Team Development Solutions

Stand By Systems II, Inc. has the experience to understand our clients' business initiatives, and to expertly match them with educational designs that meet individual and team development needs.  Customized presentations, workshops and meetings are tailored to fit the learning objectives of the organization. The time frame of experiential learning sessions are also customized and can vary based on client schedules, e.g., one hour, two days, once per quarter, etc. Key to our planning process is understanding the scope of the knowledge to be explored, and the ability and interests of the participants. A professional representative of Stand By Systems II, Inc. will work to design a mutually agreed upon learning strategy with the designated representatives of the organization that is requesting the enrichment.

Retention of exceptional talent is one of the top objectives of any corporation or organization.  The processes that lead to talent retention however, often challenge concepts of equality, fairness, meritocracy and loyalty to corporate culture.

The challenge to equality is anchored partly in the belief that because each person has individual greatness or even divine value on par with others, we should only strive to use equivalent development and assessment systems to select, improve, deploy and promote them.  The challenge to fairness is rooted in the conviction that differential treatment in one human condition that yields unfairness¹ means that disparity of all types is automatically injurious to all individuals and systems.  The challenge to meritocracy often reveals a misunderstanding and under-utilization of the range of merit that can bring value to an organization.  This is especially true in systems that have had narrow means of measurement to fit a limited array of talent clusters and intellectual/professional styles.  Of all of these, the perception of challenge to a sense of loyalty to organizational/corporate/subgroup culture is often embedded more deeply in the way each person experiences a system or organization.  It is often shielded by the system-wide applause given to “our uniqueness” and our values (which usually means our primary values not our only values).  If unexamined, the beneficial and unifying corporate culture can be pernicious to components of diversity which are not easily perceived to blend with the organization's stated and subtle professional preferences.  A corporation which does not periodically explore each of these may unintentionally become vulnerable to loosing critical unique talent. 

Some managers fear inconsistency.  Some cultures are as resistant to inclusion of differences as others are to change.  Yet, some leadership styles have clearly developed an inclination to seeking the uniqueness that each colleague brings to the organization's goals.  These leaders understand that relying on the shortcut of subgroup labels cannot attract as much discretionary effort as the appreciation of the individual and her/his distinctive talents.  It is the creation of an environment where each individual’s uniqueness is recognized, valued, included and rewarded that forms a positive base for organizational effectiveness in talent retention. 

1 One example is Plessy v. Ferguson, which led to the Supreme Court’s early unjust separate but equal doctrine even in public accommodations. The case was later repudiated by our Supreme Court.

The Issue:

In both larger complex organizations and smaller fully engaged organizations there are many opportunities for mentoring.  This can occur if the person desiring mentoring and the potential mentors are consciously aware of the cues, dimensions, organizational and other cultural norms and work-connected opportunities for the mentoring relationships to flourish. 

Some informal mentoring develops without facilitation as perceptive adults identify needs and resources within others and use available blending opportunities to accomplish mentoring.   Yet sometimes skilled and generous potential mentors are hindered for a wide range of reasons.  These include, but are not limited to, personal discomfort with mentoring without a clear indication that it is desired, incorrect perception of the amount of time required to be an effective mentor, organizational structures and norms which may be threatened by cross-functional relationships, levelism, under-appreciation of personal talents and many other cognitive and structural roadblocks.

While these factors may consciously or subconsciously be taking place in the potential mentors, other barriers may discourage action in the people who desire mentoring.  Caution at over-reaching ones ability, misunderstanding of the assertive-aggressive continuum within the organizational structure, seeking perfection prior to requesting mentoring, desiring only one specific person as a mentor, perceived lack of access to the desired mentor, narrowly defined professional gaps and resources, and misperception of the concept of impermanence in a mentoring relationship are among the potential obstacles. 

In order to expand the talent within an organization, effective use of all human resources is essential.  This requires seeing all levels of talent not just as resources to be inserted into the completion of ever-increasing work assignments, but as an important investment in the long-term viability of the teams within the organization.  The Family Theory of Motivation, developed by the founder of Stand By Systems II, Inc.,  seeks to help individuals reach their maximum motivation each day.  Two of the theory’s four elements are also applicable to mentoring. They are summarized as follows: 

Peer Superior
The Peer Superior is seen by the individual seeking mentoring as being more skilled and more capable in critical areas in which she/he wants to grow.  Often these persons have had success in areas which are valued by the organization.  They frequently have a workload, level, or other institutional/systemic advantages through which they have developed a network of quality.  These networks have value to a number of potential learners.  The Peer Superior may or may not have excellent teaching and interpersonal skills. While these help in establishing relationships with those seeking mentoring, they are not essential.  A majority of the Peer Superiors are further motivated to continue toward excellence through interacting with those who seek their advice and abilities.  Not all mentors are Peer Superiors nor sought for these qualities.

Peer Inferior
The Peer Inferior or person seeking mentoring sees the Peer Superior as more skilled and more capable than they.  The Peer Superior’s advantaged abilities are not perceived as so excessively outdistancing the individual seeking mentoring, that they are not attainable.  The Peer Inferior believes that she/he can -- with committed effort, exposure, coaching, and opportunity -- accomplish this level of expertise and more.  This is a motivating experience because the person seeking mentoring can often calibrate his/her progress by getting closer to and more observant of the person who is currently their “superior” in these growth areas. The Peer Inferior also gains motivation as she/he brings value to the mentoring relationship.  

Most organizations are replete with opportunities for these interpersonal-professional mentoring relationships to take place.  Many incorrectly assume that placing intelligent individuals contiguous to each other will insure that effective mentoring is initiated.  Often, unanticipated circumstances, including hesitation to “make the first move,” unravel the opportunity.  One way for a firm/organization to mitigate this loss is to create the option within the normal systems for facilitated mentoring.  

Facilitated Mentoring
Facilitated mentoring creates a structure within the organization where individuals who seek personal growth may safely indicate their interest in being mentored.  They have the opportunity to state their initial developmental interests which can include content, process or interpersonal strengthening.  They are encouraged to identify individuals within any part of the organization who they preliminarily feel can contribute to their learning process.  Where they are unaware of talented mentors, options can be provided to them from a pool of capable volunteers. Those seeking mentoring are also encouraged to state which areas of their own talent they would be willing to share with their mentor or others within the organization who may seek personal progress. They agree to briefly learn about elements of the mentoring process within the organization and to periodically report on their progress and their challenges.

People who offer to mentor also have the safety of a formal structure which can assist them to manage the process as they learn alternative methods of sharing their abilities.  They are asked to identify some of the areas which they are willing to share in a mentoring relationship.  They are asked to identify systemic elements, styles, and preferences which they feel can contribute to an effective match.  If there are types of individuals who create a known challenge to them, they are asked to mention those also so those challenges can be ameliorated or used in the selection process.  They may also be asked to identify any areas in which they would value learning in exchange for their generous mentoring.  The potential mentors agree to a brief learning period which can identify a range of options within the mentoring process.  The potential mentors agree to participate in periodic feedback opportunities to report challenges and successes with mentoring. This feedback is not part of the organizations' formal appraisal process in most cases. 

There are a myriad processes which can be used to teach and match mentors with people seeking mentoring.  Whichever is selected must fit within the norms and systems of the organization.  Executive leadership needs to endorse and participate in the process, especially in a larger, more complex organization.  While there is usually sufficient reward for those participating in mentoring, a part of the institutional structure for mentoring may include incentives to encourage enculturation of mentoring processes. These options can contribute to the process which sustains, enlivens, and distinguishes a culture of inclusion and growth in any organization.