It certainly takes confidence in the potential or known benefits, poise and humility. I'm sure that some reverse mentoring is better or superior than other exchanges.
I appreciate Anderson's 'flat organization mindset,' but I wonder about the sustainability. In my experience, these programs work great when championed by specific leaders, but they often die when those leaders leave. How do we institutionalize reverse mentoring so it's not dependent on individual personalities?
This is what works in good tech spaces - Building a formal 6-month rotation where every senior leader is assigned 2-3 reverse mentors from different departments. Make it cyclical - when one cohort ends, the next begins automatically. This removes the personality dependency because it's just 'how things work here' rather than someone's pet project. It's good work.
Thank you for sharing your experience, observation and analysis. It adds an important piece to the discussion. Your question is a valuable one if an organization values what reverse mentoring may be providing to its leaders, decision making ease and quality and for the incoming or newer mentors.
I really like you sharing what is common in better tech spaces. I learned something new. That seems to be intelligent design that increases the probability of achieving desired outcomes.
Now, I like what you write and appreciate what you bring to the table, so I am pulling back on this one. There was no debate here. It was a one-sided piece.
Now, I have two fundamental issues for the other side of the debate on this issue:
What I see with a program like this is that, like all programs, it has merits, but it is working against human nature itself. The two biggest pitfalls are that it creates a fake power structure; these "mentors" have no power and don't understand what happens at the top. Those at the top might not be aware of what happens below, but that is only because they are not directly involved; they do understand, as they have held those roles before. These new 'mentors' have no genuine concept of the C-suite. The other issue is that it can create a crony network if left unchecked. The new 'mentors' will rise faster and are hand-picked from the start.
Thank you for your conclusions and thoughts, Andrew. It's always good to read what you write, in your work and in comments.
Sincere question: Does a power structure have to exist involving mentoring, regardless of the origin of it? Mentoring is an exchange of communication, ideas and suggestions. It's not authority, at least from my viewpoint (right or wrong).
There is, I respectfully argue, a debate: one source, Mr. Anderson, commented on the value of it and another source, Mr. Navarre was less enthusiastic and convinced of the practicality and benefit.
Thank you. I agree that mentoring isn't about power, but this one feels like it will always be in the room. It reminds me more of lunch with the CEO program. It could work, but I think the power dynamics should be on the table. I guess the true test is what actually changes because of it. That would be tough to measure, but would help more adoption of it. The fundamentals just feel off for me, but based on your posts you have lived this, so your opinion certainly holds a lot of weight and respect here.
I agree with you on this, Andrew: "I guess the true test is what actually changes because of it." If there is tangible evidence and proof of benefits or a strong core belief that it is just the smart thing to do in certain areas of the organization, maybe the value, commitment and effort is meaningful.
It may not be an absolute though and I'm sure it isn't for every organization, so I respect that assertion. It would be interesting to read a large sample-size, in-depth research study.
This of course all depends on senior leadership being humble, curious and open-minded enough to accept reverse mentoring!
It certainly takes confidence in the potential or known benefits, poise and humility. I'm sure that some reverse mentoring is better or superior than other exchanges.
Thank you for your comment. :)
I appreciate Anderson's 'flat organization mindset,' but I wonder about the sustainability. In my experience, these programs work great when championed by specific leaders, but they often die when those leaders leave. How do we institutionalize reverse mentoring so it's not dependent on individual personalities?
This is what works in good tech spaces - Building a formal 6-month rotation where every senior leader is assigned 2-3 reverse mentors from different departments. Make it cyclical - when one cohort ends, the next begins automatically. This removes the personality dependency because it's just 'how things work here' rather than someone's pet project. It's good work.
Happy Wednesday, Michael.
Thank you for sharing your experience, observation and analysis. It adds an important piece to the discussion. Your question is a valuable one if an organization values what reverse mentoring may be providing to its leaders, decision making ease and quality and for the incoming or newer mentors.
I really like you sharing what is common in better tech spaces. I learned something new. That seems to be intelligent design that increases the probability of achieving desired outcomes.
Happy Wednesday to you as well, Neela.
Thank you Michael.
you are most welcome.
Happy Thursday!
Now, I like what you write and appreciate what you bring to the table, so I am pulling back on this one. There was no debate here. It was a one-sided piece.
Now, I have two fundamental issues for the other side of the debate on this issue:
What I see with a program like this is that, like all programs, it has merits, but it is working against human nature itself. The two biggest pitfalls are that it creates a fake power structure; these "mentors" have no power and don't understand what happens at the top. Those at the top might not be aware of what happens below, but that is only because they are not directly involved; they do understand, as they have held those roles before. These new 'mentors' have no genuine concept of the C-suite. The other issue is that it can create a crony network if left unchecked. The new 'mentors' will rise faster and are hand-picked from the start.
I just wanted to add some balance here. Thanks
Thank you for your conclusions and thoughts, Andrew. It's always good to read what you write, in your work and in comments.
Sincere question: Does a power structure have to exist involving mentoring, regardless of the origin of it? Mentoring is an exchange of communication, ideas and suggestions. It's not authority, at least from my viewpoint (right or wrong).
There is, I respectfully argue, a debate: one source, Mr. Anderson, commented on the value of it and another source, Mr. Navarre was less enthusiastic and convinced of the practicality and benefit.
Thank you. I agree that mentoring isn't about power, but this one feels like it will always be in the room. It reminds me more of lunch with the CEO program. It could work, but I think the power dynamics should be on the table. I guess the true test is what actually changes because of it. That would be tough to measure, but would help more adoption of it. The fundamentals just feel off for me, but based on your posts you have lived this, so your opinion certainly holds a lot of weight and respect here.
I agree with you on this, Andrew: "I guess the true test is what actually changes because of it." If there is tangible evidence and proof of benefits or a strong core belief that it is just the smart thing to do in certain areas of the organization, maybe the value, commitment and effort is meaningful.
It may not be an absolute though and I'm sure it isn't for every organization, so I respect that assertion. It would be interesting to read a large sample-size, in-depth research study.