Leadership & Organization Development JournalMentoring and coaching as part of a human resource development strategy: an example at Coca-ColaFoodsDavid J. Veale

Article information:To cite this document:David J. Veale, (1996),"Mentoring and coaching as part of a human resource development strategy: an example at Coca-Cola Foods", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 16 - 20Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437739610116948

Downloaded on: 08 February 2015, At: 01:51 (PT)References: this document contains references to 18 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2831 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Bob Garvey, (2004),"The mentoring/counseling/coaching debate: Call a rose by any other name and perhaps it’s abramble?", Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 6-8David J. Veale, Jeffrey M. Wachtel, (1996),"Mentoring and coaching as part of a human resource developmentstrategy: an example at Coca-Cola Foods", Management Development Review, Vol. 9 Iss 6 pp. 19-24 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09622519610151615Victoria Johnson, Spero C. Peppas, (2003),"Crisis management in Belgium: the case of Coca-Cola", CorporateCommunications: An International Journal, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 18-22 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280310458885

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 272120 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

1:51

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

[ 16 ]

Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal17/3 [1996] 16–20

© MCB University Press [ISSN 0143-7739]

Mentoring and coaching as part of a human resourcedevelopment strategy: an example at Coca-ColaFoods

David J. Veale Director, Human Resource Development Coca-Cola Foods, Houston, Texas, USA and Jeffrey M. Wachtel Associate Professor of Manage-ment, Florida International University, North Miami, Florida, USA

Describes Coca-Cola Foods’mentoring and coachingprogrammes. Presents direc-tions for future research andpractice based on Coca-ColaFoods’ experience.

Mentorship is considered an important train-ing and development tool in the academicliterature (Hunt and Michael, 1983; Kram,1985a), and is present as a formal programmein many companies (Burke and McKeen, 1989;Klauss, 1981; Kram, 1985b). It has recentlybeen prominent in the popular literature aswell (Bartlett, 1995; Burgess, 1994; Colborn,1992). Having a mentor has been linked tomobility and career advancement (Clawson,1979; Jennings, 1971; Kram, 1985a; 1985b;Phillips-Jones, 1982; Scandura, 1992; Stumpfand London, 1981) and may be even moreimportant for women and minorities (Col-born, 1992; Kanter, 1977; Morrison et al., 1987).Additionally, mentoring has been distin-guished as different from typical superior-subordinate relationships (Burke et al., 1991)and as being composed of a number of differ-ent career-enhancing functions such as coach-ing, sponsorship, facilitating exposure andoffering protection (Kram and Isabella, 1985).

Many companies, Coca-Cola Foods amongthem, have invested their resources in thedevelopment of formal programmes designedto promote mentoring relationships (Burkeand McKeen, 1989) as part of their humanresource development strategy. The purposeof this paper is to describe Coca-Cola Foods’mentoring and coaching programmes and topresent directions for future research andpractice based on the Coca-Cola Foods’ exam-ple.

Coca-Cola Foods believes that humanresource development (HRD) is a key to build-ing competitive advantage through peopleand to the creation of a high-performing orga-nization. The struggle at Coca-Cola Foods hasbeen to maximize and/or optimize HRD’scontribution to business success. Theapproach at Coca-Cola Foods has been three-fold:1 to strengthen the link between business

strategy and developmental focus;2 to involve leadership of the organization in

all aspects of development;3 to use a variety of developmental tools to

match personal and organizational needsbetter.

For the purpose of this article, we will focusprimarily on the mentoring and coaching

processes which Coca-Cola Foods uses todevelop their people. These developmental“tools” clearly involve leaders in the organi-zation which helps considerably tostrengthen the link between development andbusiness strategy.

Definitions

Coca-Cola Foods views coaching as an inter-action that has the purpose of enhancingperformance. By providing goals, techniques,practice and feedback, the coach helps theperson increase competence and the probabil-ity of success. Coaching can occur down thehierarchy, up it or laterally. In coaching, therelationship is not of utmost importance,rather the agreement that the coaching isvaluable is the critical element.

