As we have earlier explored, recent mentoring scholarship argues that our definitions of mentoring should move away from role-based orientations towards a relational-orientation that defines mentoring “in terms of the character and quality of the relationship and in terms of the specific functions provided by the mentor” (Johnson 2016, 28). That is, there is a movement away from defining mentoring in terms of roles towards one that forefronts relationships. Additionally, it is, now, well-established that these relationships are long-term, promote holistic growth through guided reflection, and shift over time to adapt to new contexts, skills, and identities (Irby 2013; Johnson 2016; Mullen and Klimaitis 2021). Furthermore, in contrast to traditional mentor/protégé models that focus on a singular, hierarchical, one-to-one relationship, relational mentoring models are conceptualized within developmental networks or constellations (Sorcinelli and Yun 2007; Vandermaas-Peeler 2021).

In what follows, we take seriously Johnson and other leading scholars of mentoring, focusing intently on relationships, rather than the person (mentor), and attending to the realities of mentoring relationships within broader relational constellations. In doing so, we lift up in our definition of mentoring the critical functions and characteristics of mentoring as a set of developmental relationships.

So, what are the critical functions and characteristics that define mentoring relationships within a constellation model? Drawing from decades of research on the topic and adapting it to a constellation perspective, we offer the following definition:

Mentoring relationships are fundamentally developmental and learner-centered, and within college and university environments, specifically, mentoring relationships are distinct from other meaningful relationships in that they:

• promote academic, social, personal, identity, cultural, and/or career-focused learning and development in intentional, sustained, and integrative ways;
• evolve over time, becoming more reciprocal and mutually beneficial;
• are individualized, attending to mentees’ developing strengths and shifting needs, mentors’ expertise, and all members’ identities; and
• function within a broader set of relationships known as a mentoring constellation.

This framework moves beyond the one-to-one mentoring model to a constellation of multiple meaningful and mentoring relationships supporting students’ varied academic, social, personal, identity, cultural, and career-focused learning and development needs. Mentoring relationships, as distinguished above, reside within a broader set of relationships: a mentoring constellation. That is, the constellation includes a range of meaningful relationships. Though not all relationships within the constellation can be characterized as mentoring relationships, all are both meaningful and have the potential to develop over time into mentoring relationships. The number and nature of specific relationships — including mentoring relationships — within these mentoring constellations vary across individuals, time, and contexts. As a result, mentors play significant roles serving one or more mentoring functions across time and contexts.

Mentoring Relationships and a Relationship-Rich Environment

In a relationship-rich model of education, relationships of many kinds matter. Felten and Lambert (2021) argue, “Key is not tasking each student with identifying a single mentor who will meet all of their needs, but rather creating a relationship-rich environment where students will have frequent opportunities to connect with many peers, faculty, staff, and others on and off campus” (6). In this model and from this perspective, mentoring relationships become one of many kinds of meaningful relationships that, together, provide a supportive context for learning and development: a mentoring constellation. As Ragins and Kram (2007) articulate, “We now recognize that mentoring relationships exist within the context of developmental networks” (9). Mentoring relationships are, therefore, helpfully understood within a broader context of supportive, developmental relationships: a relationship-rich environment.

These relationships, however, do not form whole immediately. Mentoring relationships develop over time, emanating out of other forms of relationships and contexts. For instance, the mentoring relationships faculty and students develop frequently begin within the classroom, wherein the faculty serve in the role of teachers, not mentors, at least initially. Those teacher-student relationships that develop into mentoring relationships do so over time and, often, outside the classroom context in which their relationships have the opportunity to germinate.

Of course, mentoring relationships form across a variety of contexts beyond the classroom, with on-campus employment functioning as a potentially significant location for such relationship development. Though initially serving in the role of supervisor, staff across campus are often identified by students as key mentors, with the “office” context, understood broadly, serving as a locale out of which mentoring relationships have an opportunity to develop.

From these two standard institutional roles – the teacher and supervisor – meaningful relationships have the potential to develop. They are two among many, including advisor, RA, classmate, coach, teammate, librarian, and tutor. Though these relationships all hold potential for developing into mentoring relationships, they are distinct from them. Mentoring relationships require time to develop, and they do so out of other meaningful relationships. Such meaningful relationships are also more likely to develop if they reside within a broader, intentional relationship-rich institutional context.

These initial relationships and the contexts out of which they form are, thus, critical to the possibility of mentoring relationships. The development of mentoring relationships relies, that is, on this broader context and set of relationships. Put another way, a full range of meaningful relationships within a relationship-rich context is not only significant but critical to the potentiality for and development of mentoring relationships.

Why “Mentoring Relationships”?

This review of the literature calls on us to understand mentors and mentoring within a relational framework that includes an array of relationships, amending our traditional perspectives of the hierarchical, one-to-one, mentor/protégé relationship. The studied literature, therefore, answers “why?” from one perspective, an intellectual, studied perspective: that is, through rigorous research, we have come to understand mentors and mentoring in new ways, and so we should embrace a relational framework. We embrace this as one critical response to “why?”

