AASP Newsletter - February 2017

Courtney W. Hess, MS, University of Massachusetts-Boston
Jake Chamberlin, BGS, University of Kansas
Stacy Gnacinski, MS, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

In the field of applied sport psychology, mentorship is often touted as one of the primary vehicles for facilitating professional support, development, and growth. As such, mentorship reflects a dynamic and reciprocal relationship between both mentor and mentee (Wright & Smith, 2000). Despite the barriers to effective mentorship, such as financial cost and mentor workload (McEwan & Tod, 2015), research has consistently revealed several common factors, which are germane to meaningful and effective mentorship relationships. This article will provide a brief overview of three common factors, supported by literature and the experience of two mentors in our field - Dr. Laura Hayden, Professor of Counseling Psychology at UMass-Boston), and Dr. Barbara Meyer, Professor of Kinesiology at UW-Milwaukee.

Common Factor #1: Effective mentorship starts with a good “fit”.  Mentorship is influenced by the requisite alignments in personal and work-related characteristics between the mentor and mentee (Terrion & Leonard, 2007; Watson, Clement, Blom, & Grindley, 2009).  Personal characteristics that can influence the effectiveness of mentorship experiences include, but are not limited to, gender, race, goal-orientation, trustworthiness, and willingness to commit time to the mentorship process.  Accordingly, Dr. Hayden recommends that mentees “look for fit, not prestige” when researching potential mentors.  She also advises that mentors and mentees dedicate meaningful time and energy to developing trust in order to reap benefits of a working relationship.  Dr. Hayden: “Without trust and honesty, absolutely nothing of consequence can emerge, so my primary priority is to focus on the general well-being and growth of mentees as people, not just as academics or students.” Work-related characteristics, including habits, expectations, and interests, can also have a significant influence on mentorship.  Across studies, mentees have reported an appreciation for their mentors’ honesty about the realities and uncertainties of working in applied sport psychology (Owton, Bond, & Tod, 2014; Tod, Andersen, & Marchant, 2011).  Appreciating the realities of working in sport, and being “in it for the betterment of the client, as opposed to their own reflected glory” are characteristics Dr. Meyer seeks in potential mentees.  She also notes that students often have unrealistic expectations of acquiring high level, high profile jobs immediately after graduation; therefore, she encourages mentees to “be patient, work hard, and be prepared to progressively move up the ranks.”

Common Factor #2: Effective mentorship experiences are products of hard work.  Hours of time spent together during mentorship are positively correlated with work outcomes, such as awards received, presentations, and publications (Taylor & Neimeyer, 2009).  Mentees should be prepared to do their homework when researching potential mentors (Watson et al., 2009), and also be prepared for the emotional workload (i.e., conflict, anxiety, confusion, guilt, feelings of incompetence) that often accompanies early career experiences (Foltz et al., 2015; Tod, Andersen, & Marchant, 2011).  Dr. Meyer reinforced that students should be “prepared to compromise, to work hard, to be comfortable with uncomfortable situations, to work harder, and play the long game”.  Dr. Hayden added that “students are expected to teeter on the edge of their comfort zones in order to satiate their curiosity.” 

Mentors should be prepared to embrace a model of mentorship that fits the mentees’ developmental needs (Tod, 2007).  In support, Dr. Hayden expressed that “one of the hardest parts of the mentoring process is identifying what students need.”  Having said that, mentors should be prepared to select and employ appropriate types of feedback and interventions, designed to increase mentee competencies, confidence, perceptions of autonomy, and self-reflection, while decreasing mentee anxiety (Tonn & Harmison, 2004; Tod, 2007). Dr. Meyer also noted the challenges of employing interventions with early career professionals. “A mentor and mentee typically cycle through the stages of ‘team’ development (i.e., forming, storming, norming, performing) numerous times during the relationship. Many students, despite clearly and explicitly stated expectations, push the boundaries of their expertise and autonomy. In those cases, students have to touch the stove to learn that it is hot. As a mentor, it is difficult knowing the mentee will likely ‘fail’ while allowing that to happen for the benefit of their long-term development.”