Mentoring, on the other hand, achieves itspurposes primarily through building a rela-tionship. The mentor is usually someone“higher” up in the organization, someonewho has experience and knowledge about“who’s who”, “what’s what”, and “how”things get done. It is a formal relationshipstructured around the developmental needsof the “mentee”. In most cases, the mentorand mentee are from different departmentsso that there are no direct reporting relation-ships involved.

The processes Coca-Cola Foods uses forfacilitating mentoring and coaching in theorganization are very different, as are thegoals and outcomes expected. We will revieweach separately and then summarize by com-paring and contrasting the two developmen-tal approaches.

Mentoring

Mentoring at Coca-Cola Foods is the creationof a formal relationship between two peopleof different departments and status in theorganization.

The goals of the mentoring relationship areto help the mentee understand the organiza-tion and their role in it better. With the help ofsomeone more experienced in the organiza-tion, the mentee learns more about the cul-ture, mission and context of how things get

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

1:51

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

[ 17 ]

David J. Veale and Jeffrey M.WachtelMentoring and coaching aspart of a human resourcedevelopment strategy: anexample at Coca-Cola Foods

Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal17/3 [1996] 16–20

done than he/she would if working alone.Additionally, the mentee gains a confidant(i.e. a neutral coach and observer who canhelp the mentee plan a career within theorganization). Webster’s Dictionary definitiondescribes a mentor as a trusted counsellor orguide; Coca-Cola Foods encourages theprocess through creation of a formal proce-dure.

Since much is built on the one-on-one rela-tionship, the selection of people who are to bethe mentors and mentees is critical. Coca-Cola Foods makes sure that those selected asmentors are successful, enjoy working for theorganization, are wise in the ways of theorganization and can get things done. Addi-tionally, Coca-Cola Foods ensures that thementor is comfortable with being a listener,being asked questions and with being a tellerof advice and perspective. Mentees, on theother hand, need to be ready for a relation-ship in which “they know that they don’tknow” and are comfortable asking questionsand revealing concerns.

Coca-Cola Foods uses a ten-part mentoringprocess. Most facilitated mentoringprogrammes have a formal process whichdefines each step and audits the ongoingsuccess of the programme. Although theseprocesses will differ somewhat in how theyaddress the needs of the sponsoring organiza-tion, most programmes generally follow pro-cedures similar to those below:

1 mentee identified;2 identifying developmental needs;3 identifying potential mentors;4 mentor/mentee matched;5 orientation for mentors and mentees;6 contracting;7 periodic meetings to execute the plan;8 periodic reports;9 conclusion;

10 evaluation and follow-up.

Each procedure is explained below:1 Mentees identified: In this step, Coca-Cola

Foods identifies the group of people whoare eligible for the mentoring programme.This can be done in a variety of ways look-ing at certain job levels, departments,employee characteristics, etc. Once thetarget group is defined, specific menteescan be identified by having them volunteer,be nominated by a boss or other sponsor,or compete for selection through applica-tion and testing.

2 Identify developmental needs: In this stepthe developmental needs are determinedand an individual development plan can beprepared. This can be done by having thementee disclose what he/she thinks aretheir developmental needs, having bosses

determine these needs, and/or having skilldeficiencies revealed through assessment.

3 Identify potential mentors. This step pro-duces a pool of individuals who can serveas mentors. They may volunteer for therole, may be chosen by a mentee, or may berecruited by senior managers. Prior toselection, a mentor’s general ability andwillingness to handle the role should beassessed.

4 Mentor/mentees matching. A mentor isselected for a specific mentee after consid-ering the skills and knowledge needed bythe mentee and the ability of the mentor toprovide practice or guidance in thoseareas. Compatibility of styles and person-alities can be critical.

5 Mentor and mentee orientation. Before thestart of the mentoring relationship, anorientation is held for both the mentorsand mentees. For mentors this orientationcovers time commitments, types of activi-ties, time and budget support, the relation-ship with the natural boss, reportingrequirements and the mentee’s responsi-bility for the development.

