the program for himself on a one
to five scale. Coach 8 reported the following:
Coach 8 :1 don't think it's the program itself other than the initial setting up. I
think it's up to the people within it to make it work or not have it work. So I think
it doesn't apply if that question's asked.
Interviewer: Okay, so for you, it doesn't apply for how effective it was?
Coach 8: Well, you know, there are all different parts of the program, so I'd rate
different parts. Like the book I'd rate one way, the setup o f the statistical way that
they could match I'd rate another way. The experience itself, which isn't the
program, but the experience itself I'd rate—there are people that I feel like I've
had a better mentoring relationship with, and I think it was just situational things
at the time. It could have been better. I could have initiated more. I don't think it
has anything to do with the program as such.
Interviewer: So you don't think you have like an overall rating?
Coach 8: Not o f the program because what is the program? Is it the workbook? Is
it the way it was set up? Is it the videotapes that they did? And I wasn't there for
the final dinner, my learner wasn't there for when people got up and gave their
initial speech, so he did the videotape on his own with just m e sitting in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
audience, so he didn't have to commit in front of the whole group. And then, you
know, we didn't do the dinner thing, so I missed out on a lot o f parts of it and so
did he.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 8 and Coach 8 responded in the following manner:
Learner 8: Yeah, with some o f the updates that I recommend. Because I think that
we need to focus on professional development, personal development and caring
relationships in the workplace, and when you have multiple partners, your
manager and a mentor, providing that kind of guidance for you, you can grow as
an individual and continue to contribute.
Coach 8: Yeah, I think as long as it's individualized, people can sort to what
works for them. I think we have to be careful not to get too prescriptive, and I
think we also have to be sure to give people the option to choose whom they
would like as their mentor. I hope we never get around to assigning mentors.
Maybe assigning buddies, but not mentors.
Advice was given from both Coach 8 and Learner 8 when asked the question,
What one thing would you tell a learner (asked of leamers)/coach (asked of coaches) to
help them to be successful in this program?
Learner 8: Care about it a lot and follow it through and prioritize it.
Coach 8 :1 think to really figure out who your person is, and what their goals are,
and keep noticing their successes, bringing them back to them. And I think one of
the greatest things is to be able to show somebody how much they’ ve grown
because that growth, to them, they don't see it. But when we look at where they
were then they started with you, and then where they are in a year or 2 years or
more, to go back and point out those steps in growth is pretty astounding for them
because they just see where they are now. And I think to celebrate those successes
along the way is really important.
Learner 8 and Coach 8 responded as follows to the question: What did
you like best about the experience?
Learner 8: The opportunity to work with somebody that’s focusing on your
development.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
Coach 8: Now, we're talking about the program, that specific one, or mentoring in
general?
Interviewer: I would say I suppose about that program, but anything you would
have to say about mentoring you could include.)
Coach 8 :1 just enjoy mentoring in general and helping someone develop, and in
this particular case, there were some things that I could use that I could pull from
that I liked, some forms that my coach developed. You know, there wasn't any
program as such because we didn't get to take part in some of that, so I'm not a
good one to judge the program.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 8: That I didn’t feel like I could prioritize it in my stresses of my daily
work life, so I didn’t focus on it as much as I should have.
Coach 8: The same. I’m not a good one to respond to that.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked of both the learner
and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 8 :1 think some of the things I mentioned just in terms of an administrator
that’s really following it closely, that assuring that the mentor and protege are
working very closely together, that the regular meetings are happening, so it needs
to be tightly administered is my biggest recommendation.
Coach 8: You know, by participating more fully. The first one, I did go to hear
people's speeches that they gave on what they wanted to accomplish, and I really
liked the way the mentor stood up with the person they were mentoring in
support, actual physical support, as well as emotional. I guess you could put that
with what I liked about it. But my learner wasn't there, so we didn't get to do that.
And the other person I was mentoring was thinking about leaving as soon as he
came, so he didn't want to take part in that or commit to it. And what did I like
least? Just that we didn't get to be fully involved with the formal presentation and
the final dinner.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coaches and
learners:
Learner 8 :1 would say I learned that, you know, that type o f mentoring program is
very important.
Coach 8 :1 think probably a lesson I learned in general, and it probably comes
from this too, is to make note of those key moments and to alert that person that I
noticed, to give the recognition and the support, and to let other people know
about it. And it's almost like a log that you keep track of so you can point out that
growth. And I think also, and I didn't do it so much with
my learner because he's in a totally different area than I, because when he started,
he was kind of on an analyst track; somebody like so and so, being able to set up
opportunities for them where they can stretch and grow and then they feel real
success and doing some things that they didn't know if they could do. It was pretty
neat.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one another
by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how would
you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and develop?
Learner 8: A four.
Coach 8: I’d say four.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has your
coach/leamer provided you?
Learner 8: A lot of learning about our science and about interviews and stuff like
that.
Coach 8: None.
In addition, they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach (learner)
did for you?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Learner 8: Care about me as a person.
Coach 8 :1 guess that he grew. And he had some specific successes, and that’s not
particularly for me, but I took joy in his success.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion o f this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to
Gallup associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not? were
as follows:
Learner 8: Sure, with tighter administration.
Coach 8:Yeah, I think it’s a pretty neat idea. I think that it's presented in the same
way as before, that these things are optional, they're suggestions. I like the setup
that people who want to be mentors give their names, people who want to be
mentored give their names, and I don't think we should be completely tied to that.
You know, other people can make their own arrangements; they can go ask
whomever they want whether they're on the list or not. But I think it's a good idea
to make it more formal. I think the Career Boards play a large part, too, and that's
pretty formalized at Gallup.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked of both coach and learner to explore the
effectiveness of the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale
with five being high, how successful do you think the matching process was with
your coach (for learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would
you be a coach (for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person? Why or why
not?
Learner 8: Four. Probably not, but just because I’d want to have an experience
with another person, not because it’s a negative reflection on my mentor.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Coach 8: Sure, if he wanted it. See, I think it has to come from the person. I
wouldn't go to my learner and say, "Hey, you want me to be your mentor?" But I
would be more than happy to respond. I'm on a lot of people's career boards, and I
really enjoy that because I like being a part of people's growth. And I also enjoy
the relationships that go along with that because I think the relationship's key.
In addition, the proximity analysis results of learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = .327, (b) coaching style = .419, (c) processes/products = .361,
(d) applications = no results (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry expertise =
.250.
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall, Case Coach-Leamer Pair 8 reported helpful information in evaluating the
Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. The observation can be made that
Coach 8 could not evaluate the program as much as she could evaluate the relationship
with her learner. Learner 8 could evaluate both and seemed to indicate that he gained
more from the experience than his coach did. Both coach and learner indicated that they
did not set goals. The pair reported that they could have given the experience more effort.
Further, the pair indicated that they had no effect on each other’s productivity. Learner 8
reported positive perceptions regarding the program, however Coach 8 could not lend
much in the area of evaluating the program, as she indicated she did not take part in much
of it. In addition, Learner 8 reported that his coach had a developmental impact on him,
but his coach reported no developmental impact. Further, both indicated that they would
like to see the program offered to other associates at Gallup. Both indicated that they
would like to see the program offered with some modifications. Finally, the learner did
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
not use the proximity analysis as a tool to choose his coach as none of his correlations to
his coach reflected a .5 or above in any area.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 9
Demographic Background
Coach 9 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 18 years.
She was a Managing Consultant at the time of the study and had been in that role for 5
years. Learner 9 was a male and refused to complete the in-depth interview after being
contacted twice by an interviewer. Consequently, in-depth interview data are only
available for Coach 9 for this pair. Coach 9 reported that she and Learner 9 met four
times for an hour over the course of 1997. Coach 9 did not report where they met or if
there was an activity involved along with the meeting.
Report of Goals Met
Coach 9’s responses to the question, How many of these goals did you meet? is
below:
Coach 9 : 1 would say no.
Productivity Increase
Coach 9 reported the following, when asked the questions, Did your mentor
help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Coach 9: No, that’s not what I would use. He helps to increase my intellectual
capability.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Perception of the Program
Coach 9 reported a less than positive perception of her experience with her
learner, however, she did report a more positive perception o f the program. When
asked to rate the effectiveness of the program for herself on a one to five scale, Coach 9
reported that she intentioned a four, but that the outcome was a two.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Coach 9 responded in the following manner:
Coach 9 : 1 think that it would be extremely beneficial for new people. Because I
think Gallup is a hard place to join. I think that there are a lot of people that are
willing to give a lot o f advice to new people, and it’s not done within the context
of either knowing the person, knowing how that person should be guided for the
future, or in relation to the business needs.
Advice was given from Coach 9 when asked the question, what one thing
would you tell a learner (asked of leamers)/coach (asked o f coaches) to help them to be
successful in this program?
Coach 9 :1 would tell them that a consistent, small amount of time is better than
intermittent, longer periods of time with the mentee.
Coach 9 responded as follows to the question: What did you like best
about the experience?
Coach 9 : 1 liked the idea that there was some kind o f formalized way we think
about coaching.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Coach 9: Just not enough time. I think developmental needs to be thought of in
lots o f different ways, and certainly one of them is coaching, but one of them is
being a person that’s in a position to find opportunities that match a person’s
abilities and positioning them for that opportunity and, you know, coaching and
guiding in relation to certain projects. An I just believe that they more ought to be
matched around the natural activities of our job, as opposed to, you know, this
person with that person when maybe there’s not a cross-over that creates a lot o f
contact.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked of the coach. The
question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Coach 9: The performances ought to be tied together from the mentor and the
mentee, and there would naturally be a lot more interaction, a lot more coaching,
advising, time for interaction. I just think it would make it a lot better.
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of Coach 9:
Coach 9 :1 think more than anything, that it’s a commitment and I mean you have
to be willing to spend the time, and I mean sometimes I felt that this is just one o f
the least important things I can do today, and it probably was really one of the
most important things you could do today, but you were driven by the demands, a
lot o f times external demands.
Developmental Impact
Coach 9 was asked to rate her developmental impact on her learner by
responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how would you
rate how well you feel you helped your learner to grow and develop?
Coach 9: Oh, gosh, I’m going to have to say a three. I have no clue. I’d be very
curious about how my learner would rate it.
Coach 9 was asked: What developmental opportunities has your learner
provided you?
Coach. 9: Testing my patience.
Coach 9 was also asked: What is the single best thing your learner did for you?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Coach 9: My learner is absolutely great at looking at data and helping you know
how to interpret it.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Coach 9 gave recommendations for expansion of this program company wide.
Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to Gallup associates
company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not? were as follows:
Coach 9 :1 think that it ought to be made available at different points in time, so
rather just across the board, anybody can participate, I think that it ought to be
made available when somebody’s changing jobs, thinking about repositioning
themselves. I think it ought to be around either a thinking or activity that is new,
so that means that you’re thinking about I’d like to do something different and I
want more exposure to somebody who’s doing that, things of that nature versus
just carte blanch.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked o f Coach 9 to explore the effectiveness of the
matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale with five being high, how
successful do you think the matching process was with your learner? If you had to do it
all over again, would you be a coach to this same person? Why or why not?
Coach 9: Oh, I would say it’s probably a two, but I don’t know if that’s my
learner or me. I’d certainly be willing to own that I’m a big part of that. Probably
not, but not because I don’t like my learner. I would not do it again because I
don’t think that I could help as much as I would have liked to have helped him.
In addition, the proximity analysis results o f learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = -.119, (b) coaching style = .154, (c) processes/products = .240, (d) applications =
no results, (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry expertise = no results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
Conclusion and Discussion
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 9 was hard to analyze because Learner 9 did not
complete the in-depth interview. The observation can be made that Learner 9 did not
feel good about his relationship with his Coach 9 as indicated by refusal to complete
the interview. However, the researcher cannot confirm this. The observation can be
made that Coach 9 felt that she did not make a positive difference with her learner, but
she did, in fact, indicate some positive outcomes as a result of her relationship with her
learner. Coach 9 indicated positive perceptions regarding the program and suggestions for
improving it, rather than perceptions of her relationship with her learner. Coach 9
indicated she would like to see the program offered to other associates at Gallup with
some modifications. Finally, the learner obviously did not use the available matching tool
to make his coach selection because six of the areas were a correlation match at or above
.5.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 10
Demographic Background
Learner 10 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 6
years. She was a Senior Analyst at the time of the study and had been in that role for 2
years. Coach 10 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 18 V i
years. She had worked as Vice President of Human Resource Acquisition for her entire
Gallup career. Learner 10 reported that she and Coach 10 met once a month for a period
o f time and then more like once a quarter for an hour and a half over the course of 1997.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Coach 10 reported that she and Learner 10 met five times for an hour at least over the
course o f 1997. Neither Learner 10 nor Coach 10 reported where they typically met.
Report o f Goals Met
Learner 10 and Coach 10 both reported that they did not set goals. Learner 10’s
and Coach 10’s responses to the question, How many o f these goals did you meet? is
below:
Learner 10: We did at the beginning. In don’t know if we were real good about
following them, but yeah. Well, actually they were all around Senior Analyst
certification, and I met them.
Coach 10: Not really. We tried to, but monthly turned out to be too hard for us.
We did set goals. W e really kind of set some annual goals for her that she wanted
to be able to achieve that were already her goals I guess. And then we checked
progress at each meeting, but not necessarily that she was going to have that
progress by that that date. You know what I mean, we didn’t break it down in
milestones.
Productivity Increase
Learner 10 reported the following, when asked the questions, Did your
mentor help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Learner 10:1 don’t think so, no.
Coach 10 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 10: No.
Perception of the Program
Learner 10 and Coach 10 both reported their perceptions o f the program. Learner
10 reported a five, when asked to rate the effectiveness o f the program for herself on a
one to five scale. Coach 10 reported a three when asked the same question.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 10 and Coach 10 responded in the following manner:
Learner 10: Yeah. Well, because I think it’s a good opportunity to have some
clear, one-on-one time with someone that is primarily interested in helping you
grown. You know, we don’t find enough time to do that very often, and this was
sort of a way where you made a commitment to each other, and because o f that
commitment, it forced you to make the time to meet, no matter how busy you
were. So for that reason. And for me that was good because I don’t do that. I don’t
have any discipline.
Coach 10: Yes, if the match were right, I think it could be really neat.
Advice was given from both Coach 10 and Learner 10 when asked the question, What
one thing would you tell a learner (asked of leamers)/coach (asked o f coaches) to help
them to be successful in this program?
Learner 10: Absolutely select the person, really think about what you need from
that person and maybe even do some mini interviews with a couple of different
people.
Coach 10:1 think a good match, the same thing I just said, but I think a good
match in the beginning with your mentee is just critical. And then also to know
what they hope to gain, and to be real clear about the expectations at the very
beginning.
Learner 10 and Coach 10 responded as follows to the question: What did
you like best about the experience?
Learner 10: You know, it was really-I think what I really liked best about it was
having, you know, the opportunity to spend a decent amount o f time with
someone — this sounds so self-centered - but to talk about me. You know, because
we’re usually busy all the time and I know with my own, you know, go-to, I
always feel like she’s just too busy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 0 0
Coach 10: The friendship aspect. The chance to step outside my normal circle and
routine and try and help somebody who I might not have otherwise connected
with.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 10: You know, I don’t know if there’s anything I can really say.
Coach 10: The feeling o f disappointment that we hadn’t met expectations partly
because I think the expectations were a little unrealistic, at least for both of us. I
mean I don’t blame her, and I don’t think she blames me; we just had a very hard
time getting together.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked o f both the learner
and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 10: I’d figure out a way to make it more sustaining.
Coach 10: To have maybe quarterly group meetings and quarterly expectations
rather than monthly.
Learner 10:1 think I really did learn how significant it was, you know, to create
those relationships with people.
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coaches and
learners:
Coach 10:1 think it’s a great feeling to be able to help somebody have some
insight and another perspective. I really did enjoy being a mentor and being in that
kind of role. And that it’s good to do it intentionally because otherwise we get too
busy, and so I like the intentionality of it.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one
another by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how
would you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and develop?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 0 1
Learner 10: Oh, maybe four.
Coach 10: I’d say maybe a three.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has
your coach/leamer provided you?
Learner 10: Overall, I think what I really appreciated from my coach was that she
— I’m trying to put this into words — I really don’t think since then we’ve had a lot
o f contact, but I think the developmental opportunity more was she was a person I
really had a lot o f respect for and I felt she had a real good understanding o f my
talents, and I didn’t really feel her, you know, out there positioning me, but
definitely she was a good sounding board in helping me kind of sort out what I
really like to do and what I was really good at. So I guess that’s what I’d sa y , and
I’d love to see her more but, you know, she’s had another baby since then, so
she’s not around as much. But she’s a very good listener and very to the point,
which I like.
Coach 10: I’m not sure what you mean, but it was a great experience in giving
feedback about talents and how talents need to match goals I guess. To set goals
that don’t fit you as a person doesn’t make a lot of sense, partly because some of
them weren’t met was almost more o f a lesson than the ones that were.
In addition they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach
(learner) did for you?
Learner 10:1 think the single best thing actually I think was really helping me sort
out my talents and think about what really mattered to me and what I could best
contribute.
Coach 10: Gave me a chance to develop a new friendship.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion o f this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to
Gallup associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not?
were as follows:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
Learner 10:1 would say yes. The biggest modification would be to figure out a
way to six month-checks after the program. And then maybe, you know, consider
looking at adding, you know, like a career board, have that be a part of it.
Coach 10: Yes. None other than the ones I made about the program itself.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked of both coach and learner to explore the effectiveness
of the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale with five being
high, how successful do you think the matching process was with your coach (for
learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would you be a coach
(for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person? Why or why not?
Learner 10:1 would say actually five. I would give it a five. Yeah, I really would.
Because I think, you know, I’m thinking of at the time. Now it might
be different, but at the time, there were qualities that she had that I really admired
and I felt strongly that she would, you know, be supportive, and I also knew that
she was a very direct person because I really did want someone who would tell
me and not just be supportive and caring and all those things, which I wanted, but
I also wanted someone who would say look, what are you thinking, you know,