Reasons for embracing a move towards “mentoring relationships,” however, extend beyond this studied, intellectual position. There are practical and ethical reasons for embracing a relational, constellation model.

A great deal of the literature focuses on “mentors” or “mentoring” as a primary construct and unit of analysis. These orientations tend to lift up a single individual with exceptional characteristics (a mentor) who serves deeply and holistically a wide range of functions (mentoring). As a result, these orientations tend to lead toward three problematic trajectories:

1. An all-or-nothing end, whereby one is either a mentor or is not;
2. An overloading of expectations, whereby one must serve excellently across a wide range of roles and functions; and
3. A diminishing of other meaningful relationships, whereby those who offer important supportive and developmental relationships are considered less valuable or are not recognized or valued at all because they do not meet the criteria of the singularly valued “mentor.”

In the first case of the all-or-nothing, many who are clearly serving some functions of mentoring and who have relationships with students that include some characteristics of mentoring may be unfairly “left out” or not recognized for the valuable relational work they are doing. In the second case, even if one can serve all mentor functions and have a relationship defined by all characteristics of mentoring, not only will those be few and far between (at best), but those individuals will be unfairly overburdened with expectation, especially if they serve as mentors for many. In the third case, those doing important work and sustaining relationships across contexts that have the potential for developing into mentoring relationships, sustaining relationships that are valuable relationships in and of themselves, would find themselves and their work less valued¹ because it did not meet the standards of a different kind of work (mentoring).

As a foil to these problematic trajectories and in a democratizing effort to recognize a wide range of valued relationships and functions, institutions intent on creating relationship-rich environments often lean toward overly broad, inclusive definitions of mentoring that erase significant differences between kinds of relationships: in this overcorrection, everything becomes mentoring. This is also problematic. If everything is understood as mentoring — e.g., having a friendly cup of coffee with a student — the hard work of mentoring (e.g., maintaining sustained relations over time, offering critical feedback when necessary, negotiating reciprocity, being open to ongoing personal development and change) will likely not be supported, developed, recognized, and/or encouraged institutionally, typically leading to less rich, meaningful relationship development and low morale for those committed to the hard work of mentoring.

The construct of mentoring relationships, rather than mentors or mentoring, frames a differently powerful orientation. Approaching mentors and mentoring from the construct of mentoring relationships does not deny that there are such individuals (mentors) serving others in exceptional ways (mentoring) and through very deep and broad relationships. Instead, it places those kinds of relationships (mentoring relationships) within a broader set of relationships that are different but of great value and even critical to the possibility of mentoring relationship development.

This new orientation calls on us to locate relationships, meaningful relationships and mentoring relationships, within a constellation of relationships. It also calls on us to recognize and honor the dynamic natures of such relationships across time and contexts. Rather than a single, definitional “point” or even a point on a continuum, a map becomes our orienting tool. Better yet, a mapping practice that embraces the dynamic nature of relationships can orient us within this terrain of mentoring relationships.

From this exploration of mentoring definitions, we move to an exploration of mentor relationship mapping in our next post.

Note:

1. Many of us have seen cases where such relationship development with students has not only been less valued or disregarded but has even led to disciplinary action from supervisors who see such time and effort as irrelevant to one’s work and position and, thus, a “waste of time.”

References

Felten, Peter, and Leo M. Lambert. 2021. Relationship-Rich Education: How Human Connections Drive Success in College. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Irby, Beverly. J. 2013. “Editor’s Overview: Defining Developmental Relationships in Mentoring for Mentor/Mentee Dyads, for Mentors, and for Mentoring Programs.” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 21(4): 333–337.

Johnson, W. Brad. 2016. On Being a Mentor: A Guide for Higher Education Faculty. Routledge.

Mullen, Carol A., and Cindy C. Klimaitis. 2021. “Defining Mentoring: A Literature Review of Issues, Types, and Applications.” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1483: 19-35.

Sorcinelli, Mary, and Jung Yun. 2007. “From Mentor to Mentoring Networks: Mentoring in the New Academy.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 39. 58-61.

Vandermaas-Peeler, Maureen. 2021, February 18. “Mentoring for Learner Success: Conceptualizing Constellations.” [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/mentoring-for-learner-success-conceptualizing-constellations.

Authors

Tim Peeples is Senior Associate Provost Emeritus and Professor of Humanities at Elon University. He also holds the position of Senior Scholar in the Center for Engaged Learning.

Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler is a Professor of Psychology and founding Director of Elon’s Center for Research on Global Engagement at Elon University.

Jessie L. Moore is Director of the Center for Engaged Learning and Professor of English: Professional Writing & Rhetoric at Elon University.

Learn more about the authors and the Mentoring Matters project.

How to Cite this Post

Peeples, Tim, Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler, and Jessie L. Moore. 2024, July 18. “Taking (Mentoring) Relationships Seriously.” In Mentoring Matters: Supporting Students’ Development of Mentoring Constellations in Higher Education. Elon University Center for Engaged Learning. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/taking-mentoring-relationships-seriously/.