6 Contracting. A clear agreement is anessential foundation for a good mentoringrelationship. It includes a developmentplan, confidentiality requirement, theduration of the relationship, frequency ofthe meetings, time to be invested in men-toring activities by each party, and the roleof the mentor.

7 Periodic meetings. Most mentors andmentees meet for performance planning,coaching, and feedback sessions. The fre-quency can be determined by the nature ofthe relationship and by geographical prox-imity. At these meetings, both parties arecandid about progress of the process.

8 Periodic reports. It will be easier to evalu-ate the success of the mentoringprogramme if periodic status reports areby both the mentor and mentee. Dependingon the level of formality in theprogramme, this step may or may notoccur.

9 Conclusion. A mentoring relationshipconcludes when the items delineated in theinitial agreement have been accomplishedor when time/business/budget constraintswill prevent the relationships from contin-uing. It may also be concluded when one ofthe pair believes it is no longer productivefor them to work together.

10 Evaluation and follow-up. After the rela-tionship concludes, both the mentor andmentee are questioned, via interviews orother assessment instruments, about thevalue of the process, timing, logistics, time

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

1:51

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

[ 18 ]

David J. Veale and Jeffrey M.WachtelMentoring and coaching aspart of a human resourcedevelopment strategy: anexample at Coca-Cola Foods

Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal17/3 [1996] 16–20

constraints and any other valid concernsthat could affect the mentoring process.

Conditions for successSuccessful mentoring programmes generallyneed: voluntary participation from both men-tor and mentee outside the normal hierarchyrelationships, one-on-one relationships, inte-gration with other developmental efforts,commitment to the programme by the boss ofthe mentee, the creation and communicationof policies and procedures. The policies andprocedures should include a process for no-fault conclusions, a format for contracting, arequirement of confidentiality, meeting andfeedback guidelines and a duration limit forthe formal programme.

Some of the advantages to mentoring pro-grammes are that the mentee adopts the workculture of the organization better, increasesperformance, has increased commitment tothe organization, increased job satisfaction,low-cost but highly relevant learning, andbetter cross-functional knowledge. In addi-tion, having a programme such as this can beused as a selling point for potential employ-ees.

Some caveatsSome concerns are that there is a potentialfor the mentee to play the mentor against theboss and that the relationship can lead tobreaches of confidentiality which may hurtthe parties involved. Mentees can be the focusof gossip and jealousy and may develop unre-alistic expectations about their potential.Finally, the mentee may not take responsibil-ity for his/her own development.

Coaching

Coca-Cola Foods considers coaching amethod for increasing accountability, renew-ing commitment, and facilitating continuallearning. The expected results are morehighly skilled people who perform better andhave better working relationships. The one-on-one discussions with one’s boss talkingabout performance enhancement “wires-in”accountability. A coaching process whichinvolves people discussing their performancein relationship to business goals is a processfor building commitment. Since coachingusually involves goal setting and feedback, anenvironment is created which enhances con-tinual and purposeful learning.

While the coaching process can facilitatethe above outcomes, the style and perceptionsof coaching may subvert the intention of thecoaching and create less accountability,learning and commitment resulting in worse

performance and relationships. Thus, it isimportant to ensure that coaching is donewell in terms of style so that it is perceived asa positive process. To maximize the benefitsof coaching, Coca-Cola Foods trains man-agers to establish a communication environ-ment of mutual respect, that is problem-focused and change-oriented. Coca-ColaFoods does this through a variety of differenttraining programmes starting with a pro-gramme which uses the Hersey-Blanchardmodel with its emphasis on both task andsupport skills as a requirement of good coach-ing. Also, Coca-Cola Foods uses Zenger-Miller’s Front-line Leadership programmewhich has basic principles defining the toneand style of the conversation, and then othermodules focused on the formats for communi-cating to enhance performance. The Front-line Leadership series clearly advocatesmutual goal setting, discussion and problemsolving within an atmosphere of trust andcollaboration. Finally, some members ofCoca-Cola Foods have attended a week-longprogramme devoted to the building of coach-ing skills. However, because of the expense ofthis course, only a very few have attended.