and I knew she was a really, you know, had high courage and was real to the
point, direct.
Coach 10: About a two. No. I just think some o f our values mismatch made it
hard for me to get over that, to have the relationship be strong enough. But I
would do the program again with another person.
In addition, the proximity analysis results o f learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = -.457, (b) coaching style' = .700, (c) processes/products = .489, (d) applications =
no results (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry expertise = .149.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall, Case Coach-Leamer Pair 10 reported helpful information in evaluating
the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. The observation can be made
that Coach 10 did not gain as much from her experience as Learner 10. Both coach and
learner indicated that they did not set goals, but Learner 10 indicated that she met her
goals while Coach 10 indicated that none of the goals were met. Further, the pair
indicated that they had no effect on each other’s productivity. In addition, both learner
and coach reported positive perceptions o f their relationship and program and gave
suggestions for improvement. However, Learner 10 was much more positive about both
the relationship and program than her coach. In addition, both coach and learner indicated
that they had a developmental impact on one another, however Learner 10 reported more
o f an impact than her coach indicated. Further, both indicated that they would like to see
the program offered to other associates at Gallup. Both indicated that they would like to
see the program offered with some modifications. Finally, the learner indicated that she
would choose her coach again, but her coach indicated that she would not choose her
learner again. The learner may have used the proximity analysis as a tool to choose her
coach as the coaching style area was above the .5 correlation.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 11
Demographic Background
Learner 11 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 7 years.
She was a Professional Analyst at the time of the study and had been in that role for 5 to
6 years. Coach 11 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
years. She had worked as a Senior Analyst for her entire Gallup career. Learner 11
reported that she and Coach 11 met nine times for a half an hour over the course of 1997.
Coach 11 could not give an exact number of times that she met with her learner, but did
say that they met fairly regularly and met anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour each
time. Coach 11 reported that they typically met in her or her learner’s office and Learner
11 said that they typically met in her coach’s office.
Report of Goals Met
Learner 11 reported that she did not set monthly goals with her coach. However,
Coach 11 reported that they set goals together, but they were not monthly. Learner 11 ’s
and Coach 11 ’s responses to the question, How many of these goals did you meet? is
below:
Learner 11: No.
Coach 11:1 don’t think that the goals were monthly. The goals with what she was
working on were more big-picture goals of what she wanted to accomplish, and
then it was more talking about her progress.
Productivity Increase
Learner 11: reported the following, when asked the questions, Did your mentor
help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Learner 11: No.
Coach 11 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 11: No.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Perception o f the Program
Learner 11 and Coach 11 both reported their perceptions of the program.
Learner 11 reported a three, when asked to rate the effectiveness o f the program for
herself on a one to five scale. Coach 11 reported a four when asked the same
question.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 11 and Coach 11 responded in the following manner:
Learner 11: Uh, I would recommend it probably to the people who are brand new
at Gallup. The people that are established in their careers, I wouldn’t recommend
it. Uh, you know, I think that uh, the relationship that I have with my coach and
uh, and the things that I - the way, the way I developed in the last year really
probably would have happened regardless of the program uh, and I don’t really
feel like the program really helped me that
much in terms of my uh, my career. I mean I’ve grown to some extent because of,
of the help that my coach’s done, but I don’t really think it was the program that
necessarily helped me.
Coach 11: Yes. Because I think it is a way that we ensure some investment in the
development of people one-on-one, and I think we can do a lot o f coaching things
that take part in a classroom setting, but I think they still need a person that they
can come to that says you care about me, you’ve made a commitment to me, I
know you’re going to help me. I can share with you, I can talk about anything,
and you’re going to mentor me and you’re going to be honest with me about what
you think I can do and what I should and shouldn’t do.
Advice was given from both Coach 11 and Learner 11 when asked the
question, What one thing would you tell a learner (asked of learners)/coach (asked o f
coaches) to help them to be successful in this program?
Learner 11: Uh, (pause) well, I think in terms of the protege, I think it's really
important to find a person who really is a good match for you. Uh, and someone
that you really want to learn from. Uh, in terms o f mentor, I think to make it really
effective, it's a big time investment, and I think that you kind o f touched on did
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
your mentor provide you opportunities. I think that you need to uh, part o f the
mentor maybe should be to, to challenge the person uh, to kind o f set, help them
set stretch goals and, and I think that uh, that takes a big time investment. They
need to be willing to do that
Coach 11: That it's important that there's a strong commitment both ways to make
those things happen because that protege needs to take a good deal o f
responsibility on themselves to do the work, and it's always work above and
beyond what they're doing in their job. And I think if you visit with my learner, I
mean one of her goals was to learn how to write better, and I think in terms of her
personal compensation, you know, it was costly to her.
Learner 11 and Coach 11 responded as follows to the question: What did
you like best about the experience?
Learner 11: Uh, you know, I think that the thing that I liked best was uh, having
Mary Lou as a mentor and, and establishing the kind of really in the very
beginning. I guess we were kind o f forced to develop a relationship with one
another, and uh, and I still have that relationship today, so.
Coach 11: Seeing her achieve her goals.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 11: The presentations.
Coach 11: There wasn't anything I didn't like about it.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked o f both the learner
and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 11: Uh, hmm, (pause) oh, I don't, I don't know. Uh, that's hard to answer.
I guess uh, (pause) well, maybe if you uh, (pause) I guess have more things along
the way, that maybe the group comes together. Uh, it kind o f felt that in the very
beginning we were all together, and then the year went by and then we were all
together again. Uh, and, and I think that some people do this individually, I do
this individually with people that I'm friends with, but kind o f getting together and
talking about things that are working and things that aren't working (SURE) uh,
with that. Uh, and I think that maybe a little bit more structure to the program
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
because I think people that—some people were good about getting together and
some maybe weren't as good, and sometimes it's hard for my coach to get together
and immediately know what to talk about and so maybe just a little bit more
structure to it.
Coach 11:1 think probably some of the improvements would be things that I
would probably need to do better with my person in terms of sometimes I wish
that there was more time to spend. You know, so I think that it was probably
sometimes a time issue in terms of commitment, but I think the quality of the
experience really is dependent on the person and what they make of it.
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coaches and
learners:
Learner 11: Okay, what lessons did I learn. Uh, you know, I uh, I learned just
about myself I guess; I learned that uh, I don't have very much long-term focus.
Uh, so I learned that about myself, that uh, this probably was a good program for
me, or, or could have been potentially a really good program for me ’cause I don't
really know where I want to go in my career. Uh, and uh, gosh, that's about all I
can think of.
Coach 11:1 think it just reinforced the fact o f how important it is that everybody
has someone that cares about them and is working with them.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one
another by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how
would you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and develop?
Learner 11: Oh, probably a two.
Coach 11: Maybe a four.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has your
coach/leamer provided you?
Learner 11: Uh, you know, I’m not sure she— that's really hard. You know, she,
I'm not really sure she's really given me opportunities, but she's always been very
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
supportive, always there for me. Whenever I had a question, she was always there
to answer them for me or help me out. Uh, I don't think that she actually created
any opportunities for me, but she helped me grow in the work that I was already
doing.
Coach l l . I think it's enabled me to work with a person who was not necessarily
on a Senior Analyst kind of track, and to better understand some of the
frustrations that they deal with, and that need for recognition and designation of
their competencies, and I guess it's helped me think about how we can better do
some o f those things. And I think it always enhances your relationships with
people, helps you understand other people.
In addition, they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach (learner)
did for you?
Learner 11: Uh, I think that she helped me to be a better analyst.
Coach 11:1 think she helped me hone my skills in terms of being in a position to
better teach people concept.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion of this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to Gallup
associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not? were as
follows:
Learner 11: Uh, Sure. Uh, I don't really know if there needs to be any
modifications to it uh, besides what I kind o f touched on already about some of
the things I’ d like to see changed. Uh, you know, I think that for new people, it's a
really great thing. Again, I think people who are already kind of established in
their careers, and they may already have mentors, I'm not sure how useful this
program is, but I think it would be great to offer to new, brand new people uh, just
the way it is would be wonderful.
Coach 11: Yes. Oh, I think I would just try to tie down the book a little bit more,
and maybe there's, oh, some other kinds o f recognition attached to it. I think that
probably a year is a long period o f time, and there may be some other kind o f
reinforcement. I mean if these people are coming together and talking, you know,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
maybe semiannually or quarterly about where they are and what they've
accomplished. But I think it's hard unless they are really, really committed to
maintain that kind o f momentum for a year towards a goal. That's a pretty long
term goal.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked o f both coach and learner to explore the effectiveness
of the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale with five being
high, how successful do you think the matching process was with your coach (for
learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would you be a coach
(for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person? Why or why not?
Learner 11 :Probably a three. Uh, (pause) well, I guess that's yes and no. Uh, I
guess if I could do it all over again, I'd probably pick someone different. Uh, I still
really value the relationship that I had with my coach and wouldn't change that,
but uh, I think that uh, maybe someone else could have helped me grow a little bit
better. Uh, you know, just back to the opportunities. I mean I think my coach just,
I think that she was a wonderful mentor, but she's not really in the position to
provide opportunities just because of what she does now on a day-to-day basis. I
mean she develops interviews now. And if she was back in her old role where she
was a Senior Analyst and she had her own clients, she probably could have given
me a lot of opportunities, but she didn't have any opportunities to hand out really.
Uh, she helped me grow and, and become a better writer and whatnot, but uh, but
I think that it might have been good to be with someone who had more
opportunities to give me.
Coach 11: Oh, I mean she came to find me, so probably a four. Yeah, I think that
would be fine. Because I think that she's shown a whole lot of growth. I mean I've
seen her make a lot of strides, seen her be more confident as she’s dealing with
clients. I've watched her now do feedback; I've watched her be able to talk with
some of these Purolators in a group. I mean when I've been conference called in
with her, to listen and her ability to answer questions and pull some things
together.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
In addition, the proximity analysis results of learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = .765, (b) coaching style = .433, (c) processes/products = .685, (d) applications =
no results (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry expertise = .526.
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall, Case Coach-Leamer Pair 11 reported helpful information in evaluating
the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. The observation can be made
that Coach 11 gained more from this experience than her learner did. Coach 11 reported
that the pair did set goals and meet them, but that they were not monthly goals. However,
Learner 11 ’s perception was that they did not set any goals. Further, the pair indicated
that they had no effect on each other’s productivity. In addition, both learner and coach
reported positive perceptions o f their relationship and program and gave suggestions for
improving. However, Coach 11 was much more positive about both the relationship and
program than her learner. Her learner indicated that she had a good relationship with her
coach and valued it, but that her coach really did not provide her with any opportunities.
In addition, both coach and learner indicated that they had a developmental impact on one
another, however Learner 11 reported very little impact on her development, besides the
general statement of helping her to be a better analyst. Further, both indicated that they
would like to see the program offered to other associates at Gallup. Both indicated that
they would like to see the program offered with some modifications. Finally, the coach
indicated that she would choose her learner again, but her learner indicated that she would
not choose her coach again. The learner may have used the proximity analysis as a tool to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I ll
choose her coach as the talent, processes and products and industry expertise areas were
all over the .5 correlation.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 12
Demographic Background
Learner 12 was a male and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 3 years.
He was a Vice President of Client Management at the time of the study and had been in
that role his entire Gallup career. Coach 12 was a female and had worked for The Gallup
Organization for 19 years. She had worked as a Senior Analyst for her entire Gallup
career. Learner 12 reported that he and Coach 12 met 30 times for an average of an hour
half an hour during the course o f 1997. Coach 12 reported that she was working with her
learner on a lot of common projects so they met often, but in terms o f meeting for this
program, they started off meeting frequently and then her learner got headed in other
directions and it just did not happen. She also indicated that the first few meetings they
had were fairly lengthy. Both coach and learner indicated that they typically met in each
other’s office.
Report of Goals Met
Neither Learner 12 nor Coach 12 indicated that they set monthly goals.
Productivity Increase
Learner 12 reported the following when asked the questions, Did your mentor
help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Learner 12: Yes. Well, she helped me think about just how to do things right. So
productivity as far as numbers, no, but productivity as far as quality, yes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Coach 12 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 12: No.
Perception of the Program
Learner 12 and Coach 12 both reported their perceptions o f the program.
Learner 12 reported a four when asked to rate the effectiveness o f the program for
himself on a one to five scale. Coach 12 reported a five when asked the same
question.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 12 and Coach 12 responded in the following manner:
Learner 12: Absolutely. Well, the best learning occurs in a relationship to other
people so I think it’s really a very good, very well-run program, particularly if you
can center it around realistic business objectives instead of an urgency in what
you’re doing.
Coach 12: Yes. Because, again. I think everybody needs a person that they feel
can help them, that wants to help them, that cares about them, and makes
investment and is there.
Advice was given from both Coach 12 and Learner 12 when asked the
question, What one thing would you tell a learner (asked o f learners)/coach (asked of
coaches) to help them to be successful in this program?
Learner 12: Well, I would make more use of the notebook. I would think about
adding a little bit more structure to it. The way my coach and I did it was fairly ad
hoc around the client projects, and I think perhaps we needed some pieces of it
that were not around the client projects but were around learning.
Coach 12:1 think probably, I mean reflecting what happened with my learner,
because I think, you know, working with my learner more than with my other
learner—they're just very, very different people— is that probably there needed to
be, in his case, more concrete, short-term goals. And in his case, I mean what I've
learned is that we'd have been better to keep that focus smaller, you know, maybe
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
a step at a time rather than just the whole big thing that, you know, kind of get
swim m ing around in and then there wasn't time to deal with it, so the not much of
anything got done.
Learner 12 and Coach 12 responded as follows to the question: What did
you like best about the experience?
Learner 12: Oh, I guess the learning and relationship. They go hand in hand
because I was learning from someone, and we had a lot of fun doing it. We helped
each other be more productive.
Coach 12: Working with the person one-on-one.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 12:1 can't think of anything.
Coach 12:1 have to think person-to-person here. I guess, you know, I don't feel
satisfied that we just didn't get done what I wanted to see happen with him and
what we as an organization need to happen with my learner to allow him to do
what he wants to do and what he’ s really capable of doing.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked o f both the learner
and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 12: I guess maybe this might work better as a triad rather than as a
duet. I think that someone overseeing the program, who meets with both o f us that
might help us stay on track a little bit more. I think my coach and I are very
responsive to customer needs first and other needs very much back burner. And
maybe if we had someone else that was an accountability partner to both o f us for
sticking with the program, I think it might help.
Coach 12: Shorter-term goals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coaches and
learners.
Learner 12: Well, I learned a lot about our science, I learned a lot about it's
interesting to see how supportive my coach can be, and it helps me think about
how I can be more supportive with other people. And that's all I can think about
other than what we talked about already.
Coach 12: Probably in this case, I would have approached some things different in
terms of providing him structure and shorter-term emphasis, and maybe staying
on him a little bit harder.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one
another by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high,
how would you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and
develop?
Learner 12: Oh I guess, a four.
Coach 12:1 think this depends on what we’re talking about. I mean if we’re
talking about learner in terms of meeting that program that was out there, we
probably were a one or a two. If we talk about the other things we’ve worked with
in terms of clients, in terms of how to work with clients, in terms of interview
development and those kinds of things that I’ve been helping him with, probably a
five.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has your
coach/leamer provided you?
Learner 12: Well, she’s given me time, plenty o f opportunities to run focus
groups, to develop interviews that she could then oversee. She’s discussed
potential path for a course of study for me in the Gallup Master’s Program. She
has discussed findings that I have had on many, many occasions, and talked to me
about additional pieces of research I would need to do a better job.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
Coach 12: Again, I mean I think it's as you work with every person, you leam
something, and I think I mean it was with him, you know, really becoming aware
of how impractical the academic university kind o f master's program is. I mean it
was not something that he was going to accomplish; he's not a person who likes
school at all. I mean so I think what it did was help me think about ways that we
could explore other alternatives that might fit in with who he is and what he wants
to accomplish. And probably the difficulty of keeping someone trying to go on a
program that academically
we're saying, here, you need the degree, and just not a real strong desire to do it.
In addition, they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach (learner)
did for you?
Learner 12: She taught me how to be a scientist as far as our interview
development process goes.
Coach 12:1 think he helped me to be a better teacher.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion of this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to Gallup
associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not? were as
follows:
Learner 12: Sure. Again, I think that triad model might work a little better.
Coach 12: Yes. With Shorter-term objectives. I mean for the things these folks
want to accomplish, I mean it’s going to take a year or so to accomplish them, but
I think it’s more regular kind of bench marks. Pull them together to share.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked o f both coach and learner to explore the effectiveness
of the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale with five being
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
high, how successful do you think the matching process was with your coach (for
learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would you be a coach
(for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person? Why or why not?
Learner 12: Oh, a five. Well, if I had to do it all over again, yes. Would I do it
again? No. Probably I would look for a different learner that could teach me some
other things, or a different coach.
Coach 12: It was probably a five. Yes. Because I think he’s just made incredible
strides. He’s very talented. I think he’s a person that certainly is a part of our
future.
In addition, the proximity analysis results of learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = .250, (b) coaching style = .103, (c) processes/products = .685, (d) applications =
no results (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry expertise = .731.
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall, Case Coach-Leamer Pair 12 reported helpful information in evaluating
the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. The observation can be made
that both coach and learner gained much from the experience. However, the gain may not
have been so much a result of the program, as from working on client projects together.
Both coach and learner reported that they did not set goals. Further, Learner 12 indicated
that his productivity in terms of quality went up as a result of their relationship, but
transversely, Coach 12’s productivity did not go up. In addition, both learner and coach
reported positive perceptions of their relationship and program and gave suggestions for
improving. Coach and learner indicated that they had a developmental impact on one
another. Further, both indicated that they would like to see the program offered to other
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
associates at Gallup. Both indicated that they would like to see the program offered with
some modifications. Finally, the coach indicated that she would choose her learner again,
but her learner indicated that he would not choose his coach again because he thought he
might leam something new from either a new learner or a new coach. The learner may
have used the proximity analysis as a tool to choose his coach as the processes and