Common Factor #3:  Mentor-mentee relationship dynamics evolve over time.  Mentorship itself is a continually evolving process, as both mentors and mentees have dynamic sets of competencies and needs.  The notion of an ever-evolving mentor-mentee relationship is illuminated in Dr. Meyer’s description of her mentorship style.  “My mentorship style is dynamic, evolving over the course of the relationship. The relationship typically starts as authoritarian, and then through transformational interactions, progresses to an egalitarian relationship.” Early in the mentorship process, mentees naturally rely on mentor modeling to develop competencies (i.e., conflict management, ethical decision making, client identification in organizational settings), and subsequently often adopt the work styles and theoretical orientations of their mentors (Foltz et al., 2015; Poczwardowski, Sherman, & Ravizza, 2004; Tod, Andersen, & Marchant, 2009).  As mentees’ professional growth and autonomy increase, their perceptions of mentorship satisfaction may decrease due to their evolving professional needs (Taylor & Neimeyer, 2009).  Given the often rapidly changing needs of both parties, mentor-mentee dyads are encouraged to engage in ongoing evaluation and redefinition (if necessary) of their mentorship roles and expectations (Rose, Rukstalis, & Schuckit, 2005; Taylor & Neimeyer, 2009). 

Across professions, effective mentorship is significantly related to professional development, perceived quality of education, and future job outcomes (van Emmerik, 2004; Zhao, Golde, & McCormack, 2007).  Specific to the field of applied sport psychology, it is important to keep in mind that mentorship is not the same as, nor does it replace, the process of formal clinical supervision, which is the formal reflection process of students’ clinical work with a licensed psychologist, and a required part of clinical psychology training as outlined by the American Psychological Association (APA).  Members seeking mentorship are encouraged to become educated about the type of mentorship or clinical supervision that will be required in order to achieve their chosen educational and professional goals. 

References

Foltz, B. D., Fisher, A. R., Denton, L. K., Campbell, W. L., Speight, Q. L., Steinfeldt, J., & Latorre, C. (2015). The applied sport psychology supervision experience: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27, 449-463. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2015.1043162.

McEwan, H. E., & Tod, D. (2015). Learning experiences contributing to service-delivery competence in applied psychologists: Lessons for sport psychologists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27, 79-93. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2014.952460

Owton, H., Bond, K., & Tod, D. (2014). "It's my dream to work with Olympic athletes": Neophyte sport psychologists' expectations and initial experiences regarding service delivery. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26, 241-255. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2013.847509

Poczwardowski, A., Sherman, C. P., & Ravizza, K. (2004). Professional philosophy in the sport psychology service delivery: Building on theory and practice. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 445-463.

Rose, G. L., Rukstalis, M. R., & Schuckit, M. A. (2005). Informal mentoring between faculty and medical students. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 80(4), 344-388.

Taylor, J. M., & Neimeyer, G. J. (2009). Graduate school mentoring in clinical, counselling, and experimental academic training programs: An exploratory study. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 257-266.

Terrion, J. L., & Leonard, D. (2007). A taxonomy of the characteristics of student peer mentors in higher education: Findings from a literature review. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(2), 149-164.

Tod, D., Andersen, M. B., & Marchant, D. B. (2009). A longitudinal examination of neophyte applied psychologists' development. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, S1-S16. doi: 10.1080/10413200802593604

Tod, D., Andersen, M. B., & Marchant, D. B. (2011). Six years up: Applied sport psychologists surviving (and thriving) after graduation. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 93-109.

Tod, D. (2007). The long and winding road: Professional development in sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 21, 94-108.

Tonn, E., & Harmison, R. J. (2004). Thrown to the wolves: A student's account of her practicum experience. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 324-340.

van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2004). The more you can get the better: Mentoring constellations and intrinsic career success. Career Development International, 9(6), 578-594. doi: 10.1108/13620430410559160

Watson, J. C., Clement, D., Blom, L. C., & Grindley, E. (2009). Mentoring: Processes and perceptions of sport and exercise psychology graduate students. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 231-246. doi: 10.1080/10413200902777297

Wright, S. C., & Smith, D. E. (2000). A case for formalized mentoring. Quest, 52, 200-213.

Zhao, C. M., Golde, C., & McCormick, A. C. (2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 263-281.