Types of coachingCoca-Cola Foods identifies five different typesof coaching: modelling, instructing, enhanc-ing performance, problem solving and inspi-ration, and support. These types are delin-eated so as to provide people with a flexibilityof approach to different coaching situationsand needs. This makes Coca-Cola Foods’ defi-nition of coaching very broad, broader thanthe Hersey-Blanchard model. In fact, Coca-Cola Foods includes directing (calledinstructing) and support (called inspirationand support) as part of the coaching model.Also added is modelling and problem solvingas a separate categories. Coca-Cola Foodsrecognizes the considerable overlap of theirtypes of coaching and does so intentionally.At Coca-Cola Foods, the objective is not theo-retical precision, but usefulness.

Modelling, Coca-Cola Foods’ first category,is usually not thought of as a coaching type.For example, McBer’s Inventory of Manage-ment Styles separates pace setting (a model-ling style) from coaching. However, Coca-ColaFoods thinks modelling is an important partof the coaching process, and perhaps a funda-mental type. If the coach cannot or does notenact the skills and values that he or she istrying to get the other to do, it becomes veryhard for the “coachee” to learn. One can seefootball coaches, ballet teachers and pianoteachers all demonstrating what they wantthe coachee to do. Sometimes, the coach cannot do it as well as is expected. For

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

1:51

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

[ 19 ]

David J. Veale and Jeffrey M.WachtelMentoring and coaching aspart of a human resourcedevelopment strategy: anexample at Coca-Cola Foods

Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal17/3 [1996] 16–20

example, older ballet teachers tend not tohave the flexibility and the speed of theiryounger students, but the demonstration canstill be very important. Some people need tosee a thing done in order to understand anddo it themselves. Other ways of modelling canbe inviting a person to see how a sales presen-tation is made, or a particular presentation,or how to facilitate a problem-solving group.Working together on a project can providemany opportunities to model the expectedbehaviour. Thus, one type of coaching is mod-elling (i.e. “do as I do”).

Another type of coaching is instructing (i.e.“do as I tell you”). Here the coach knows theskills and is teaching them to the coachee. Inthis type of coaching, Coca-Cola Foods recom-mends a five-step process. The first step is toprovide a vision of what is expected and anoverview of the goal and the process. Then,Coca-Cola Foods follows with the familiar“tell”, “show”, “do”, and “correct”. The tellpart verbally highlights the specific tasks tobe done, the show part provides an example ofdoing the task (i.e. modelling again), the doallows the coachee to try the task(s) and thecorrecting provides an opportunity for thecoach to give feedback on the coachee’sactions. In the sense that there is not muchreflection and input from the coachee, thisresembles the “directing” type in the Hersey-Blanchard model.

Another type of coaching is enhancing orimproving a performance (i.e. “do this bet-ter”). This type is most like the “coaching” ofthe Situational Leadership model. The stepshere are: explaining the whys and whats ofthe performance, asking for input, providingfeedback and your own ideas on how toimprove, summarizing with a plan and thenoffering support. In this type of coaching, theassumption is that the person generally doesknow what to do, but is not doing as well as heor she could. Thus, the “why” coach wantsimprovement and provides a rationale for theeffort to be made to enhance. Asking thecoachee for their ideas on barriers or possibleimprovement strategies provides both anopportunity for the associate to own theenhancement effort and an opportunity forthe coach to discover misperceptions. Byadding ideas and later offering support, thecoach indicates both interest and involve-ment in the enhancement effort. The sum-mary and plan, if it has action that both thecoach and the coachee can take, builds asense of this being a team effort.