products and industry expertise areas were all over the .5 correlation.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 13
Demographic Background
Learner 13 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for five
years. She was a Professional Analyst at the time of the study and had been in that role
for 3 years. Coach 13 was a female and was contact several times to be interviewed, but
an interview was never completed. Consequently, in-depth interview data are only
available for Learner 13 for this pair. Coach 13 reported that she and Learner 13 met four
times for a half an hour over the course of 1997. Learner 13 reported that she met with
her coach twice in person and twice over the phone.
Report o f Goals Met
Learner 13’s response to the questions, Did you set monthly goals with your
coach and How many o f these goals did you meet? are below:
Learner 13: At that time, we did. I don’t think any of them.
Productivity Increase
Learner 13 reported the following, when asked the questions, Did your coach
help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
Learner 13: Yes. Just knowing what the expectations are, having that be affirmed
every time I talk with her.
Perception o f the Program
Learner 13 reported the following, when asked to rate the effectiveness of the
program for herself on a one to five scale:
Learner 13: How effective has it been for me. I'd say a one, but I want to clarify
why. Because I'm not there, so it's harder for me to— I need for someone to hold
me accountable. If I'm in a program like that, I need for someone to say, you
know, you need to have this in by such and such a time, and there needs to be
some sort of, you know, reason why it's going to be beneficial for me. Otherwise,
there's so many other things that are on my plate that take precedence over me and
my career that I won't pay attention to that.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 13 responded in the following manner:
Learner 13: Sure. Because I think everyone needs a system to help them do that,
to focus in on where they want to go, where they want to be, and have that happen
for them because I think most often, life tends to dictate sometimes where people
are.
Advice was given from Learner 13 when asked the question, What one thing
would you tell a learner (asked of leamers)/coach (asked o f coaches) to help them to be
successful in this program?
Learner 13: That they have to invest their time and be willing to do that, and be
open and honest with each other. And care for one another and trust that the other
person's going to look out for their best interest.
Learner 13 responded as follows to the question: What did you like best about the
experience?
Learner 13: Setting the goals. Even though, you know, I know that I probably did
follow through on some of the goals, but for me I always like to do it above and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
beyond what I've set, so I'm kind of hard on myself that way. But it's just being
able to have some sense of where you're going at least, to have some measurement
about that.
Feedback regarding what learner 13 did not like about the experience was
given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 13:1 probably should have put forth more effort to make it happen.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked o f the learner.
The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 13: Probably the same thing.
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of Learner 13:
Learner 13: The need to, when you set goals, to be consistent about that regardless
of what may sidetrack you in the meantime.
Developmental Impact
Learner 13 was asked to rate her developmental impact on her coach by
responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how would
you rate how well you feel you helped your coach to grow and develop?
Learner 13:1 think five.
Learner 13 was asked: What developmental opportunities has your coach
provided you?
Learner 13: What she provides for me most is leverage, if I can say it that way; I
can't think o f any other way to put it. I know that my go-to person responds when
my coach mentions my name, and so I know that there's a respect level there for
that, and things happen when that happens. And so that's one of the opportunities,
that things will happen if she mentions my name and mentions that she had a
meeting with me. Things tend to happen from that. So indirectly that way. And
then on her own, she has just given me advice about certain things that I should be
taking a look at in regards to doing, you know, some recruiting part-time because
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
she knows that happens naturally for me. And then, of course, that will benefit
Gallup as well. And then she wants me to help her with the Bennett College field
that we're doing in measuring the strengths of their freshman class, help their
advisors know how to advise their students better. I'm going to be helping with
that. That's basically about it.
In addition, Learner 13 was asked: What is the single best thing your coach did for
you?
Learner 13: Just knowing that I have the ability to call whenever I have the need
to call her, and know that that’s an open and honest relationship.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Learner 13 gave recommendations for expansion o f this program company-wide.
Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to Gallup associates
company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not? were as follows:
Learner 13: Yes. That the coach has the responsibility to hold the person
accountable.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked of Learner 13 to explore the effectiveness o f the
matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale with five being high, how
successful do you think the matching process was with your coach? If you had to do it all
over again, would you be a learner to this same person? Why or why not?
Learner 13:1 matched m yself up with her. I’d say five. Yes. Because I trust her. I
trust that, you know, everybody always has their own agenda about where they
want someone to be or where they want to go, and that's just a fact o f life; I mean
each one of us has our own agenda about that. But what I know about m y coach is
that she listens very well to the things that you talk about, and so she tries to line
that up with the things going on at Gallup and
how it can be beneficial to Gallup at the same time. So I trust that she's going to
be looking out for her best interest, but at the same time I know that it's a give-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
and-take relationship. That, you know, she'll give me what I want, you know, if I
give her what she wants, and it's not that she thinks about that, it just happens that
way.
In addition, the proximity analysis results o f learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = .172, (b) coaching style = .795, (c) processes/products = .675, (d) applications =
.331, (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry expertise =.611.
Conclusion and Discussion
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 13 was hard to analyze because Coach 13 did not
complete the in-depth interview. The observation can be made that the learner had a
very positive experience with the program, however it was more of a challenge for her
because she lived in a different city than her coach and this challenge affected her goal
attainment. She felt that she did make a positive difference with her coach. Learner 13
indicated positive perceptions regarding the program and suggestions for improving it, as
well as positive perceptions of her relationship with her coach. Learner 13 indicated she
would like to see the program offered to other associates at Gallup with some
modifications. Finally, the learner most likely used the proximity analysis data to choose
her coach, as three of the areas were above the .5 correlation.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 14
Demographic Background
Learner 14 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 4 years.
She was a Professional Analyst at the time o f the study and had been in that role for 3
years. Coach 14 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 11 years.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
She worked as a Senior Analyst at the time o f this study. Learner 14 reported that she and
Coach 14 met 150 times for anywhere from anywhere from a quick phone all to several
hours at a time during the course of 1997. Coach 14 reported that she met with her learner
two to three times a week for anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours. Learner 14 noted that
they usually met in her coach’s office, but sometimes in her own office. Coach 14 did not
report a place typically met.
Report of Goals Met
The pair’s responses to the questions, Did you set monthly goals? and How many
these goals did you meet? are below:
Learner 14: No.
Coach 14: Earlier on, with our mentoring relationship, I did. It was more o f a
tactical piece, more constant and ongoing stuff, and then it got to be more where it
was a little more vague in terms of overall direction for the year, to get certified in
this and certified on that. Oh, I’m pretty sure every one of them.
Productivity Increase
Learner 14 reported the following when asked the questions, Did your mentor
help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Learner 14: Yes, definitely. Uh, she would help me think about different ways I
could tackle my work and approach it, different ways I could balance out my
responsibilities.
Coach 14 reported the following when asked the same questions:
Coach 14: Qualitatively, not quantitatively. Better writing. I mean from the
discussions we’d have, I’d think about different ways o f saying it. And like I said,
teaching it to somebody else make you better at the job. So I think the quality of
my reports went up.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
Perception o f the Program
Learner 14 and Coach 14 both reported their perceptions o f the program.
Learner 14 reported a one, when asked to rate the effectiveness of the program for
herself on a one to five scale. However, she reported that this was her fault, not the
programs. Coach 14 reported a five when asked the same question. Following this
question the interviewer asked "Why?" and Coach 14’s response is below:
Coach 14: Well, I think development is absolutely essential, but it's also
something that can get lip service if people don't acknowledge that it takes a lot of
time. And, you know, it's not something that you can take formax for, you know,
and a lot o f times it can get overlooked, and like I said, a lot of lip service and a
lot o f people really talk about it, but to really invest in people, to invest in the kind
o f work we do, to teach them about it and help them grow as an analyst and as a
feedback provider and as a writer, it really just takes a lot of time, and my learner
and I were just allowed that time to
say, do you have a half hour, can we talk, let’ s run to lunch, you know, to talk
about either personal or professional things, or to talk very specifically about
coding and how do you write about when somebody's high in Discipline and low
in Responsibility, or how do you put that back together and how do you make that
tell a story that feels okay to hear even if it's not a good story about yourself. So it
was just a lot o f time was invested but I mean I love developing people, I love
mentoring people, and I would love to do more of it. Actually, I've offered to do
some more o f that, but so far no takers I guess. But I think it was a great
experience.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 14 and Coach 14 responded in the following manner:
Learner 14: Yes. Uh, actually I'm going to have to say it not out o f my own
experience because I didn't complete it, uh, but it was such fun to talk with
everybody else who did, lik e uh, after they'd gone through the graduation
and they had such positive feelings about it that uh, I guess I just didn't hear
anything negative from anybody.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
Coach 14: If they have the— I should put a caveat in there—if they're really, truly
willing to invest the time and energy. And I would recommend it to them because
I think the seniors and the graduate seniors and students need to be making sure
they're helping the freshmen and sophomores and juniors along, and then in turn
they have an opportunity, those people have an opportunity to give back and help,
too. I just think if you're going to grow a bunch of talent, you've got to be
developing what's there, as well as, you know, trying to stretch it and grow it, as
well as bringing in incoming talent. And I mean that's really the essence of
practicing what we preach.
Advice was given from both Coach 14 and Learner 14 when asked the question,
What one thing would you tell a learner (asked o f leamers)/coach (asked o f coaches) to
help them to be successful in this program?
Learner 14: Uh, to the mentors, it would be probably to be proactive and get in
there and push the mentee because sometimes I don't think they even realize what
options or what's available to them. And uh, to the mentee, uh, it's kind of the
same thing; they've got to push and ask a lot of questions and be actively involved
as well.
Coach 14: Set aside time to do it so that it doesn't always get put on the back
burner or become problem solving, not really mentoring.
Learner 14 and Coach 14 responded as follows to the question: What did
you like best about the experience?
Learner 14: Uh, geez, everything. It has just meant a lot for my own professional
development.
Coach 14:1 love seeing the lights go on. I love explaining something and having
people say I've never, ever, ever, ever thought about it that way, that makes
perfect sense.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 14: Uh, what did I like least about the experience. Sometimes I guess it
can feel as though then you're kind of cut off from other mentors because you're
so focused on one.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
Coach 14:1 can't really think of a downside.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked of both the learner
and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 14: Well, I would have done it, I would have gone through the actual
professional development and followed the notebook and everything. That
probably was the biggest one.
Coach 14:1 think, I guess it's tied to the experiences, the recognition that I think
could be more, I don't know how to explain this, you can't really quantify
development. So I think it would be neat to see the organization or any
organization really honor that investment of time and energy, and whether or not
it looks productive initially, it will be productive down the road if that
investment's kind of worked on up front; but I don’ t think it's something you can
quantify, so I don't think it gets the recognition it really deserves. I don't mean that
to sound whiny, and please don't think it is. It's just one of those things that as
kind o f an offbeat, I thought how would you recognize that I mean other than
anecdotally I guess.
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coach and
learner:
Learner 14: What lessons did I leam. Uh, what an incredibly powerful impact
mentors can have on the life of someone else.
Coach 14: That people view things from completely different perspectives. That
people leam in their own style. That I'm incredibly decisive and not everybody is,
and that's my cross to bear because sometimes things are just crystal clear to me
and I can make a decision and say it, and then that's not always comfortable for
other people. What other lessons did I leam. Well, I don't know, it just reinforced
something I actually said in my interview to work here, when they asked what my
weaknesses were, I said I'm very, very impatient. I'm very patient with people but
I'm very impatient with things, and it did really reinforce that I am pretty patient
with people in terms of learning and growing and all that.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one
another by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how
would you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and develop?
Learner 14: A four.
Coach 14: Well, this is going to sound egotistical to say this, but she has shared
this with me on more than one occasion, that I have helped her a great deal, so I’d
say a five.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has your
coach/leamer provided you?
Learner 14: Oh boy lot. Uh, she’s invited me to work on teams. Uh, she has
expanded uh, she expanded the, the types of responsibilities I’ve had, such as
going beyond just selection and interviewing, getting me in on the ground floor
with profiles, uh, helping me think about different ways to write difficult uh,
difficult to write people. Uh, jus uh, also taking me out on the road with her and
giving me opportunities to give feedback in person.
Coach 14: Mentoring. I think that’s a developmental opportunity for me. Being a
mentor to her helped me grow as a mentor and as an analyst, too.
In addition they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach (learner) did
for you?
Learner 14: Boy, single most, that’s really hard to say, but probably just kept uh,
kept my confidence and my abilities up. Kept telling me I could do it.
Coach 14: She became a very, very good friend.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion o f this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to Gallup
associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not? were as
follows:
Learner 14:1 think so, yes. Uh, I don’t know. I mean I think there was some
confusion with the uh, with the computerized matching system. Uh, I didn’t hear
about a lot o f people using that in order to actually choose their mentor. I could be
wrong, but it seemed like a lot of times people went more off o f relationship uh,
rather than like some o f the skills or some of the other things that it seemed that
the test tested for.
Coach 14: Oh, absolutely. I was going to say that doesn't really apply, but it kind
of does in terms of, and I don't know the specifics o f following the program by the
book but, you know, Kim and I read through it and we both kind of went, well,
we'll kind o f do this anyway but we're not real formal kind o f people, so we didn't
really follow a protocol, but we did it, and I think it's figuring out the match for
the personality and the style and the love of what people do and why they want to
leam about it from their mentee. If that same passion is why we do what we do
and they're really in tandem with that reasoning of why they want to do it, I think
it kind of gets back to whatever works for that duo.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked o f both coach and learner to explore the
effectiveness o f the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale
with five being high, how successful do you think the matching process was with your
coach (for learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would you
be a coach (for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person? Why or why not?
Learner 14: Oh, well, for me that was a one or a two (referring to computerized
matching system) Uh, going back in time, yes. Uh, just because she was so
willing to invest her time and caring and her energy and her knowledge and, and
was very open to sharing it with me.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
Coach 14: We just kind of hooked up with each other and I think it was a very
good match. Oh, absolutely, (no response to why).
In addition, the proximity analysis results o f learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = .436, (b) coaching style = .535, (c) processes/products = .no results, (d)
applications = no results (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry expertise = no
results.
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall, Case Coach-Leamer Pair 14 reported helpful information in evaluating
the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. The observation can be made
that both Coach and learner gained much from the experience. However, the gain was not
so much a result of following the program as that they followed their own mentoring
program, individualizing it to their own specific needs. Coach and learner had differing
reports on goals set, with the coach reporting that goals were set at the beginning and met,
but then not set later on in their relationship. Further, both learner and coach reported that
their productivity increased as a result of their relationship. In addition, both learner and
coach reported positive perceptions o f their relationship and program (as onlookers) and
gave suggestions for improving. In addition, both coach and learner indicated that they
had a developmental impact on one another. Further, both indicated that they would like
to see the program offered to other associates at Gallup. Both indicated that they would
like to see the program offered with some modifications. Finally, both indicated that they
would choose each other again. The learner indicated that the proximity analysis was not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
helpful her to her in selecting her coach, so the assumption can be made that she did not
use it to make her coach selection. However, coaching style was above the .5 correlation.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 15
Demographic Background
Learner 15 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 4 Vi
years. She was a Professional Analyst at the time of the study and had been in that role
for 2 V i years. Coach 15 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 17
years. She had worked as a Vice President and Global Practice Leader for Strengths
Management at the time of this study. Learner 15 reported that she and Coach 15 met five
or six times for about a half an hour a time during the course o f 1997. Coach 15 reported
that she met with her learner 40 times for 45 minutes each time. Learner 15 noted that
mostly met at Gallup.
Report o f Goals Met
The pair’s responses to the questions, Did you set monthly goals and How many
these goals did you meet? were as follows:
Learner 15: No.
Coach 15: We weren’t as effective at that. My learner had monthly goals; I didn’t
actually set them with her, but I listened to them and coached her around them. I
can’t recall how many she met.
Productivity Increase
Learner 15 reported the following, when asked the questions, Did your mentor
help you to increases your productivity? If so, how?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
130
Learner 15:1 would say yes. Part o f it is kind of finding some things that I like to
do better and that fit me better.
Coach 15 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 15: No, I would say, no.
Perception of the Program
Responses to the question, How effective do you think this program has been
for you? were as follows:
Learner 15: A four.
Coach 15: A four.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 15 and Coach 15 responded in the following manner:
Learner 15: Yes. (the follow-up, ‘why’, was not asked)
Coach 15:1 would recommend the experience, yes. I think it’s essential to coach
and manage other people, and I think it’s a fabulous experience for the protege
and the mentor to go through.
Advice was given from both Coach 15 and Learner 15 when asked the question,
what one thing would you tell a learner (asked of leamers)/coach (asked of coaches) to
help them to be successful in this program?
Learner 15: That they’re the ones that probably need to initiate more than the
mentor.
Coach 15:1 would say that the success depends upon how often that you meet
with the person and how much you are focused on who they are and what they
want as opposed to yourself.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
Learner 15 and Coach 15 responded as follows to the question: What did
you like best about the experience?
Learner 15:1 think the thing I liked best is working with someone who had
probably a very different set o f talents than I did, somebody that I hadn’t worked
with before that I could leam some things from, and to kind of be a part o f a
different part of what we do.
Coach 15:1 liked to see it come to life and liked working with my learner.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 15:1 think sometimes, as the protege, it's hard because you feel like
you're intruding on their time, and I always seemed to be the one who initiated the
time together, and I think sometimes that's really hard because you feel like you're
intruding or they don't have time right now. And so I think that, and I think a lot
o f people felt that way, that it was really difficult because we had to be the ones to
initiate, and that gets kind of hard sometimes. So in that program, it would have
been nice sometimes to have the other side of it.
Coach 15:1 was my learner’s manager during the experience, and I think it would
have been better for her if I had not been.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked of both the learner
and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 15: It would be that, that I think somehow to either, whether it be
reminding the mentors in the program that they really need to do that side o f it
too. I think we get really busy and things kind of go away, and unfortunately I
think that happened a lot.
Coach 15:1 would not have managers mentor their direct reports.
Finally, a question was asked of both coach and learner to assess lessons
learned:
Learner 15:1 would say she's a lot different than I am. I would say lessons I
learned are kind of how to approach things differently. Whether I would do it or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
not, I think I saw some different ways to think about some situations or approach
situations and, like I said, some I would do and some I would probably not do
because I did some things with her that I got to see firsthand or be a part of
firsthand, and I think that it kind of helped me see that you kind o f naturally
approach things the way you do, but there's always other ways to look at it.
Coach 15:1 learned that it's very hard to do it right. And that sometimes in the
course o f the development o f a person, the development goes in a way that's
contradictory to the goals o f an organization, and that's probably one of the
hardest things that you have to deal with. And that you don't control very much in
terms of your protege's life and work, and it becomes somewhat o f a frustration
for the mentor because there's so much that you want to make right for them, and
yet at the same time, you know they have to do it for themselves. And when you
know a lot about an organization, you know exactly what barriers there are they're
talking about because you've experienced them yourself, and that makes you feel
like you're not as effective as you could be and it reminds you o f that in your day-
to-day job as well.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one another
by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how would
you rate how well you feel you helped your leamer/coach to grow and develop?
Learner 15: Probably a three.
Coach 15: You know, I’d give myself a four.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has your
coach/leamer provided you?
Learner 15: Quite a bit. I worked on some things that I’ve never worked on
before. I’ve been able to do some client work that I hadn’t done before, so quite a
few things.
Coach 15: Well she provided a very important one for me. Because the
Mentor/Protege program was working with, she gave me an opportunity to see
how it actually worked in real life for myself.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
In addition they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach (learner) did
for you?
Learner 15:1 would probably say probably expanded my vision of some o f the
things that Gallup could do or putting things together in ways that I hadn’t. She,
overall, has a lot more vision concept than I do.
Coach 15: Well, she gave me a chance to know her better, and she gave me a
chance to see one of the things I’d worked on come to life, and she gave me a
chance to be a part of what she learned to do, so that was great.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion of this
program company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to
Gallup associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not? were
as follows:
Learner 15: Yes. I would say the modification being that if the mentors are going
to choose to be a part of it, they also need to do the other side of it, to initiate
more, and that there's more that goes on from their side in that sense because I
think, like I said, I think that it's hard sometimes to be the one to always
(inaudible phrase).
Coach 15: On a volunteer basis only. I think we’d need to rethink the program in
light of the actual roles that we want people to perform.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked o f both coach and learner to explore the effectiveness
of the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale with five being
high, how successful do you think the matching process was with your coach (for
learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would you be a coach
(for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person? Why or why not?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
Learner 15: Four. Probably not. Because I don’t think that’s the purpose, and I
think that the purpose is to expand and to go on, and I have done that with her,
and I can have her as a mentor if I want to now anyway. I would probably choose
someone else for the same reason I chose her, just because it’s somebody else,
somebody new who could give you a different perspective.
Coach 15: You know, I think it was pretty successful with her. A five. No, I
would not. I mean consecutively I would not choose to be her mentor again. I
don’t think she’d leam as much from me the second time as the first. And so in
that sense, it that’s what you’re asking me. If what you’re asking me is if I had it
to do all over again, would I not work with Irene, no; I would work with my
learner again, but not twice.
In addition, the proximity analysis results of learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = .189, (b) coaching style = .512, (c) processes/products = .,665, (d) applications =
no results (e) research techniques = .366, (f) industry expertise = . 189.
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall, Case Coach-Leamer Pair 15 reported helpful information in evaluating the
Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. The observation can be made that
both coach and learner gained much from the experience. Coach and learner
both reported that they did not set monthly goals. But this is also left open to other types
of goal setting. Further, Learner 15 reported that her productivity went up as a
result of their relationship, however, Coach 15’s did not. In addition, both learner and
coach reported positive perceptions of their relationship and program and gave
suggestions for improving. In addition, both coach and learner indicated that they had a
developmental impact on one another. Further both indicated that they would
like to see the program offered to other associates at Gallup, they would Both
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
indicated that like to see the program offered with some modifications. Finally, both
indicated that they would not choose each other again due to the fact they felt new
development could be achieved with another choice. The learner may have used the
proximity analysis to choose her coach, with the correlations above .5 in both the
coaching style and processes and products areas.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 16
Demographic Background
Learner 16 was a male and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 20
years. He was a Professional analyst at the time o f the study and had been in that role for
10 years. Coach 16 was a female and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 17
years. She had worked as a Vice President and Global Practice Leader for Strengths
Management at the time of this study. Learner 16 reported that he and Coach 16 met
formally, three times for an hour and informally eight to 10
times on airplanes during the course of 1997. Coach 16 reported that she met with her
learner three times for 10 minutes each time. Learner 16 noted that the formal meetings
were held in his coach’s office and the informal meetings were on airplanes.
Report of Goals Met
The pair’s responses to the questions, Did you set monthly goals? and How many
these goals did you meet? are below:
Learner 16: No.
Coach 16: No.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
Productivity Increase
Learner 16: reported the following when asked the questions, Did your
mentor help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Learner 16: Uh, yeah, I’d say so. Just by the ideas that we exchanged. Uh, me
being able to implement some o f those on, on our particular team, work team.
Coach 16 reported the following, when asked the same questions:
Coach 16: No.
Perception of the Program
Learner 16 and Coach 16 both reported their perceptions of the program.
Learner 16 reported a four, when asked to rate the effectiveness o f the program for
himself on a one to five scale and Coach 16 reported a one.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Learner 16 and Coach 16 responded in the following manner:
Learner 16: Oh, absolutely. I just think for the majority of the people, it would be
just a tremendous learning experience and growth experience.
Coach 16: Yes. Because I think when you do it right, it works.
Advice was given from both Coach 16 and Learner 16 when asked the question,
What one thing would you tell a learner (asked of leamers)/coach (asked of coaches) to
help them to be successful in this program?
Learner 16: Uh, pick a mentor that’s somebody that you just like to hang out with,
that you’re friends with.
Coach 16:1 would tell them that the protege owns the responsibility for the
relationship in terms of when you meet and all of that piece, but if they don't pick
that ball up, you have an obligation earlier than I did to insist that they do that. Or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
that you're out of the sequence. And that's a difficult thing to manage because the
theory is that a protege must own their own relationship, and as soon as you start
to lead as the mentor, then you're driving them on your program, so it's tricky.
Learner 16 and Coach 16 responded as follows to the question: What did you
like best about the experience?
Learner 16: Uh, just again the exchange o f ideas for the future o f our business.
Coach 16:1 didn’t like this experience.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Learner 16: Uh, probably piling on more time into an already unbelievably
hectic schedule.
Coach 16: That we didn’t do it.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked of both the learner
and coach. The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Learner 16: Uh, I guess I can’t really think o f any.
Coach 16:1 would have insisted early on that you either put time into it or that we
dissolve it officially so that we didn’t even come to the food and drink
celebration.
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of both coaches and
learners:
Learner 16: Uh, gosh, I can’t think o f any lessons.
Coach 16: To speak up sooner, regardless of whether or not I — if people can’t
take the ball and run with it, then I need to speak up sooner and say, hey, this isn’t
working.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Developmental Impact
Coach and learner were asked to rate their developmental impact on one
another by responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how
would you rate how well you feel you helped your learner/coach to grow and develop?
Learner 16: Oh, maybe a three.
Coach 16: One.
Coach and learner were also asked: What developmental opportunities has your
coach/leamer provided you?
Learner 16: Uh, well, directly I’d say none really because we’re on different work
teams.
Coach 16: None.
In addition, they were asked: What is the single best thing your coach (learner)
did for you?
Learner 16: Uh, mostly just exchanging ideas for the future of our business.
Coach 16: That doesn’t apply.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Both Coach and learner gave recommendations for expansion o f this program
company wide. Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to Gallup
associates company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not? were as
follows:
Learner 16: Uh, sure. Again, I don’t think I’d make any.
Coach 16: On a voluntary basis. I would just say it needs to be voluntary and both
need to say if it’s working or not.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked of both coach and learner to explore the effectiveness
of the matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale with five being
high, how successful do you think the matching process was with your coach (for
learners)/ learner (for coaches)? If you had to do it all over again, would you be a coach
(for coaches))/ a learner (for learners) to this same person? Why or why not?
Learner 16: I’d say five. Yes. Uh, because the person’s real visionary and
basically I got out of that relationship what I wanted to, which wasn’t so much
nuts and bolts, hands-on, guidance, development kind of stuff, but more big
picture thinking.
Coach 15: It was a one. No, because I don’t think he really wanted one.
In addition, the proximity analysis results of learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = .225, (b) coaching style = .817, (c) processes/products = .226, (d) applications =
no results (e) research techniques = .590, (f) industry expertise = .380.
Conclusion and Discussion
Overall, Case Coach-Leamer Pair 16 reported helpful information in evaluating
the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. The observation can be made
that Learner 16 gained much more from the experience than his coach did. In fact, Coach
16 was very negative about her experience with Learner 16 because she did not feel like
he participated in the program. However, Learner 16 gave only positive responses and
reported a positive evaluation. Both coach and learner reported not setting monthly goals.
But this is also left open to other types of goal setting. Further, Learner 16 reported that
his productivity went up as a result of their relationship; however, Coach 16’s did not. In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
addition, Learner 16 had positive perceptions of both program and relationship, while
Coach 16 reported on positive perceptions of the program and gave suggestions for
improvement. Learner 16 indicated that his coach had a developmental impact on him;
however, Coach 16 reported no developmental impact on herself or having a
developmental impact on her learner. Further, both indicated that they would like to see
the program offered to other associates at Gallup, but only Learner 16 offered any
modification advice. Finally, Learner 16 indicated that he would choose his coach again,
while Coach 16 said that she would not choose her learner again because she said he
acted like he did not want a coach. The learner may have used the proximity analysis to
choose his coach, with the correlations above .5 in both the coaching style and research
areas.
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 17
Demographic Background
Coach 17 was a male and had worked for The Gallup Organization for 16 V i
years. He was a Diplomat Analyst at the time o f the study and had been in that role for his
entire Gallup career. Learner 17 was a female and did not complete the
interview. She was contacted several times to complete the interview, but each attempt
failed. Consequently, in-depth interview data are only available for Coach 17 for this pair.
Coach 17 reported that he and Learner 17 met a half dozen times for probably an hour or
two the first couple o f sessions and then later meetings were
quick checks about 15 minutes long. Coach 17 did not report where they met or if there
was an activity involved along with the meeting.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
Report of Goals Met
Coach 17’s response to the question, How many of these goals did you meet?, is
as follows:
Coach 17:1 think that they were more quarterly goals than monthly. Oh, you’re
getting real tough here. I suspect 80 to 90%. It seemed there was one area where
she had originally discusses and chose not to move forward in. The rest tracked
real well.
Productivity Increase
Coach 17 reported the following when asked the questions, Did your mentor
help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
Coach 17: No.
Perception of the Program
Coach 17 reported a four when asked to rate the effectiveness o f the program
for himself on a one to five scale.
When asked the questions, Would you recommend this experience to others?
Why or why not? Coach 17 responded in the following manner:
Coach 17: Yes. I think it’s both a good mentoring program, which gives one a
sense of satisfaction, as well as it broadens horizons.
Advice was given from Coach 17 when asked the question, What one thing
would you tell a learner (asked o f leamers)/coach (asked o f coaches) to help them to be
successful in this program?
Coach 17: Stick with your goals.
Coach 17 responded as follows to the question: What did you like best about
the experience?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
Coach 17: Probably should have had perhaps meetings with other mentors to
think about better ways o f dealing with some issues.
Feedback regarding what learner and coach did not like about the experience
was given. The question asked was: What did you like least about the experience?
Coach 17:1 don’t know that there was anything I liked least.
Feedback regarding improvement to the program was asked o f the coach.
The question asked was, In what ways would you improve the experience?
Coach 17: Perhaps more frequent meetings.
Finally, a question was asked to assess lessons learned of Coach 17:
Coach 17: That people change and go in different directions and it’s important to
help them to do that.
Developmental Impact
Coach 17 was asked to rate her developmental impact on her learner by
responding to the question: On a one to five scale, with five being high, how would
you rate how well you feel you helped your learner to grow and develop?
Coach 17: Four.
Coach 17 was asked, What developmental opportunities has your learner
provided you?
Coach. 17: One was learning how to help someone, I mean kind o f developing a
little more rigorous or formalized process of how to achieve a subset o f goals
within the Senior Analyst area. Two was finding out how to put her in contact, or
put someone in contact with appropriate resources that could assist her in areas
where I wasn’t the best.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
143
In addition, Coach 17 was asked: What is the single best thing your learner did for
you?
Coach 17: Helped me better understand, conceptualize, and find resources to do
some teaching/consulting activities.
Recommendations for a Gallup Company-wide Program
Coach 17 gave recommendations for expansion of this program company wide.
Responses to the questions: Should this program be available to Gallup associates
company-wide? If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not? were as follows:
Coach 17:1 would say yes. Not that I can think of, though they out to be — I mean
the program itself, or parts o f it, probably ought to be geared to specific
individuals. I could certainly see where someone starts at a given level or a given
position, starts doing some things, gains some experiences, decides to make a
transition to a different area, or let’s say where there might be now a better mentor
fit.
Coach-Leamer Match
Three questions were asked o f Coach 17 to explore the effectiveness of the
matching tool. The three questions were: On a one to five scale with five being high, how
successful do you think the matching process was with your learner? If you had to do it
all over again, would you be a coach to this same person.
Why or why not?
Coach 17: I’d put it at a three or four. Yes. Well, part o f it is it’s just fun to help
somebody grow. Another part of it is that she grew in a different direction than
she initially desired. And helping her, at least seeing her go through that
transition, then being able to re-map appropriate experiences was kind of fun.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
In addition, the proximity analysis results o f learner to coach in six areas were: (a)
talent = .252, (b) coaching style = .620, (c) processes/products = .702, (d) applications =
no results, (e) research techniques = no results, (f) industry expertise = -.265.
Conclusion and Discussion
Case Coach-Leamer Pair 17 was hard to analyze because Learner 17 did not
complete the in-depth interview. The observation can be made that Coach 17 had a
fulfilling, positive experience with his learner in the program; however, no data are
available to judge whether or not Learner 17 felt the same. Coach 17 indicated
positive perceptions regarding the program and his relationship with his learner. He also
offered some suggestions for improving the program. Coach 17 did make gains
developmentally as a result o f his relationship with his learner; however, he did not make
gains in his productivity. Coach 17 indicated she would like to see the program offered to
other associates at Gallup with some modifications. Finally, the learner may have used
the proximity data to choose her coach as two of the areas were above the .5 correlation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter summarizes the research design and findings from this study. In-
depth interview data were collected from respondents in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program. The data were
analyzed and categorized into six areas: report of goals met, productivity increase,
perception o f program, developmental impact, recommendations for a Gallup company-
wide program, and coach-leamer match. These six areas directly correlated to eight sub
questions, which narrowed the focus of the study and helped to answer the two grand tour
questions. In addition, data from a proximity-matching instrument completed by 16 of the
17 were analyzed.
Statement of Purpose
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a Gallup
designed professional development mentoring program for Gallup analysts and in-depth
interviewers.
Research Questions
The following grand tour research questions guided the investigation o f this study:
1. How will the Gallup Professional Development Program affect
participants?
2. What modifications to the program should be made when the Gallup
Professional Development Program is rolled out company-wide?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
The following sub-questions narrowed the focus o f this study and helped to
answer the two grand tour questions:
1. Will learners and coaches report learners met their goals for 1997 as a
result of their participation in the Gallup Professional Development
Mentoring Program?
2. Will learner and coach’s productivity increase as a result of their
participation in the program?
3. Will learners’ and coaches’ overall experience with the program be
positive?
4. Will learners and coaches feel like they had a developmental impact on
each other?
5. Will the matching instrument have an effect on the outcome of the coach-
leamer relationship?
Methodology and Participants
Two instruments were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Gallup
Professional Development Mentoring Program. A summative evaluation method was
used and served the purpose of rendering an overall judgment about the effectiveness of
the program. This form o f evaluation was used because it has the greatest potential of
being generalizable to other situations (Patton, 1990). This was an important factor in this
pilot study, as it may lead to a decision to expand this program to other areas of The
Gallup Organization. Please see the questionnaire as a part o f Appendix A.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The 50 item post-qualitative in-depth interview with each participant was
designed to help evaluate both learner and coach ’ experience with the program.
Specifically, the in-depth questionnaire asked questions related to learner goal attainment
as a result o f the program, learner and coach productivity increase, level o f positivity
regarding coach and learner experience with the program, coach’s developmental impact
on the learner, learner’s developmental impact on coach, and validation for a company
wide The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program.
Three demographic questions and 47 questions in the body of the interview. The
were told in the introduction that their answers would remain confidential and would be
grouped together with no names attached to the data. In addition, they were told that their
data would be used as dissertation research. Furthermore, they were informed that the
interview would take them anywhere from Vi hour to 1 hour to complete, depending on
how they answered. Finally they were asked by the interviewer for their permission to
record the interview, so that it could be transcribed for further examination. All
interviews were completed over the phone and were conducted by Sue Bath, the primary
dissertation researcher; Karen Bums, who was interested in the mentoring topic as part of
her master’s work; and by Kerry Davis, who partnered with Sue Bath on projects at
Gallup. All tapes were transcribed by a confidential transcriptionist in Gallup’s
transcription department. Each of the 34 post-qualitative in-depth interviews collected
were transcribed and the researcher analyzed text by case pair, in the study were given a
357-item matching instrument. The matching instrument assessed talent (66 items),
coaching style (28 items), processes/products (78 items), applications/programs (66
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
items), research techniques (28 items), and industry experience (91 items) in a forced
response questionnaire format. The matching instrument was designed as a tool to help
learner to select their best coach match.
Correlations were run on the matching instrument sections giving both coach and
learner their ranked correlation to each other in each of the six areas. Learners then used
these data as a tool to select their coach.
The Learners
The opportunity to be a learner in The Gallup Professional Development
Mentoring Program was given to all Gallup talent management analysts and in-depth
interviewers. The learner sample, who chose to participate and who were asked to
evaluate their experience, was comprised o f 17 Gallup Strength Management Analysts
and in-depth interviewers. Nine o f the learners were women and eight were men. The
range o f length of service with Gallup varied greatly. Ranging from 6 months to 15 years.
The Coaches
Coaches were asked by the developers o f the program to take part based on
their level o f experience with Gallup strength management practices, past experience, and
success in a developmental role. The coach sample, who were asked to participate and
elected to do so, were asked to evaluate their experience. This group was comprised o f 12
Gallup Strength Management Analysts. Ten o f the coaches were women and two were
men. The range o f length o f service with Gallup varied from 6 years to 25 years.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
There were pieces of missing data throughout the study as a result o f either
coaches or learners not completing either the in-depth interview or the proximity analysis.
There was one learner who did not complete the proximity analysis. Consequently,
making analysis of the match impossible. In addition, there were two learners who did
not complete the in-depth interview, with one refusing and the other being unavailable for
contact after several interview attempts. Further, there was one coach who did not
complete the in-depth interview after several interviewer attempts. These three missing