Another type of coaching helps the coacheeproblem solve (i.e. “figure it out this way”).The coach, by providing a format as well asleading the process, helps the coachee learnand use a method of problem solving. The

steps Coca-Cola Foods asks its coaches tofollow are: to clarify the problem; involve theparticipant(s); funnel the problem and build aplan. The role of the coach in clarifying theproblem is one of asking for specifics in thedescription of the problem and then summa-rizing what was said. This communicationformat is common in many types of problemsolving. This aspect of coaching helps theperson be clear and specific at the outset ofproblem solving, which can be very valuable.In the involvement step, the coach helps thecoachee think of the breadth of stakeholdersin the problem and include them. In the fun-nelling step, the coach may help the coacheelook at a variety of meanings/causes/factorseither by suggesting a wishbone or a force-field analysis. These methods open up theproblem solving process (the funnel) and thenprovide a structure for identifying the majorissues (focusing the funnel). After causes areidentified, the coach may help the coachee bymaking sure the list of generated solutions islarge enough and by helping the coachee usea method to determine the best solution forthe problem. Finally, in the planning step thecoach helps the associate by suggestingstrategies, people, action steps and scheduledates.

The final type of coaching is the inspiration(i.e. “you can do it!”) Here the coach makessure of a personal connection with thecoachee and uses that to inspire the person.The great exemplars of modern day are obvi-ously many of the great sport coaches withtheir yelling and cheering from the side lines.A classic example comes from Shakespeare’sHenry V. Henry’s St Crispin Day’s speechbefore the Battle of Agincourt inspired hisoutnumbered men, not with outlining battletactics nor skill practice but with an appeal totheir inner hope, pride and sense of identity.For experienced coachees, this type of coach-ing can work wonders. Today, Nike has con-densed the thought to their motto: “Just doit!”

The advantages of coaching are many andvaried. Information is provided directly, isrelevant and usually done in the context so itcan be applied immediately. For the coach, itmay lead to such an increase in skills thatthey can delegate some of their work to acoachee. The disadvantages really reside withthe individuals involved. Some people prefermore indirect feedback while others feel thatany correction is punishing. Cultural andsituational variables can play a great part aswell. Some people may “lose face” if coachedin a group setting. Also, hard coaching maybe seen as intimidation. And, obviously, thefeedback received may be biased, wrong or

The advantages of coaching are many andvaried. Information isprovided directly, is relevantand usually done in thecontext so it can be appliedimmediately. For the coach,it may lead to such anincrease in skills that theycan delegate some of theirwork to a coachee. Thedisadvantages really residewith the individuals involved

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

1:51

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

[ 20 ]

David J. Veale and Jeffrey M.WachtelMentoring and coaching aspart of a human resourcedevelopment strategy: anexample at Coca-Cola Foods

Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal17/3 [1996] 16–20

based on style preferences rather than onoutcomes.

SummaryCoaching is a relationship activity designedto increase performance. Generally, coachingis informal and occurs between the boss andthe employee(s). Mentoring is a more formalprocess, based on a one-on-one relationshipwith someone distant in the organization.While a mentor can use all of the coachingtypes, their purpose is broader in scope thanthat of a coach. Coca-Cola Foods believes thatboth processes are an important part of itshuman resource development effort and thathuman resource development is a key tobuilding competitive advantage and to thecreation of a high-performing organization.As stated previously, the struggle at Coca-Cola Foods has been to maximize and/oroptimize HRD’s contribution to businesssuccess. Because there is a great deal of evi-dence regarding the important contributionswhich mentors make to career success, andbecause Coca-Cola has tied both mentor andcoaching programmes to business goals, itwould seem that Coca-Cola Foods’ approachis in line with both the scientific evidence andwith recent proponents of achieving competi-tive advantage through people (Pfeffer, 1994).

ReferencesBartlett, R.C. (1995), “The mentoring message”,

Chief Executive (USA), March, pp. 48-9.Burgess, L. (1994), “Mentoring without the blind-

fold”, Employment Relations Today, Winter,Vol. 21, pp. 439-45.