in-depth interviews prevented the researcher from analyzing three data sets.
Major Findings for Sub-questions
Question 1: Will learners and coaches report learners met their goals for 1997 as a result
o f their participation in The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program?
The findings in this area reveal that less than half of all in the study reported that
learners met their goals for 1997. Eleven of the learners indicated either that they did not
set goals or they set them, but did not meet them. Four indicated that they either met all
of their goals or set or met some of their goals. Nine of the coaches indicated that they did
not set goals or that they set them, but did not meet them. Seven of the coaches indicated
that they either met all of their goals or set or met some of their goals. Table 1
summarizes these findings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
Table 1
Summary o f Major Finding for Learner Goals Met
Set &
Met
Not
Set
Some
Met
Set
Lose
&Met
Set &
Not
Met
Data
N/A
Tol
Learners 3 10 1 0 1 1 17
Coaches 5 8 1 1 1 1 17
Totals 8 18 2 1 2 3 34
The major finding as a result o f this analysis was that 35% of coaches and learners
reported that learner goals for 1997 were met as a result of their participation in The
Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program.
Question 2: Will learner and coach’s productivity increase as a result of their
participation in the program?
The findings from this area o f study reveal that the nine o f the 17 learners and six
of the 17 coaches said that their productivity did increase as a result of the program. Six
out of the 17 learners and 10 out of the 17 coaches said that their productivity did not
increase as a result of the program. There were three participants where no data were
available. Table 2 summarizes these findings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
Table 2
Summary o f Major Finding for Learner and Coach Productivity Increase
Prod. Prod. No Data N/A Totals
Learners 9 6 2 17
Coaches 6 10 1 17
Totals 15 16 3 34
The major finding as a result o f this analysis was that 48% o f coaches and learners
reported that their productivity went up as a result of their participation in The Gallup
Professional Development Mentoring Program.
Question 3:Will learners’ and coaches’ overall experience with the program be positive?
The findings for this area reveal that 11 of the learners indicated throughout the
interview that their experience was positive, one learner indicated that he/she was
positive about the program itself, but not about their relationship with the coach; two
learners indicated that they were positive about their relationship with their coach, but not
about the program design itself, one indicated that he/she was positive about the
relationship with their coach and about the program as an on-looker (meaning that they
did not use the workbook or program outline); and two learners did not have data to
report. In addition, 10 of the coaches indicated throughout their interview that their
experience was positive; two responded that they were positive about the program, not
their relationship with their learner, three responded that they were positive about their
relationship with their learner, but not positive about the program design itself; one
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
indicated he/she was positive about the relationship with the coach and about the program
as an on-looker (meaning that they did not use the workbook or program outline); and
one coach did not have data to report. Table 3 summarizes these findings.
Table 3
Summary o f Major Findings for Learner and Coach Positivity Toward Program
Positive Positive
Program
Positive
Rel.
Positive
Rel. &
Data
N/A
Totals
Learners 11 1 2 1 2 17
Coaches 10 2 3 1 1 17
Totals 21 3 5 2 3 34
The major finding as a result of this analysis was that all o f the coaches and learners who
completed the in-depth interview reported positive perceptions regarding the program.
Some were positive regarding all facets of the program, including their relationship with
their coach or learner and others were positive only about either the program design or
their relationship with their coach or learner. However, overall positive perceptions were
reported from all participants.
Question 4: Will learners and coaches feel like they had a developmental impact on each
other?
The findings for this area reveal that 12 learners felt they had a developmental
impact on their coach, two felt they did not have a developmental impact on their coach,
one said very little and two learners had no data to report. Eleven coaches revealed that
that they had a developmental impact on their learner, four felt they did not have a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
developmental impact on their learner, one said very little and one coach had no data to
report. Table 4 summarizes these findings.
Table 4
Summary of Major Findings for Learner and Coach Developmental Impact on Each
Other
Dev. No Dev. Very
Little
Data N/A Totals
Learners 12 2 1 2 17
Coaches 11 4 1 1 17
Totals 23 6 2 3 34
The major finding, as a result of this analysis was that 74% of coaches and
learners who completed the in-depth interview reported that they felt they had a
developmental impact on one another.
Question 5: What areas of proximity were used to match coach-leamer pairs?
The findings for this area reveal that coaching style was the most prevalent area o f
proximity used by learners to select their coaches with an overall correlation average of
.57. Industry expertise is ranked second with an overall correlation match of .36.
Processes and Products is ranked third with an overall correlation match of .29. Talent
ranked fourth with an overall correlation match of .19. Neither the research nor
applications had a large enough reporting sample size to render a ranking. Table 5
summarizes these correlations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
Table 5
Summary o f Major Findings for Coach-Leamer Proximity for Match
Talent Coach P&P Appl. Res. Indust.
Pair 1 .873 .612 -.428 No res. No res. No res.
Pair 2 .386 .903 .144 No res. No res. No res.
Pair 3 .150 .6273 .294 No res. No res. No res.
Pair 4 -.433 .805 .578 -.060 .634 .315
Pair 5 -.257 .576 .615 .587 No res. .559
Pair 6 .418 .526 .644 No res. No res. .609
Pair 7 No res. No res. No res. No res. No res. No res.
Pair 8 .327 .419 .361 No res. No res. .250
Pair 9 -.119 .154 .240 No res. No res. No res.
Pair 10 -.457 .700 .489 No res. No res. .149
Pair 11 .765 .433 .685 No res. No res. .526
Pair 12 .250 .103 .685 No res. No res. .731
Pair 13 .172 .795 .675 .331 No res. .611
Pair 14 .436 .535 No res. No res. No res. No res.
Pair 15 .189 .512 .665 No res. .366 .189
Pair 16 .225 .817 .226 No res. .590 .380
Pair 17 .252 .620 .702 No res. No res. -.265
Corr.
Average
.1985 .5710 .2923 .2860 .5300 .3685
The major finding, as a result of this analysis was that coaching style emerged as
the leading proximity area which learners may have used as criteria to select their coach.
The research does not confirm which learners used the proximity analysis data to choose
their coach; however, if they did use the proximity data, they would have noted coaching
style most often as their highest correlation in proximity to their coach.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Major Findings for Grand Tour Questions
The analysis narrowed the focus of this study and helped to answer the two grand
tour questions. In this section, after analyzing each coach-leamer pair in detail, the
following tables are used to summarize the data. Further, following each table,
conclusions are made for the two grand tour questions.
Question 1: How will The Gallup Professional Development Program affect participants?
Question 2: What modifications to the program should be made when The Gallup
Professional Development Program is rolled out company-wide?
Table 6
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 1 Summary of Findings
Goals
Met
Prod.
Up
Positive Dev. Imp. Expand Match
Learner
1
All Yes Yes Yes Yes Talent &
Coaching
Style
Coach 1 All Yes Yes Yes Yes Talent &
Coaching
style
The analysis of Case Leamer-Coach Pair 1 leads us to the following conclusions, which
help to answer the two grand tour questions o f this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Coach
Learner Pair 1 in a positive way.
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
156
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. Developers of the program should set measurable monthly, and quarterly
objectives for both coaches and learners.
2. Coaches should ask questions of their learner such as Who have you made
connections with over this past month? and How can you grow those
connections?
3. There should be an assessment tool used throughout the program.
4. Ongoing education with both coaches and learners should be
implemented.
Table 7
Case Coach-Leaner Pair 2 Summary of Findings
Goals
Met
Prod. Up Positive Dev.
Imp.
Expand Match
Learner 2 All Yes Yes Yes Yes Coach
Style
Coach 2 All Yes Yes Yes Yes Coach
style
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
The analysis of Case Leamer-Coach Pair 2 leads us to the following conclusions,
which help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 2 in a positive way.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. There needs to be some check-in with the administrators of the program.
2. The matching instrument should be more defined, and we could be using
StrengthsFinder. The matching instrument could be linked to
StrengthsFinder so it could be a part o f all o f our practices.
Table 8
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 3 Summary of Findings
Goals
Met
Prod. Up. Positive Dev.
Imp.
Expand Match
Learner 3 Did not
set
Yes Yes Yes Yes Coach
Style
Coach 3 Met 1/7 No Yes No Yes Coach
style
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
The analysis o f Case Leamer-Coach Pair 3 leads us to the following conclusions, which
help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 3 in a positive way.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. Offer the program to Gallup Associates who are not located in Lincoln.
2. Provide assessment throughout the program.
3. Provide on-going education for both coach and learner
Table 9
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 4 Summary of Findings
Goals
Met
Prod. Up Positive Dev.
Imp.
Expand Match
Learner
4
Set and
met some
Yes Yes Yes Yes Coach
Style
Coach 4 Did not
set
No Yes,
about
program
No Yes Coach
style
The analysis of Case Leamer-Coach Pair 4 leads us to the following conclusions, which
help to answer the two grand tour questions o f this study:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 4 in a positive way. However, Coach 4 was more positive about the
program itself than about her learner.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. Learners will need to set their own goals and talk about them.
2. Coaches and learners will need to commit to the program and not feel like
it is something that they have to do, but rather they want to do.
Table 10
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 5 Summary of Findings
Goals Met Prod. Up Positiv
e
Dev.
Imp.
Expand Match
Learner
5
Did not
set
Yes Yes,
about
prog.
No Yes All but
Talent
Coach 5 Set and
met
Yes Yes Yes Yes All but
Talent
The analysis of Case Leamer-Coach Pair 5 leads us to the following conclusions, which
help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 5 in a positive way. However, Learner 5 indicated positivity regarding
the program itself, rather than towards her experience with her coach.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. There should be careful consideration of who is asked to be a mentor.
2. There should be a careful matching process that is more controlled by
administrators of the program.
3. The program length should be changed to 6 to 9 months, rather than a
year.
Table 11
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 6 Summary o f Findings
Goals Met Prod.
Up
Pos. Dev.
Imp.
Expan Match
Learner
6
Did not
set
No Yes,
about
relatio
Yes Yes Coach,
Proc/Pr., Ind.
Exd.
Coach 6 Set loose
goals and
met
Yes Yes Yes Yes Coach,
Proc/Pr., Ind.
Ex d.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
The analysis of Case Coach-Leamer Pair 6 leads us to the following conclusions, which
help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 6 in a positive way. However, Learner 6 indicated positivity regarding
the relationship with her coach, rather than the program.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. Expectations should be set for learners and coaches.
2. Coaches and learners should meet half-way through the program to
recommit themselves.
3. The program should be streamlined and simplified.
4. Administrators should help coaches and learners to learn more about
themselves before beginning the program.
5. Improvements should be made to the organization o f final presentations.
6. The program length should be changed to three months, rather than a year.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
Table 12
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 7 Summary o f Findings
Goal
Met
Prod. Up Positive Dev.
Imp.
Exp. Match
Learner
7
Did
not
set.
Yes Yes, about
relation.
Yes Yes Effective.
Did not use
prox.
analysis.
Coach 7 Did
not
set
Yes Yes, about
relation.
Yes Yes Effective.
Did not use
prox.
analysis
The analysis o f Case Leamer-Coach Pair 7 leads us to the following conclusions, which
help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 7 in a positive way. However, both coach and learner indicated that
they did not follow the structured program format.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. Consider the associate’s travel schedules and different modes of
communication between coach and learner.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
2. Provide enough structure so that the coaches and learners know what, why
and how to do it, and then let the coaches and learners customize their own
program.
Table 13
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 8 Summary o f Findings
Goals
Met
Prod.
Up
Postitive Dev. Imp. Exp. Match
Learner
8
Did not
set.
No Yes Yes Yes Prox.
Anal not
used.
Coach 8 Did not
set
No Yes, about
relation.
No Yes Prox.
Anal,
not used
The analysis of Case Leamer-Coach Pair 8 leads us to the following conclusions,
which help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 8 in a positive way. However, the coach indicated positivity regarding
the relationship with her learner, rather than the program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. The program should be tightly administered.
2. Present many of the program pieces as optional. Let coaches and learners
pick and choose and customize their own program.
3. Make the program more formalized.
4. Make sure the program fits with the coach’s and learner’s schedules.
5. Administration should check in with coaches and learners throughout the
program.
6. Career Boards should play a part in the program.
Table 14
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 9 Summary of Findings
Goals Met Prod. Up Positive Dev. Imp. Exp. Match
Learner
9
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
match
Coach 9 Did not
set
No Some,
more
about
program
Very little Yes No
match
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
The analysis o f Case Leamer-Coach Pair 9 leads us to the following conclusions, which
help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 9 in a less than positive way. However, missing Learner 9 interview
data prevent the researcher from evaluating the experience of the learner.
• Coach 9 indicated positivity regarding the program itself, rather than towards her
experience with her learner.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. The program should be made available at different points in time, rather
than across the board. Times when it might be made available would be
when someone is changing jobs or thinking about repositioning
themselves.
2. Coaches and learners should be matched around the natural activities of
their job as opposed to not having a lot of cross over that creates contact.
3. The performances ought to be tied together from the coach and the learner.
4. There needs to be more coaching, advising, and time for interaction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
Table 15
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 10 Summary o f Findings
Goals
Met
Prod. Up Positive Dev. Imp. Exp. Match
Learner
10
Set and
met
No Yes Yes Yes Coach
style
Coach 10 Set, not
met
No Yes, less
than
Yes, less
than
Yes Coach
style
The analysis of Case Leamer-Coach Pair 8 leads us to the following conclusions,
which help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 10 in a positive way. However, Learner 10 indicated a more positive
experience than her coach.
The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. Six month assessments should be done with coaches and learners
following the program commencement.
2. Career Board involvement with the program is needed.
3. Quarterly group meetings should be set with coaches and learners.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
4. Quarterly expectations should be set for coaches and learners.
5. A structure for sustaining the coach-leamer relationship throughout the
program should be developed.
6. Clear expectations between coach and learner need to be set at the onset of
the program.
Table 16
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 11 Summary of Findings
Goals
Met
Prod. Up Positive Dev. Imp. Exp. Match
Learner
11
Did not
set
No Yes Very little Yes Talent,
P&P,
Ind. Exp.
Coach
11
Set and
met
No Yes Yes Yes Talent,
P&P,
Ind. Exp.
The analysis of Case Leamer-Coach Pair 11 leads us to the following conclusions,
which help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 11 in a positive way. However, Coach 11 indicated a more positive
experience than her learner.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. The program should be offered to new associates only because of its
usefulness in forming relationships.
2. Include other types of recognition as part of the program to sustain
momentum.
3. Shorten the period of time for the program.
Table 17
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 12 Summary of Findings
Goals Met Prod. Up Positive Dev. Imp. Exp. Match
Learner
12
Did not
set
Yes Yes Yes, more
client
work
Yes P&P,
Ind.
Exp.
Coach
12
Did not
set
No Yes Yes, more
client
work
Yes P&P,
Ind.
Exp.
The analysis of Case Leamer-Coach Pair 12 leads us to the following conclusions, which
help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 12 in a positive way. However, the program may not have had as
much effect as the relationship that was formed between coach and learner while
working on client projects.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. Have shorter-term objectives and regular benchmarks.
2. Get coaches and learners together as a group to share successes along the
way.
3. Shorten the period of time for the program.
4. Consider making the relationship a triad, rather than a duet. This third
person would be overseeing the program and meeting with both the coach
and learner to help them stay on track.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
Table 18
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 13 Summary o f Findings
Goals
Met
Prod. Up Positive Dev.
Imp.
Exp. Match
Learner
13
Yes, not
met
Yes Yes Yes Yes Coachin
g style,
P&P.
Coach 13 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Coachin
g style,
P&P.
The analysis o f Case Leamer-Coach Pair 13 leads us to the following conclusions, which
help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 13 positively. However, missing Coach 13 interview data prevented
the researcher from evaluating the experience o f the coach.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. The coach should have the responsibility of holding the learner
accountable for meeting goals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
Table 19
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 14 Summary o f Findings
Goals
Met
Prod. Up Positive Dev.
Imp.
Expand Match
Learner
14
Did not
set
Yes Yes,
onlooker
Yes Yes Coach
style
Coach
14
Set and
met
Yes Yes,
onlooker
Yes Yes Coach
style
The analysis of Case Leamer-Coach Pair 14 leads us to the following conclusions,
which help to answer the two grand tour questions o f this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 14 in a positive way. However, the pair did not follow the program
using the workbook, but were very positive as onlookers.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. Match coaches and learners based on relationship. There is no need for the
computerized matching system.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
2. Let coaches and learners create their own mentoring program.
Individualize to their needs.
Table 20
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 15 Summary of Findings
Goals
Met
Prod. Up Positive Dev.
Imp.
Expand Match
Learner
15
Did not
set
Yes Yes Yes Yes Coach
style,
P&P
Coach
15
Did not
set
No Yes Yes Yes Coach
style,
P&P
The analysis of Case Leamer-Coach Pair 15 leads us to the following conclusions,
which help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Leamer-
Coach Pair 15 in a positive way.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. Coaches need to be more responsible for initiating meetings, activities and
goal setting.
2. Revamp the program for changing roles.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
3. The program should be voluntary.
4. Managers/Supervisors should not serve as coaches to their direct reports.
Table 21
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 16 Summary o f Findings
Goals Met Prod. Up Positive Dev Expand Match
Learner
16
Did not
set
No Yes Yes Yes Coach
style,
Researc
Coach 16 Did not
set
No Yes,
about
program
No Yes Coach
style,
Res.
The analysis of Case Leamer-Coach Pair 16 leads us to the following conclusions,
which help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Learner 16 in
a positive way and Coach 16 in a less than positive way.
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. The program should be voluntary.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174
2. Coaches and learners need to speak up if the relationship is not working
out or if they are not feeling committed.
3. A commitment to the program needs to be made by both coach and
learner.
Table 22
Case Leamer-Coach Pair 17 Summary o f Findings
Goals Prod. Up Positive Dev. Expand Match
Learner
17
M S N/A N/A tat N/A Coaching
style,
P&P
Coach
17
Did not
set
No Yes Yes Yes Coaching
style,
P&P
The analysis o f Case Leamer-Coach Pair 17 leads us to the following conclusions, which
help to answer the two grand tour questions of this study:
• The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program affected Coach 17 in a
positive way. However, missing Learner 17 interview data prevented the
researcher from evaluating the experience of the learner.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
• The following modifications should be made to the Professional Development
Mentoring Program when rolling it out company-wide:
1. If an associate makes a transition to another area o f Gallup business, the
learner should be given the freedom to choose another coach.
Conclusions
The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program had a positive effect
on many of the participating coaches and learners. For learners the effects most often
mentioned were: new or renewed friendships, increased productivity and quality, goal
attainment, support, a better understanding o f Gallup’s business and self-discovery. For
coaches the effects most often mentioned were the following: new friendships, increased
productivity and quality, self-discovery, a chance to develop someone else, discovery of
Gallup’s business.
The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program should be offered as a
company-wide program at Gallup with all of the following modifications:
1. Developers of the program should set measurable monthly and quarterly
objectives for both coaches and learners.
2. Coaches should ask questions of learners such as: Who have you made
connections with over this past month? How can you grow those connections?
3. There should be an assessment tool used throughout the program.
4. Ongoing education with both coaches and learners should be implemented.
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
5. The matching instrument should be more defined, and Gallup could use
StrengthsFinder. The matching instrument could be linked to StrengthsFinder
so it could be a part of all of their practices.
6. The program should be offered to Gallup Associates who are not located in
Lincoln.
7. Learners need to set their own goals and talk about them.
8. Coaches and learners need to commit to the program and not feel that it is
something they have to do, but rather they want to do.
9. There should be careful consideration o f who is asked to be a mentor.
10. There should be a careful matching process that is more controlled by
administrators o f the program.
11. Expectations should be set for learners and coaches.
12. Coaches and learners should meet halfway through the program to re-commit
themselves.
13. Streamline the program. Simplify it.
14. Administrators should help coaches and learners to learn more about
themselves before beginning the program.
15. Improvements should be made to the organization of final presentations.
16. Change the program length to 3 months, rather than a year.
17. Consider the associate’s travel schedules and different modes of
communication between coach and learner.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
18. Present many of the program pieces as optional. Let coaches and learners pick and
choose and customize their own program.
19. Make the program more formalized.
20. Make sure the program fits with the coaches’ and learners’ schedules.
21. Administration should check in with coaches and learners throughout the
program.
22. Career Boards should play a part in the program.
23. The program should be made available at different points in time, rather than
across the board. Times when it might be made available include when someone
is changing jobs or thinking about repositioning themselves.
24. Coaches and learners should be matched around the natural activities o f their job
as opposed to not having a lot of cross over that creates contact.
25. The performances goals for both the coach and learner ought to be tied together.
26. There should be more coaching, advising, and time for interaction.
27. Quarterly group meetings should be held with coaches and learners.
28. Quarterly expectations should be set for coaches and learners.
29. A structure for sustaining the coach-leamer relationship should be implemented
throughout the program.
30. Clear expectations between coach and learner need to be set at the on-set of the
program.
31. The program should be offered to new associates only because of its usefulness in
forming relationships.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
32. Include other types of recognition as part o f the program to sustain momentum.
33. Consider making the relationship a triad, rather than a duet. This third person
would be overseeing the program and meeting with both the coach and learner to
help them stay focused.
34. The coach should have the responsibility o f holding the learner accountable for
meeting goals.
35. Revamp the program for changing roles.
36. Managers/Supervisors should not serve as coaches to their direct reports.
37. Coaches and learners need to speak up if the relationship is not working out or if
they are not feeling committed.
38. If an associate makes a transition to another area o f Gallup business, the learner
should be given the freedom to choose another coach.
Recommendations for Further Research
Implementation of The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program in
other areas within The Gallup Organization is probable. Before taking this next step,
further research needs to be completed. Recommendations for further research are
outlined below.
Matching Instrument Research
The current proximity analysis matching instrument used in this study should be
integrated with the Gallup StrengthsFinder Instrument. Gallup has streamlined all of its
talent research into the StrengthsFinder instrument and joining the proximity analysis
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
matching instrument will help to make on-going discoveries. A study o f successful
coach-leamer pairs, such as data from this study and from other empirical research, may
help in this effort. In addition, the mentoring perceiver, developed by The Gallup
Organization, may also be helpful in this development.
Focus Groups
Focus groups with Gallup Supervisors or Managers to assess strategy for
implementation of The Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program should
be completed before implementation. Items to consider will be implementation in
domestic versus international city centers, full time associates versus part-time
interviewer associates, time involvement, selection of coaches, workbook customization,
involvement of supervisors and managers, length of program and measurement criteria.
All Company On-line Survey
Another assessment to consider is an on-line survey to gather opinions from all
Gallup associates. The same types of questions which would be asked o f the managers
and supervisors in the focus groups would be asked in order to plan a strategy for
implementation.
On-site Visits
Visits to organizations who have an established mentoring program, which has
been deemed successful, would be helpful for future implementation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
Bibliography
Bachm an, S. I., & Gregory, K., (1993). Mentoring and Protege Gender: Effects on
Mentoring Roles and Outcomes. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology Conference, San Francisco.
Baugh, S. G., Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (1996). An Investigation of the
Effects of Protege Gender on Responses to Mentoring, Journal o f Vocational
Behavior, 49, 309-323.
Berlew, D. E., & Hall, D. T., (1966) The Socialization of Managers: Effects of
Expectations on Performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 207-23
Bolton, E. (1980). A Conceptual Analysis of the Mentor Relationship in the Career
Development of Women, Adult Education, 30(4), 195-207.
Bowen, D. B. (1982). On Considering Aspects of the Mentoring Process, Behavior
Today, 13(15), 4-5.
Bowen, D. B. (1985). Were Men Meant to Mentor Women? Training and Development,
39 (2), 31-34.
Burke, R. J. (1984). Mentors in Organizations, Group and Organization Studies, 9(3),
353-372.
Carden, A .D. (1990). Mentoring and Adult Career Development: The Evolution of a
Theory, The Counseling Psychologist, 18(2), 275-299.
Carter, S. (1994). The Development Implementation and Evaluation o f a Mentoring
Scheme, Industrial and Commercial Training, 26(7), 16-23.
Chao, G. T., Gardner, P. D., & Walz, P.M. (1992). Formal and Informal Mentorships: A
Comparison on Mentoring Functions and Contrast with Nonmentored
Counterparts, Personnel Psychology, 45(13), 619-636.
Clawson, J. G. (1980). Mentoring in Managerial Careers, in C. B. Deer, (Ed.) Work
Family and Career, New York: Praeger.
Clawson, J. G. (1985). Is Mentoring Necessary? Training and Development Journal, 5,
36-39.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
Clifton, D. O. (1999). The Basics o f Mentoring, The Gallup Globe: Leading Edge,
Summer 1999,4-5.
Collins, E., & Scott, P. (1978). Everyone Who Makes It Has a Mentor, Harvard Business
Review, 56(4), 89-101.
Cunningham, J .B. (1993). Characteristics of the Mentoring Experience: A Qualitative
Study, Personnel Review, 22(4), 55-66.
Dalton, G. W., Thompson, P .H., & Price, R. C. (1977). Four Stages of Professional
Careers - A New Look at Performance Professionals, Organizational Dynamics,
19-42.
Darby, M. (1999). Mentoring: Buzzword or Breakthrough? Published in NEN-Nurses
Empowering Nurses, abstracted from the internet, 12/12/99.
Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A Comparitive Study of Mentoring Among Men and
Women in Managerial, Professional, and Technical Positions, Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 75, 539-546.
Edmeier, H., & Hart, A. W. (1992). The Effects o f a Career-Ladder Program on School
Organization Process, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(3), 261-
281.
Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The Mentor Advantage: Perceived Career /Job Experiences of
Proteges versus Nonproteges, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10: 309-320.
Ford, D. L., Jr., & Wells, L., Jr. (1985). Upward Mobility Factors Among Black
Administrators: The Role o f Mentors. Centerboard, 2(1): 38-48.
Gaskill L. R. (1993). A Conceptual Framework for the Development, Implementation,
and Evaluation of Formal Mentoring Programs, Journal of Career Development,
20(2), 147-160.
Geiger — DuMond, A. H., & Boyle, S. K. (1995). Mentoring: A Practioner’s Guide,
Training and Development,March, 1995.
Gerstein, M. (1985). Mentoring: An Age Old Practice in a Knowledge-Based Society,
Journal of Counseling and Development, 64(2), 147-160.
Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory Mentoring by Advisors: Relationships
With Doctoral Student Potential, Productivity, & Commitment, Personnel
Psychology, 48(3), 537-561.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
Henderson, D. (1985). Enlighted Mentoring: A Characteristic of Public Management
Professionalism. Public Administration Review, 45(6), 857-863.
Henning, M., & Jardin, A. (1977). The Managerial Woman.New York: Doubleday.
Jackson, C. (1993). Mentoring: Choices for Individuals and Organizations, The
International Journal of Career Management 5(1), 10-16.
Johnson, J., Simpson, J. C., Williams, M. L., & Kotarba, J. A. (1993). New Career Model
Revisted: The Importance of Mentoring, Journal o f Employment Counseling,
30(2), 55-66.
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). Demographic Similiarity to the Work Group: A Longitudinal
Study of Managers at the Early Career Stage, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
jb , 67-83.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Chappell, D., & Ringer, R. C. (1984). Correlates and
Consequences o f Protege Mentoring In a Large Hospital. Group and Organization
Management. 19: 219-239.
Kram, K. (1980). Mentoring Process at Work: Developmental Relationships in
Managerial Careers (Doctoral dissertation. Yale University, 1980) Dissertation
Abstracts International, 41(05), 1960B.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at Work:Developmental Relationships in Organization
Life, University Press of America, Lanham.Kram, K. E. (1986). Mentoring in the
Workplace, in D. T. Hall et al., (Eds), Career Development in Organizations.
SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawrie, J. (1987). How to Establish a Mentoring Program, Training and Development
Journal, 39, 25-27.
Levinson, D., Darrow, C., Klein, M., Levinson, M., & McKee, B. (1978). Seasons o f a
Man’s Life, New York: Knopf.
Lord, R., Foti, R., & Phillips, J. (1981). A Theory of Leadership Categorization, In J.
Hunt, U. Sekeran, & E. C. Schriescheim (Eds.) Leadership: Beyond
Establishment Views. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and Proteges: A Critical Review of the Literature, Adult
Education Quarterly, 33(3), 161-173.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183
Merriam, S. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Orzek, A. M. (1984). Mentor-mentee March in Training Programs Based on Clikering’s
Vectors in Development, Clinical Supervisor, 2*1), 71-77.
OstrofF, C., & Kozowski, S. W. J. (1993). The Role of Mentoring In the Information
Gathering Processes of Newcomers During Early Organizational Socialization.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42: 170-183.
P. A. Personnel Services, Management Development and Mentoring: An International
Study, P.A. Personnel Services, London, 1986.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Peters, J., & Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence, New York: Harper & Row.
Pfeifer, J. (1977). Toward An Examination of Stratification In Organizations,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 553-567.
Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentors and Proteges, New York: Arbor House.
Ragins, B. R. (1989). Barriers to Mentoring: The Female Manager’s Dilemma, Human
Relations, 42(1), 1-22.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Easier Said Than Done: Gender Differences In
Perceived Barriers to Gaining a Mentor, Academy o f Management Journal, 34,
939-951.
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1993) Expected Costs and Benefits of Being a Mentor.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial-Organizational
Psychology. San Francisco.
Riley, S., & Wrench, D. (1985). Mentoring Among Women Lawyers, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 15(4), 374-386.
Roche, G. R. (1979). Much Ado About Mentors, Harvard Business Review, 5(7), 14-24.
Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and Career Mobility: An Empirical Investigation.
Journal of Organziational Behavior, 13: 169-174.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
Shapiro, E., Haseline, F., & Rowe, M. (1978). Moving Up: Role Models, Mentors and the
Patron System. Sloan Management Review, 19(3), 51-58.
Shea, G. (1994). Mentoring: Helping Employees Reach Their Full Potential, AMA
Management Pulications Division, abstracted from the Internet 12/12/99.
Stake, R. E., Denny, T, & DeStefano, L., (1989). Perceptions of Effectiveness: Two Case
Studies of a Transition Model Program. Champaign: University o f Illinois,
Transition Institute.
Thomas, D. (1986). An Intra-Organizational Analysis o f Black and White Patterns of
Sponsorship and the Dynamics of Cross-Racial Mentoring, Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Whitely, W., & Coetsier, P. (1993). The Relationship of Career Mentoring to Early
Career Outcomes, Organization Studies, 14(3), 419-441.
Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1991). Relationships of Career
Mentoring and Socioeconomic Origin to Managers and Professionals’ Early
Career Progress. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 331-351.
Yoder, J., Adams, J., & Prince, H. (1983). The Price of a Token, Journal of Political and
Military Sociology, 11, 325-337.
Young, C., MacKenzie, D., & Sherif, C. (1980). In Searcch of Token Women In
Academia, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 508-528.
Zagummy, M. J. (1993). Mentoring As A Tool for Change: A Social Learning
Perspective, Organization Development Journal, 11(4), 43-48.
Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and Leaders: Are They Different? Harvard Business
Review, 55(3), 67-78.
Zey, M. (1984). The Mentor Connection. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A 185
Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program
Questionnaire for Learner
Date of Interview:
Interviewee Name:__________________
Coach Name:_______________________
Name of Interviewer:_______________
Introduction: Thank you for your participation in the Gallup Professional Development
Mentoring Program during 2000. I would like to get your thoughts on your experience with
the program. Please feel free to be candid, as these results will remain confidential and will
be grouped together with no names attached to the data. Your data will be used as research
for a dissertation study being conducted. This interview should take anywhere from Vi hour
to 1 hour, depending on how you answer. Do I have your permission to record this interview
so that it can be transcribed later?
Demographic Information
Do not ask: Gender: Male or Female (circle one)
How many years have you worked for Gallup?_________
What is your current position at Gallup?____________________
How long have you been in this position?___________________
Body of Interview
1. In 2000, how many times did you meet with your coach?
2. How long did you typically meet for?
3. Where did you typically meet?
4. Now think back to your last meeting. Who called it?
5. Where did you meet?
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A 186
6. Please describe it for me. What did you do? What did you talk about?
7. Why did you meet?
8. Did you have a goal for the meeting?
9. If so, what was it? Did you meet it? If not, why not?
10. Did you set monthly goals?
11. How many of these goals did you meet?
12. On a one to five scale, with five being high, please rate your coach on the following
items:
a. responsiveness 1 2 3 4 5
b. credibility 1 2 3 4 5
c. Caring about me
as a person 1 2 3 4 5
13. What developmental opportunities has your coach provided you?
14. On a one to five scale, with five being high, how would you rate the strength of your
friendship? 1 2 3 4 5
15. What words, phrases, or adjectives would you use to describe your relationship with
your coach?
16. Has your coach ever told you anything that was hard for you to accept? If yes, would
you like to share this with me?
17. Did you feel free to express your thoughts and feelings with your coach? If no, why
not?
18. On a one to five scale, with five being high, how would you rate how well you feel
you helped your coach to grow and develop? 1 2 3 4 5
19. Did your coach help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
20. Did your coach help you to understand the mission o f Gallup? If so, how?
21. Do you feel like you were friends with your coach?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A 187
22. Did you socialize with your coach outside of work? If so, how often? In what ways?
23. Think back to your last outing with your coach. What did you do?
24. On a one to five scale, with five being high, how successful do you think the
matching process was with your coach?
25. Did you feel like your relationship with your coach interfered with your relationship
with your manager? If so, how?
26. Were there topics that you felt you could discuss with your coach that you could not
discuss with your manager, and vice versa?
27. Were there times that you were stressed and you shared your feelings with your
coach? Did you also share your feelings with your manager?
28. Is your manager a man or a woman?
29. Did you feel like your coach appreciated you? How about your manager at the time?
30. Did your coach help you out with any issues with your compensation?
31. What is the single best thing your coach did for you?
32. Please finish this sentence for me: The day that I committed to this program, I wish
someone would have told me
33. Did you use the Professional Development Program Workbook? How many times
did you use it?
34. What did you like best about the workbook?
35. What did you like least about the workbook?
36. On a one to five scale, with five being high, how effective do you think this program
has been for you? 1 2 3 4 5
37. Would you recommend this experience to others? If yes, why?
38. What one thing would you tell a leaner to help them to be successful in this program?
39. What did you like best about the experience?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A
40. What did you like least about the experience?
41. In what ways would you improve the experience?
42. What lessons did you leam from your experience?
43. If you had to do it all over again, would you be a coach to this same program''
why? If no, why not?
44. Do you still meet with your coach? If yes, how often?
45. If you still meet, do you talk about your work or personal life, or both?
46. Should this program be available to Gallup associates company-wide?
47. If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not?
Thank you for your time.
188
If yes,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B
189
Gallup Professional Development Mentoring Program
Questionnaire for Coach
Date of Interview:_______________________
Interviewee Name:______________________
Learner Name:__________________________
Name of Interviewer:____________________
Introduction: Thank you for your participation in the Gallup Professional Development
Mentoring Program during 2000. I would like to get your thoughts on your experience with
the program. Please feel free to be candid, as these results will remain confidential and will
be grouped together with no names attached to the data. Your data will be used as research
for a dissertation study being conducted. This interview should take anywhere from V 2 hour
to 1 hour, depending on how you answer. Do I have your permission to record this interview
so that it can be transcribed later?
Demographic Information
Do not ask: Gender: Male or Female (circle one)
How many years have you worked for Gallup?_________
What is your current position at Gallup?_____________________
How long have you been in this position?____________________
Body of Interview
1. In 2000, how many times did you meet with your learner?
2. How long did you typically meet for?
3. Where did you typically meet?
4. Now think back to your last meeting. Who called it?
5. Where did you meet?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B 190
6. Please describe it for me. What did you do? What did you talk about?
7. Why did you meet?
8. Did you have a goal for the meeting?
9. If so, what was it? Did you meet it? If not, why not?
10. Did you set monthly goals?
11. How many of these goals did you meet?
12. On a one to five scale, with five being high, please rate your learner on the following
items:
a. responsiveness 1 2 3 4 5
b. credibility 1 2 3 4 5
c. Caring about me
as a person 1 2 3 4 5
13. What developmental opportunities has your learner provided you?
14. On a one to five scale, with five being high, how would you rate the strength of your
friendship? 1 2 3 4 5
15. What words, phrases, or adjectives would you use to describe your relationship with
your learner?
16. Has your learner ever told you anything that was hard for you to accept? If yes,
would you like to share this with me?
17. Did you feel free to express your thoughts and feelings with your learner? If no, why
not?
18. On a one to five scale, with five being high, how would you rate how well you feel
you helped your learner to grow and develop? 1 2 3 4 5
19. Did your learner help you to increase your productivity? If so, how?
20. Did your learner help you to understand the mission o f Gallup? If so, how?
21. Do you feel like you were friends with your learner?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B
22. Did you socialize with your learner outside of work? If so, how often? In what
ways?
23. Think back to your last outing with your learner. What did you do?
24. On a one to five scale, with five being high, how successful do you think the
matching process was with your learner?
25. Did you feel like your relationship with your learner interfered with your relationship
with your manager? If so, how?
26. Were there topics that you felt you could discuss with your learner that you could not
discuss with your manager, and vice versa?
27. Were there times that you were stressed and you shared your feelings with your
learner? Did you also share your feelings with your manager?
28. Is your manager a man or a woman?
29. Did you feel like your learner appreciated you? How about your manager at the
time?
30. Did your learner help you out with any issues with your compensation?
31. What is the single best thing your learner did for you?
32. Please finish this sentence for me: The day that I committed to this program, I wish
someone would have told m e ___________________________________________.
33. Did you use the Professional Development Program Workbook? How many times
did you use it?
34. What did you like best about the workbook?
35. What did you like least about the workbook?
36. On a one to five scale, with five being high, how effective do you think this program
has been for you? 1 2 3 4 5
37. Would you recommend this experience to others? If yes, why?
38. What one thing would you tell a leaner to help them to be successful in this program?
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B 192
38. What one thing would you tell a leaner to help them to be successful in this program?
39. What did you like best about the experience?
40. What did you like least about the experience?
41. In what ways would you improve the experience?
42. What lessons did you learn from your experience?
43. If you had to do it all over again, would you be a learner to this same program? If
yes, why? If no, why not?
44. Do you still meet with your learner? If yes, how often?
45. If you still meet, do you talk about your work or personal life, or both?
46. Should this program be available to Gallup associates company-wide?
47. If yes, with what modifications? If no, why not?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C 193
Gallup Learner Version
I. Talent
W hat Talents are most important to you in a Coach/Learner Partnership?.
Choose one item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the one that you feel are the most
important talents. You will circle 66 choices in this comparison.
P a ir Item A Item B
1 A. Friendly B. Motivated
2 A. Organized B. Creative
3 A. Aggressive B. Goal Oriented
4 A. Worldly B. Stimulating
5 A. Networker B. Analytical
6 A. Customer Oriented B. Strategic
7 A. Motivated B. Organized
8 A. Creative B. Aggressive
9 A. Organized B. Friendly
10 A. Stimulating B. Networker
11 A. Analytical B. Customer Oriented
12 A. Aggressive B. Organized
13 A. Goal Oriented B. Worldly
14 A. Analytical B. Stimulating
15 A. Networker B. Worldly
16 A. Creative B. Motivated
17 A. Strategic B. Networker
18 A. Goal Oriented B. Creative
19 A. Worldly B. Aggressive
20 A. Stimulating B. Goal Oriented
21 A. Customer Oriented B. Networker
22 A. Friendly B. Creative
23 A. Organized B. Goal Oriented
24 A. Aggressive B. Stimulating
25 A. Worldly B. Analytical
26 A. Networker B. Aggressive
27 A. Creative B. Worldly
28 A. Motivated B. Aggressive
29 A. Friendly B. Strategic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
194
Pair Item A Item B
30 A. Stimulating B. Customer Oriented
31 A. Aggressive B. Friendly
32 A. Worldly B. Organized
33 A. Analytical B. Strategic
34 A. Customer Oriented B. Worldly
35 A. Goal Oriented B. Motivated
36 A. Stimulating B. Creative
37 A. Analytical B. Goal Oriented
38 A. Strategic B. Stimulating
39 A. Friendly B. Goal Oriented
40 A. Organized B. Stimulating
41 A. Aggressive B. Analytical
42 A. Worldly B. Strategic
43 A. Creative B. Networker
44 A. Motivated B. Worldly
45 A. Goal Oriented B. Customer Oriented
46 A. Worldly B. Friendly
47 A. Networker B. Organized
48 A. Customer Oriented B. Aggressive
49 A. Stimulating B. Motivated
50 A. Strategic B. Goal Oriented
51 A. Motivated B. Networker
52 A. Creative B. Customer Oriented
53 A. Friendly B. Stimulating
54 A. Organized B. Analytical
55 A. Aggressive B. Strategic
56 A. Customer Oriented B. Organized
57 A. Goal Oriented B. Networker
58 A. Strategic B. Creative
59 A. Friendly B. Analytical
60 A. Organized B. Strategic
61 A. Motivated B. Customer Oriented
62 A. Creative B. Analytical
63 A. Customer Oriented B. Friendly
64 A. Strategic B. Motivated
65 A. Networker B. Friendly
66 A. Analytical B. Motivated
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
195
II. Coaching Style
What coaching style would be the best for you?
Choose one item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the one that you feel is the best
coaching style for you. You will circle 28 choices in this comparison.
Key:
Non-directive: Expects me to develop the plan
Directive: Lays out the plan for me
Supportive: Personally encourages, compliments, and supports me
Challenging: Challenges me to do more, continually raises the bar
Asks Questions: Continually probes, questions me about my methods and practices
Receptive: Receptive and responsive to my questions and needs
Abstract: Explains ideas in theoretical, conceptual terms
Pair ite m A Item B
1 A. Non-directive B. Concrete
2 A. Supportive B. Challenging
3 A. Receptive B. Asks Questions
4 A. Abstract B. Concrete
5 A. Directive B. Supportive
6 A. Asks Questions B. Challenging
7 A. Receptive B. Abstract
8 A. Supportive B. Non-directive
9 A. Challenging B. Directive
10 A. Asks Questions B. Supportive
11 A. Challenging B. Receptive
12 A. Asks Questions B. Abstract