Burke, R.J. and McKeen, C.A. (1989), “Developingformal mentoring programs in organiza-tions”, Business Quarterly, Vol. 53, pp. 69-76.

Burke, R.J., McKeen, C.A. and McKeen, C.A.(1991), “How do mentorships differ from typi-cal supervisory relationships?”, PsychologicalReports, Vol. 68, pp. 459-66.

Clawson, J. G. (1979), “Superior-subordinate rela-tionships for managerial development”,unpublished doctoral dissertation, HarvardBusiness School, Boston, MA.

Colborn, K. (1992), “Mentoring today, diversitytomorrow?”, EDN, Vol. 37, 5 November , pp. 81-4.

Hunt, D. M. and Michael, C. (1983), “Mentorship: acareer training and development tool”, Acad-emy of Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 475-85.

Jennings, E.E. (1971), Routes to the Executive Suite,McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Kanter, R. M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corpo-ration, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Klauss, R. (1981), “Formalized mentor relation-ships for management and executive develop-ment programs in the Federal Government”,Public Administration Review, Vol. 41, pp. 489-96.

Kram, K. (1985a), Mentoring at Work, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL.

Kram, K. (1985b), “Improving the mentoringprocess”, Training and Development Journal,Vol. 44, pp. 40-3.

Kram, E. and Isabella, L.A. (1985), “Mentoringalternatives: the role of peer relationships incareer development”, Academy of Manage-ment Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 110-32.

Morrison, A.M., White, R.P. and Van Velsor, E.(1987), Breaking the Glass Ceiling,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage throughPeople: Unleashing the Power of the WorkForce, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,MA.

Phillips-Jones, L.L. (1982), Mentors and Protégés,Arbor House, New York, NY.

Scandura, T. A. (1992), “Mentorship and careermobility: an empirical investigation”, Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, pp. 169-74.

Stumpf, S.A. and London, M. (1981), “Managementpromotions: individual and organizationalfactors influencing the decision process”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, pp. 539-49.D

ownl

oade

d by

IN

DIA

N I

NST

ITU

TE

OF

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

AT

LU

CK

NO

W A

t 01:

51 0

8 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Marcia S Hagen, Shari L Peterson. 2015. Measuring coaching: behavioral and skill-based managerial coaching scales. Journalof Management Development 34:2, 114-133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Marcia S. Hagen. 2012. Managerial coaching: A review of the literature. Performance Improvement Quarterly 24:10.1002/piq.v24.4, 17-39. [CrossRef]

3. Stephen Bowles, Christopher J.L. Cunningham, Gabriel M. De La Rosa, James Picano. 2007. Coaching leaders in middle andexecutive management: goals, performance, buy‐in. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28:5, 388-408. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

4. Earnest Friday, Shawnta S. Friday, Anna L. Green. 2004. A reconceptualization of mentoring and sponsoring. ManagementDecision 42:5, 628-644. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

5. Earnest Friday, Shawnta S. Friday. 2002. Formal mentoring: is there a strategic fit?. Management Decision 40:2, 152-157.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

6. Philip H. Siegel, Alan Reinstein. 2001. An exploratory study of mentor relationships in large CPA firms. Scandinavian Journalof Management 17, 421-436. [CrossRef]

7. Philip H. Siegel, James W. Smith, Joseph B. Mosca. 2001. Mentoring relationships and interpersonal orientation. Leadership& Organization Development Journal 22:3, 114-126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Richard Teare. 1997. Supporting managerial learning in the workplace. International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement 9:7, 304-314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

9. Richard Stead. 1997. Mentoring young learners: does everyone really need a mentor?. Education + Training 39:6, 219-224.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

10. William Q. Judge, Jeffrey Cowell. 1997. The brave new world of executive coaching. Business Horizons 40, 71-77. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by I

ND

IAN

IN

STIT

UT

E O

F M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T A

T L

UC

KN

OW

At 0

1:51

08

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)