13 A. Concrete B. Receptive
14 A. Non-directive B. Challenging
15 A. Directive B. Asks Questions
16 A. Supportive B. Receptive
17 A. Non-directive B. Directive
18 A. Abstract B. Challenging
19 A. Receptive B. Directive
20 A. Concrete B. Asks Questions
21 A. Abstract B. Supportive
22 A. Challenging B. Concrete
23 A. Non-directive B. Receptive
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
196
24 A. Directive B. Abstract
25 A. Supportive B. Concrete
26 A. Abstract B. Non-directive
27 A. Concrete B. Directive
28 A. Asks Questions B. Non-directive
III. Processes/Products
Which processes or products are you most interested in learning?
Choose one item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the one that you feel best describes
the processes or products that you are most interested in learning. You will circle 78
choices in this comparison.
P a ir Item A
Item B
1 A. Interview Development B. Analysis
2 A. Theme Dynamics B. Computer Assisted Presentations
3 A. Sales Presentations B. Proposal Writing
4 A. Report Writing B. Marketing
5 A. GWA B. QSA
6 A. Analysis B. Theme Dynamics
7 A. Recruiting B. QSA
8 A. Seminar Leadership B. Sales Presentations
9 A. Proposal Writing B. Report Writing
10 A. Marketing B. GWA
11 A. QSA B. LTA
12 A. Theme Dynamics B. Interview Development
13 A. Report Writing B. Sales Presentations
14 A. QSA B. Report Writing
15 A. LTA B. GWA
16 A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. Analysis
17 A. Seminar Leadership B. Computer Assisted Presentations
18 A. Proposal Writing B. Seminar Leadership
19 A. Marketing B. Proposal Writing
20 A. GWA B. Report Writing
21 A. Sales Presentations B. Recruiting
22 A. Interview Development B. Computer Assisted Presentations
23 A. Theme Dynamics B. Seminar Leadership
24 A. Sales Presentations B. Marketing
25 A. GWA B. Recruiting
26 A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. Sales Presentations
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Appendix C
197
P a ir Item A
Item B
27 A.
Seminar Leadership
B. Report Writing
28 A. Proposal Writing
B. GWA
29 A. Marketing
B. LTA
30 A.
Sales Presentations
B. Theme Dynamics
31 A. Marketing
B. QSA
32 A. GWA
B.
Sales Presentations
33 A. LTA
B. Report Writing
34 A.
Seminar Leadership
B. Analysis
35 A. Proposal Writing
B.
Computer Assisted Presentations
36 A. Marketing
B.
Seminar Leadership
37 A. QSA
B. Proposal Writing
38 A. Recruiting
B. Marketing
39 A.
Interview Development B.
Seminar Leadership
40 A. Theme Dynamics
B. Proposal Writing
41 A. Sales Presentations
B. QSA
42 A. Report Writing
B. Recruiting
43 A. Analysis
B. Sales Presentations
44 A. Computer Assisted Presentations
B. Report Writing
45 A. Seminar Leadership B. GWA
46 A. Proposal Writing
B. LTA
47 A. Sales Presentations B. Interview Development
48 A. Report Writing B. Theme Dynamics
49 A. Sales Presentations B. LTA
50 A. Proposal Writing B. Analysis
51 A. LTA B. Recruiting
52 A. QSA B. Seminar Leadership
53 A. Recruiting B. Proposal Writing
54 A. Analysis B. Report Writing
55 A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. GWA
56 A. Seminar Leadership B. LTA
57 A. Interview Development B. Proposal Writing
58 A. Theme Dynamics B. Marketing
59 A. Analysis B. LTA
60 A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. Recruiting
61 A. Interview Development B. QSA
62 A. GWA B. Theme Dynamics
63 A. Interview Development B. Recruiting
64 A. QSA B. Computer Assisted Presentations
65 A. Recruiting B. Seminar Leadership
66 A. Interview Development B. Marketing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
66 A. Interview Development B.
198
Marketing
67 A. Theme Dynamics B. QSA
68 A. Analysis
B. GWA
69 A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. LTA
70 A. GWA
B. Interview Development
71 A. LTA
B. Theme Dynamics
72 A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. Marketing
73 A. QSA B. Analysis
74 A. Theme Dynamics B. Recruiting
75 A. Report Writing
B. Interview Development
76 A. Marketing B. Analysis
77 A. Interview Development B. LTA
78 A. Analysis B. Recruiting
IV. Applications Programs
Which applications programs are you most interested in learning?
Choose one item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the one that you feel you are most
interested in learning. You will circle 66 choices in this comparison.
Item A Item B
1 A. ESP B. GAPs
2 A. Oracle B. SPSS
3 A. SAS B. Item Analysis
4 A. Excel B. Access
5 A. Forest & Trees B. PowerPoint
6 A. Sharkware B. Internet Applications
7 A. GAPs B. Oracle
8 A. SPSS B. SAS
9 A. Oracle B. ESP
10 A. Access B. Forest & Trees
11 A. PowerPoint B. Sharkware
12 A. SAS B. Oracle
13 A. Item Analysis B. Excel
14 A. PowerPoint B. Access
15 A. Forest & Trees B. Excel
16 A. SPSS B. GAPs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
199
17 A. Internet Applications B. Forest & Trees
18 A. Item Analysis B. SPSS
19 A. Excel B. SAS
20 A. Access B. Item Analysis
21 A. Sharkware B. Forest & Trees
22 A. ESP B. SPSS
23 A. Oracle B. Item Analysis
24 A. SAS B. Access
25 A. Excel B. PowerPoint
26 A. Forest & Trees B. SAS
27 A. SPSS B. Excel
28 A. GAPs B. SAS
29 A. ESP B. Internet Applications
30 A. Access B. Sharkware
31 A. SAS B. ESP
32 A. Excel B. Oracle
33 A. PowerPoint B. Internet Applications
34 A. Sharkware B. Excel
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C 2 0 0
Pair Item A Item B
35 A. Item Analysis B. GAPs
36 A. Access B. SPSS
37 A. PowerPoint B. Item Analysis
38 A. Internet Applications B. Access
39 A. ESP B. Item Analysis
40 A. Oracle B. Access
41 A. SAS B. PowerPoint
42 A. Excel B. Internet Applications
43 A. SPSS B. Forest & Trees
44 A. GAPs B. Excel
45 A. Item Analysis B. Sharkware
46 A. Excel B. ESP
47 A. Forest & Trees B. Oracle
48 A. Sharkware B. SAS
49 A. Access B. GAPs
50 A. Internet Applications B. Item Analysis
51 A. GAPs B. Forest & Trees
52 A. SPSS B. Sharkware
53 A. ESP B. Access
54 A. Oracle B. PowerPoint
55 A. SAS B. Internet Applications
56 A. Sharkware B. Oracle
57 A. Item Analysis B. Forest & Trees
58 A. Internet Applications B. SPSS
59 A. ESP B. PowerPoint
60 A. Oracle B. Internet Applications
61 A. GAPs B. Sharkware
62 A. SPSS B. PowerPoint
63 A. Sharkware B. ESP
64 A. Internet Applications B. GAPs
65 A. Forest & Trees B. ESP
66 A. PowerPoint B. GAPs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
2 0 1
V. Research Techniques
Which Research Techniques are you most interested in learning?
Choose one Item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the Research Technique that you
feel you are most interested in learning. You will circle 28 choices in this comparison.
P air Item A Item B
1 A. MetaAnalysis B. Market Research
2 A. Regression B. ANOVA
3 A. Item Analysis B. Proximity Analysis
4 A. Survey Design B. Market Research
5 A. Correlation B. Regression
6 A. Proximity Analysis B. ANOVA
7 A. Item Analysis B. Survey Design
8 A. Regression B. MetaAnalysis
9 A. ANOVA B. Correlation
10 A. Proximity Analysis B. Regression
11 A. ANOVA B. Item Analysis
12 A. Proximity Analysis B. Survey Design
13 A. Market Research B. Item Analysis
14 A. MetaAnalysis B. ANOVA
15 A. Correlation B. Proximity Analysis
16 A. Regression B. Item Analysis
17 A. MetaAnalysis B. Correlation
18 A. Survey Design B. ANOVA
19 A. Item Analysis B. Correlation
20 A. Market Research B. Proximity Analysis
21 A. Survey Design B. Regression
22 A. ANOVA B. Market Research
23 A. MetaAnalysis B. Item Analysis
24 A. Correlation B. Survey Design
25 A. Regression B. Market Research
26 A. Survey Design B. MetaAnalysis
27 A. Market Research B. Correlation
28 A. Proximity Analysis B. MetaAnalysis
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
2 0 2
VI. Industry Expertise
In what industries do you have the greatest desire to learn?
Choose one item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the one that you feel best describes
your greatest desire to learn. You will circle 91 choices in the comparison.
P air Item A Item B
1 A. Transportation B. Insurance
2 A. Financial/Banking/Brokerage B. Retail
3 A. Oil and Gas
B. Telecommunications
4 A. Hotel B. Restaurant
5 A. High Tech/Aerospace B. Entertainment
6 A. Medical/Pharmaceutical B. Government
7 A. Insurance
B. Financial/Banking/Brokerage
8 A. Health Care
B. Government
9 A. Retail B. Oil and Gas
10 A. T elecommunications B. Hotel
11 A. Restaurant
B. High Tech/Aerospace
12 A. Entertainment
B. Medical/Pharmaceutical
13 A. Government B. Education
14 A. F inancial/B anking/Brokerage B. Transportation
15 A. Oil and Gas
B. Financial/Banking/Brokerage
16 A. Hotel B. Oil and Gas
17 A. High Tech/Aerospace B. Hotel
18 A. Government B. High Tech/Aerospace
19 A. Education
B. Medical/Pharmaceutical
20 A. Retail B. Insurance
21 A. T elecommunications B. Retail
22 A. Restaurant B. Telecommunications
23 A. Entertainment B. Restaurant
24 A. Medical/Pharmaceutical B. High Tech/Aerospace
25 A. Hotel B. Health Care
26 A. Transportation B. Retail
27 A. Financial/B anking/Brokerage B. Telecommunications
28 A. Oil and Gas B. Restaurant
29 A. Hotel B. Entertainment
30 A. High Tech/Aerospace B. Oil and Gas
31 A. Medical/Pharmaceutical B. H ealthcare
32 A. Insurance B. Oil and Gas
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
203
P air
33
Item A
A. Retail
Item B
B. Hotel
34 A.
T elecommunications B.
High Tech/Aerospace
35 A. Restaurant
B.
Medical/Pharmaceutical
36 A. Entertainment
B. Education
37 A. Oil and Gas
B. Transportation
38 A. Hotel
B.
Financial/Banking/Brokerage
39 A. Entertainment
B. Government
40 A.
Medical/Pharmaceutical B. Hotel
41 A. Education
B. High Tech/Aerospace
42 A.
T elecommunications B. Insurance
43 A. Restaurant
B. Retail
44 A. Entertainment
B.
T elecommunications
45 A. Government B. Restaurant
46 A. Health Care
B. Entertainment
47 A. Transportation
B.
T elecommunications
48 A.
Financial/Banking/Brokerage B. Restaurant
49 A. Oil and Gas
B. Entertainment
50 A. Hotel
B. Government
51 A. High Tech/Aerospace B. Health Care
52 A. Insurance B. Hotel
53 A. Retail
B. High Tech/Aerospace
54 A.
Telecommunications B.
Medical/Pharmaceutical
55 A. Restaurant B. Education
56 A. Hotel B. Transportation
57 A. High Tech/Aerospace
B. Financial/Banking/Brokerage
58 A. Medical/Pharmaceutical B. Oil and Gas
59 A. Hotel B. Education
60 A. Restaurant B. Insurance
61 A. Education B. Health Care
62 A. Government B. T elecommunications
63 A. Health Care B. Restaurant
64 A. Insurance B. High Tech/Aerospace
65 A. Retail B. Medical/Pharmaceutical
66 A. T elecommunications B. Education
67 A. Transportation B. Restaurant
68 A. F inancial/B anking/Brokerage B. Entertainment
69 A. Oil and Gas B. Government
70 A. Insurance B. Education
71 A. Retail B. Health Care
72 A. Medical/Pharmaceutical B. Financial/Banking/Brokerage
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
204
Pair Item A
Item B
73 A.
Transportation B. Government
74 A. Education
B. Oil and Gas
75 A.
Transportation B. Health Care
76 A. Government B. Retail
77 A. Health Care
B.
T elecommunications
78 A.
Transportation B. Entertainment
79 A.
Financial/Banking/Brokerage B. Government
80 A. Oil and Gas
B. Health Care
81 A.
Insurance B.
Medical/Pharmaceutical
82 A. Retail
B. Education
83 A.
Medical/Pharmaceutical B. Transportation
84 A. Education B.
Financial/Banking/Brokerage
85 A. Retail
B. Entertainment
86 A.
Government B. Insurance
87 A.
Financial/Banking/Brokerage B. Health Care
88 A.
High Tech/Aerospace B. Transportation
89 A. Entertainment B. Insurance
90 A. Transportation B. Education
91 A. Insurance B. Health Care
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Appendix D 205
G allup Coach Version
I. Talent
Please describe yourself; identify your talents.
Choose one item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the one that you feel best describes
your talents. You will circle 66 choices in this comparison.
P air Item A Item B
1 A. Friendly B. Motivated
2 A. Organized B. Creative
3 A. Aggressive B. Goal Oriented
4 A. Worldly B. Stimulating
5 A. Networker B. Analytical
6 A. Customer Oriented B. Strategic
7 A. Motivated B. Organized
8 A. Creative B. Aggressive
9 A. Organized B. Friendly
10 A. Stimulating B. Networker
1 1 A. Analytical B. Customer Oriented
12 A. Aggressive B. Organized
13 A. Goal Oriented B. Worldly
14 A. Analytical B. Stimulating
15 A. Networker B. Worldly
16 A. Creative B. Motivated
17 A. Strategic B. Networker
18 A. Goal Oriented B. Creative
19 A. Worldly B. Aggressive
20 A. Stimulating B. Goal Oriented
21 A. Customer Oriented B. Networker
22 A. Friendly B. Creative
23 A. Organized B. Goal Oriented
24 A. Aggressive B. Stimulating
25 A. Worldly B. Analytical
26 A. Networker B. Aggressive
27 A. Creative B. Worldly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
206
P air item A item B
28 A. Motivated B. Aggressive
29 A. Friendly B. Strategic
30 A. Stimulating B. Customer Oriented
31 A. Aggressive B. Friendly
32 A. Worldly B. Organized
33 A. Analytical B. Strategic
34 A. Customer Oriented B. Worldly
35 A. Goal Oriented B. Motivated
36 A. Stimulating B. Creative
37 A. Analytical B. Goal Oriented
38 A. Strategic B. Stimulating
39 A. Friendly B. Goal Oriented
40 A. Organized B. Stimulating
41 A. Aggressive B. Analytical
42 A. Worldly B. Strategic
43 A. Creative B. Networker
44 A. Motivated B. Worldly
45 A. Goal Oriented B. Customer Oriented
46 A. Worldly B. Friendly
47 A. Networker B. Organized
48 A. Customer Oriented B. Aggressive
49 A. Stimulating B. Motivated
50 A. Strategic B. Goal Oriented
51 A. Motivated B. Networker
52 A. Creative B. Customer Oriented
53 A. Friendly B. Stimulating
54 A. Organized B. Analytical
55 A. Aggressive B. Strategic
56 A. Customer Oriented B. Organized
57 A. Goal Oriented B. Networker
58 A. Strategic B. Creative
59 A. Friendly B. Analytical
60 A. Organized B. Strategic
61 A. Motivated B. Customer Oriented
62 A. Creative B. Analytical
63 A. Customer Oriented B. Friendly
64 A. Strategic B. Motivated
65 A. Networker B. Friendly
66 A. Analytical B. Motivated
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
207
II. Coaching Style
Please describe your coaching style.
Choose one item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the one that you feel best describes
your coaching style. You will circle 28 choices in this comparison.
Key:
Non-directive: Expects me to develop the plan
Directive: Lays out the plan for me
Supportive: Personally encourages, compliments, and supports me
Challenging: Challenges me to do more, continually raises the bar
Asks Questions: Continually probes, questions me about my methods and practices
Receptive: Receptive and responsive to my questions and needs
Abstract: Explains ideas in theoretical, conceptual terms
Item A Item B
1 A. Non-directive B. Concrete
2 A. Supportive B. Challenging
3 A. Receptive B. Asks Questions
4 A. Abstract B. Concrete
5 A. Directive B. Supportive
6 A. Asks Questions B. Challenging
7 A. Receptive B. Abstract
8 A. Supportive B. Non-directive
9 A. Challenging B. Directive
10 A. Asks Questions B. Supportive
11 A. Challenging B. Receptive
12 A. Asks Questions B. Abstract
13 A. Concrete B. Receptive
14 A. Non-directive B. Challenging
15 A. Directive B. Asks Questions
16 A. Supportive B. Receptive
17 A. Non-directive B. Directive
18 A. Abstract B. Challenging
19 A. Receptive B. Directive
20 A. Concrete B. Asks Questions
21 A. Abstract B. Supportive
22 A. Challenging B. Concrete
23 A. Non-directive B. Receptive
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
208
24 A. Directive B. Abstract
25 A. Supportive B. Concrete
26 A. Abstract
B. Non-directive
27 A. Concrete B. Directive
28 A. Asks Questions
B. Non-directive
III. Processes/Products
Which processes or products are you most prepared to teach?
Choose one item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the one that you feel best describes
the processes or products that you are most prepared to teach. You will circle 78 choices
in this comparison.
P a ir Item A
Item B
1 A. Interview Development B. Analysis
2 A. Theme Dynamics
B. Computer Assisted Presentations
3 A. Sales Presentations
B. Proposal Writing
4 A. Report Writing B. Marketing
5 A. GWA B. QSA
6 A. Analysis
B. Theme Dynamics
7 A. Recruiting B. QSA
8 A. Seminar Leadership
B. Sales Presentations
9 A. Proposal Writing B. Report Writing
10 A. Marketing B. GWA
11 A. QSA B. LTA
12 A. Theme Dynamics
B. Interview Development
13 A. Report Writing B. Sales Presentations
14 A. QSA B. Report Writing
15 A. LTA B. GWA
16 A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. Analysis
17 A. Seminar Leadership B. Computer Assisted Presentations
18 A. Proposal Writing B. Seminar Leadership
19 A. Marketing B. Proposal Writing
20 A. GWA B. Report Writing
21 A. Sales Presentations B. Recruiting
22 A. Interview Development B. Computer Assisted Presentations
23 A. Theme Dynamics B. Seminar Leadership
24 A. Sales Presentations B. Marketing
25 A. GWA B. Recruiting
26 A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. Sales Presentations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
209
P air Item A
Item B
27
A. Sem inar Leadership
B. Report Writing
28
A. Proposal Writing
B. GWA
29
A. Marketing
B. LTA
30
A. Sales Presentations
B. Theme Dynamics
31
A. Marketing
B. QSA
32 A. GWA
B. Sales Presentations
33 A. LTA
B. Report Writing
34
A. Seminar Leadership
B. Analysis
35
A. Proposal Writing
B. Computer Assisted Presentations
36
A. Marketing
B. Seminar Leadership
37 A. QSA
B. Proposal Writing
38 A. Recruiting
B. Marketing
39
A. Interview Development
B. Seminar Leadership
40 A. Theme Dynamics
B. Proposal Writing
41 A. Sales Presentations B. QSA
42 A. Report Writing
B. Recruiting
43 A. Analysis
B. Sales Presentations
44
A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. Report Writing
45 A. Seminar Leadership B. GWA
46 A. Proposal Writing B. LTA
47 A. Sales Presentations
B. Interview Development
48 A. Report Writing B. Theme Dynamics
49 A. Sales Presentations B. LTA
50 A. Proposal Writing B. Analysis
51 A. LTA B. Recmiting
52 A. QSA
B. Seminar Leadership
53 A. Recruiting B. Proposal Writing
54 A. Analysis B. Report Writing
55 A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. GWA
56 A. Seminar Leadership B. LTA
57 A. Interview Development B. Proposal Writing
58 A. Theme Dynamics B. Marketing
59 A. Analysis B. LTA
60 A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. Recruiting
61 A. Interview Development B. QSA
62 A. GWA B. Theme Dynamics
63 A. Interview Development B. Recmiting
64 A. QSA B. Computer Assisted Presentations
65 A. Recruiting B. Seminar Leadership
66 A. Interview Development B. Marketing
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
210
67 A. Theme Dynamics
B. QSA
68 A. Analysis
B. GWA
69
A. Computer Assisted Presentations B. LTA
70 A. GWA
B. Interview Development
71 A. LTA
B. Theme Dynamics
72 A. Computer Assisted Presentations
B. Marketing
73 A. QSA
B. Analysis
74 A. Theme Dynamics
B. Recruiting
75 A. Report Writing
B. Interview Development
76 A. Marketing
B. Analysis
77
A. Interview Development B. LTA
78 A. Analysis
B Recruiting
IV. Applications Program s
Which applications programs are you most prepared to teach?
Choose one item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the one that you feel you are most
prepared to teach. You will circle 66 choices in this comparison.
Pair Item A Item B
1 A. ESP B. GAPs
2 A. Oracle B. SPSS
3 A. SAS B. Item Analysis
4 A. Excel B. Access
5 A. Forest & Trees B. PowerPoint
6 A. Sharkware B. Internet Applications
7 A. GAPs B. Oracle
8 A. SPSS B. SAS
9 A. Oracle B. ESP
10 A. Access B. Forest & Trees
11 A. PowerPoint B. Sharkware
12 A. SAS B. Oracle
13 A. Item Analysis B. Excel
14 A. PowerPoint B. Access
15 A. Forest & Trees B. Excel
16 A. SPSS B. GAPs
17 A. Internet Applications B. Forest & Trees
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
2 1 1
18 A. Item Analysis B. SPSS
19 A. Excel B. SAS
20 A. Access B. Item Analysis
21 A. Sharkware B. Forest & Trees
22 A. ESP B. SPSS
23 A. Oracle B. Item Analysis
24 A. SAS B. Access
25 A. Excel B. PowerPoint
26 A. Forest & Trees B. SAS
27 A. SPSS B. Excel
28 A. GAPs B. SAS
29 A. ESP B. Internet Applications
30 A. Access B. Sharkware
31 A. SAS B. ESP
32 A. Excel B. Oracle
33 A. PowerPoint B. Internet Applications
34 A. Sharkware B. Excel
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
2 1 2
Pair
Item A Item B
35 A. Item Analysis B. GAPs
36 A. Access B. SPSS
37 A. PowerPoint B. Item Analysis
38 A. Internet Applications B. Access
39 A. ESP B. Item Analysis
40 A. Oracle B. Access
41 A. SAS B. PowerPoint
42 A. Excel
B. Internet Applications
43 A. SPSS B. Forest & Trees
44 A. GAPs B. Excel
45 A. Item Analysis B. Sharkware
46 A. Excel B. ESP
47 A. Forest & Trees B. Oracle
48 A. Sharkware B. SAS
49 A. Access B. GAPs
50 A. Internet Applications B. Item Analysis
51 A. GAPs B. Forest & Trees
52 A. SPSS B. Sharkware
53 A. ESP B. Access
54 A. Oracle B. PowerPoint
55 A. SAS B. Internet Applications
56 A. Sharkware B. Oracle
57 A. Item Analysis B. Forest & Trees
58 A. Internet Applications B. SPSS
59 A. ESP B. PowerPoint
60 A. Oracle B. Internet Applications
61 A. GAPs B. Sharkware
62 A. SPSS B. PowerPoint
63 A. Sharkware B. ESP
64 A. Internet Applications B. GAPs
65 A. Forest & Trees B. ESP
66 A. PowerPoint B. GAPs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
213
V. Research Techniques
Which Research Techniques are you most prepared to teach?
Choose one Item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the Research Technique that you
feel you are most prepared to teach. You will circle 28 choices in this comparison.
P a ir Item A Item B
1 A. MetaAnalysis B. Market Research
2 A. Regression B. ANOVA
3 A. Item Analysis B. Proximity Analysis
4 A. Survey Design B. Market Research
5 A. Correlation B. Regression
6 A. Proximity Analysis B. ANOVA
7 A. Item Analysis B. Survey Design
8 A. Regression B. MetaAnalysis
9 A. ANOVA B. Correlation
10 A. Proximity Analysis B. Regression
1 1 A. ANOVA B. Item Analysis
12 A. Proximity Analysis B. Survey Design
13 A. Market Research B. Item Analysis
14 A. MetaAnalysis B. ANOVA
15 A. Correlation B. Proximity Analysis
16 A. Regression B. Item Analysis
17 A. MetaAnalysis B. Correlation
18 A. Survey Design B. ANOVA
19 A. Item Analysis B. Correlation
20 A. Market Research B. Proximity Analysis
21 A. Survey Design B. Regression
22 A. ANOVA B. Market Research
23 A. MetaAnalysis B. Item Analysis
24 A. Correlation B. Survey Design
25 A. Regression B. Market Research
26 A. Survey Design B. MetaAnalysis
27 A. Market Research B. Correlation
28 A. Proximity Analysis B. MetaAnalysis
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D 214
VI. Industry Expertise
In w hat industries do you have the greatest expertise?
Choose one item (A or B) from each item pair. Circle the one that you feel best describes
your greatest industry expertise. You will circle 91 choices in the comparison.
P a ir Item A Item B
1 A. Transportation B. Insurance
2 A. F inancial/B anking/Brokerage B. Retail
3 A. Oil and Gas B.
T elecommunications
4 A. Hotel B. Restaurant
5 A. High Tech/Aerospace B. Entertainment
6 A. Medical/Pharmaceutical B. Government
7 A. Insurance B.
Financial/Banking/Brokerage
8 A. Health Care B. Government
9 A. Retail B. Oil and Gas
10 A. Telecommunications B. Hotel
11 A. Restaurant B. High Tech/Aerospace
12 A. Entertainment B. Medical/Pharmaceutical
13 A. Government B. Education
14 A. Financial/B anking/Brokerage B. Transportation
15 A. Oil and Gas B. F inancial/Banking/Brokerage
16 A. Hotel B. Oil and Gas
17 A. High Tech/Aerospace B. Hotel
18 A. Government B. High Tech/Aerospace
19 A. Education B. Medical/Pharmaceutical
20 A. Retail B. Insurance
21 A. Telecommunications B. Retail
22 A. Restaurant B. T elecommunications
23 A. Entertainment B. Restaurant
24 A. Medical/Pharmaceutical B. High Tech/Aerospace
25 A. Hotel B. Health Care
26 A. Transportation B. Retail
27 A. F inancial/B anking/B rokerage B. T elecommunications
28 A. Oil and Gas B. Restaurant
29 A. Hotel B. Entertainment
30 A. High Tech/Aerospace B. Oil and Gas
31 A. Medical/Pharmaceutical B. Health Care
32 A. Insurance B. Oil and Gas
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
215
P air Item A
Item B
33 A. Retail
B. Hotel
34 A.
Telecommunications
B.
High Tech/Aerospace
35 A. Restaurant
B.
Medical/Pharmaceutical
36 A.
Entertainment
B. Education
37 A. Oil and Gas
B. Transportation
38 A. Hotel
B. Financial/Banking/Brokerage
39 A. Entertainment
B. Government
40 A.
Medical/Pharmaceutical B. Hotel
41 A. Education
B. High Tech/Aerospace
42 A.
T elecommunications
B. Insurance
43 A. Restaurant
B. Retail
44 A. Entertainment
B.
T elecommunications
45 A. Government
B. Restaurant
46 A. Health Care
B. Entertainment
47 A. Transportation B. T elecommunications
48 A.
Financial/Banking/Brokerage B. Restaurant
49 A. Oil and Gas
B. Entertainment
50 A. Hotel
B. Government
51 A. High Tech/Aerospace B. Health Care
52 A. Insurance B. Hotel
53 A. Retail
B. High Tech/Aerospace
54 A. T elecommunications B.
Medical/Pharmaceutical
55 A. Restaurant B. Education
56 A. Hotel B. Transportation
57 A. High Tech/Aerospace B.
Financial/Banking/Brokerage
58 A. Medical/Pharmaceutical B. Oil and Gas
59 A. Hotel B. Education
60 A. Restaurant B. Insurance
61 A. Education B. Health Care
62 A. Government B. T elecommunications
63 A. Health Care B. Restaurant
64 A. Insurance B. High Tech/Aerospace
65 A. Retail B. Medical/Pharmaceutical
66 A. T elecommunications B. Education
67 A. Transportation B. Restaurant
68 A. Financial/B anking/Brokerage B. Entertainment
69 A. Oil and Gas B. Government
70 A. Insurance B. Education
71 A. Retail B. Health Care
72 A. Medical/Pharmaceutical B. Financial/Banking/Brokerage
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
216
P air Item A
Item B
73 A. Transportation
B. Government
74 A. Education
B. Oil and Gas
75 A. Transportation
B. Health Care
76 A. Government
B. Retail
77 A. Health Care
B.
Telecommunications
78 A. Transportation
B.
Entertainment
79 A.
Financial/Banking/Brokerage B. Government
80 A. Oil and Gas
B. Health Care
81 A. Insurance
B.
Medical/Pharmaceutical
82 A. Retail
B. Education
83 A. Medical/Pharmaceutical B. Transportation
84 A. Education
B.
Financial/B anking/Brokerage
85 A. Retail
B. Entertainment
86 A. Government B. Insurance
87 A.
Financial/Banking/Brokerage B. Health Care
88 A. High Tech/Aerospace B. Transportation
89 A. Entertainment B. Insurance
90 A. Transportation B. Education
91 A. Insurance B. Health Care
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Closing the leadership gap

PDF

Is the Strength Deployment Inventory a valid research instrument for measuring motivational values in an individualistic and a collectivistic culture?

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among California school principals

PDF

Class size reduction: A case study

PDF

Effects of the STAR testing program on teachers and the curriculum

PDF

Institutional factors affecting academic persistence of underprepared community college freshmen

PDF

A comparison of the perceptions of senior and junior enlisted Air Force personnel concerning deterrents to enrollment in and completion of adult education courses by junior personnel

PDF

Cognitive coaching training for master teachers and its effects on student teachers' ability to reflect on practice

PDF

Current and future managerial competency requirements for manufacturing, assembly, and /or material processing functions

PDF

Family group conference: An innovative approach to truancy in schools. A case study

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among school superintendents

PDF

An evaluation of an Air Force formal mentoring program

PDF

A quantitative and qualitative study of computer technology and student achievement in mathematics and reading at the second- and third-grade levels: A comparison of high versus limited technolo...

PDF

Evaluation of the effects of a continuous improvement program on special education student achievement

PDF

A teamwork skills questionnaire: A reliability and validity study of the Chinese version

PDF

Evaluation of a two -period double math program on the academic achievement of underperforming seventh grade math students

PDF

Examining the relationship between writing self -efficacy, writing performance and general achievement for third graders

PDF

A case study of the California teacher evaluation system and its impact upon teacher practice in an alternative education high -performing urban high school

PDF

Adult school student achievement on the California High School Exit Examination: Are adult schools ready for the challenge?

PDF

A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high performing urban elementary school

Asset Metadata

Creator Bath, Susan Jane (author)

Core Title An evaluation of a Gallup -designed professional development mentoring program

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, adult and continuing,education, business,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Baker, Robert (committee member), Harding, Richard (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-118092

Unique identifier UC11338088

Identifier 3041435.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-118092 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3041435.pdf

Dmrecord 118092

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bath, Susan Jane

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA