August/September 2004 Issue Number 62

Is a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers. Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity, change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.

We hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter, please enter your email address in the box below.

Sign up for our free newsletter,
Consider This...

Women Chief Officers Conference November 11-14, 2004, Wyndham Hotel, San Diego. For more information, go to www.womenfireofficers.org

11th International Conference of Fire Service Women March 29-April 3, 2005. Montgomery County, Maryland. Go to www.wfsi.org for more information.  

Mentoring: Myths and Reality  

Mentors are a good thing. Everyone should have one during a career. This is the common wisdom. But what is the reality? What kind of benefit do mentors provide? And just what is a mentor anyway?  

The word mentor comes from the ancient Greek. When Odysseus went to fight the Trojan War, he left his young son Telemachus at home in the care of his teacher and wise friend, Mentor. The modern definition of mentor is consistent with its ancient origins. Mentors are guides, wise friends, advocates, teachers, advisers.  

In the context of work, a mentor is specifically someone who helps another with his or her career path or professional development. Mentors illuminate opportunities, give advice, act as a sounding board, share their own experiences. This sounds great, and it is. Everyone who has an authentic mentor will benefit, and both parties in the relationship find value in it. The problem comes when trying to find a mentor.  

Some mentoring relationships just happen. People work together or know one another through other professional contacts, and develop a relationship that capitalizes on the mentor's experience and the protege's eagerness to learn. Studies show that people with mentors do advance more quickly and to higher levels in organizations. They may also fulfill their duties in those advanced positions with more confidence and satisfaction than if they had been without such a guide.  

Based on this premise, everyone should have a mentor, but not everyone does. Saying it should "just happen" is neither realistic nor fair. People who are already insiders in an organization are much more likely to find a mentor under this informal system than are the relative outsiders or newcomers. Another danger of the "it should just happen" approach to finding a mentor is that people under this system tend to find mentors who are very much like themselves. This may not be the person that they most need in the moment, and it does little to expand and diversify the leadership of the organization.  

Some organizations have tried formal mentoring programs, where people are assigned to one another and have an obligation to meet on a regular basis. This system can work if the people involved are genuine in their commitment to the program and make a real connection with the person to whom they are assigned. Those who are only going through the motions may do more harm than good.  

Another pitfall of mentoring is that people often assume that mentors must come from within their own organizations. This is patently false, and in fact, corporations recognize that the best mentors often come not only from outside the organization but even from outside the industry. Mentors are not there to teach technical skills, but rather to give a broader perspective and guidance in fulfilling one's potential. There is nothing industry specific about this.  

Some people say that mentors should always be in positions higher than those they are partnering with: at least two positions above them is the guideline. But this may be unnecessarily narrow. Mentoring is about the ability to impart wisdom and guidance based on experience, and this may have nothing to do with rank or position.  

Some organizations provide mentoring matchmaking services, but tend to pair people up based on similarity rather than need. Thus you find women mentoring women, minority men mentoring minority men, paramedics mentoring paramedics etc. There may be value in this, but the best mentoring relationships have a specific goal and purpose. Is the person hoping to promote to officer? Did someone just get hired on the job? Did the person just take on a new role or responsibility, such as joining the haz mat team or becoming a fire investigator? Each of these circumstances would require a very different type of mentor.  

One reason why some people hesitate to enter into a mentoring relationship is because they feel it commits them for the rest of their careers, to be somehow responsible for the other person. But that is neither realistic nor desirable. In fact, most active mentoring relationships should be finite, based on need and specifically goal driven: at least six months in duration, but probably not longer than two years. This is not to say that people who have had this type of relationship do not continue conversing and exchanging ideas with one another throughout their careers. Probably they will, but not on the same level as when they are actively engaged in a mentoring relationship.  

With luck and effort, people will have several mentors throughout their careers, and likewise should be engaged as a mentor as often. It is common for people to be both a protege and a mentor at any given time.  

Mentoring is a positive and beneficial relationship for all those who engage in it. People should be encouraged to seek out mentors as well as to be one, and organizations should provide access to the skills and support for members to fulfill these roles well.  

Source: New York Times, July 25, 2004

 

The Michigan Supreme Court has granted DaimlerChrysler a new trial in a sexual harassment case, saying that the $21 million awarded by a jury in 1999 was "excessive and clearly the product of passion and prejudice." During the trial, the plaintiff's attorney made explicit references to the Holocaust and the company's German national origin.  

Source: http://hr.blr.com

Class Action  

Last month, Wal-Mart was served with a class action discrimination lawsuit on behalf of up to 1.6 current and former female employees of the corporation. This is the largest private civil rights case in U.S. history.  

Wal-Mart, which is the nation's largest private employer, sought to limit the scope of the lawsuit when it was originally filed three years ago. Specifically, the company tried to have the class action status of the case thrown out.  

A class action lawsuit is simply one that groups people with common interest together as plaintiffs in a case, assuming that harm has been done to them based on their membership in a definable "class." A class can refer to race, gender, age, or any other protected category under Title VII, or it can refer to people who have something else in common, such as class action personal injury lawsuits that are brought on behalf of all who have suffered injury from using a particular product, for example.  

Class action lawsuits are costly for defendants in a number of ways. Judgments and settlements tend to be higher, due to the number of people involved. The costs are more than monetary, however. Class action suits are high profile, and tend to get more press. Being named as a defendant in one gives the impression that there is at least some justification and potential guilt involved. Class action lawsuits by definition assume a systemic pattern of behavior, something that goes far beyond the bad practice of an individual.  

Class action lawsuits get more attention for a cause than individual suits, and they also save plaintiffs from bearing the cost of filing many individual cases. But the savings up front may incur a cost later. Whatever award is made as a result of a class action lawsuit must be divided among all members of the affected class, which can significantly reduce eventual individual awards.  

The win-or-lose-for-all nature of class action suits may seem unfair to both sides at times. Individual plaintiffs who have suffered more harm may not feel their share of eventual awards adequately reflects this. Employers, as in Wal-Mart's case, often argue that individual business units are autonomous and cannot be seen as part of any kind of larger pattern. As a compromise, Wal-Mart unsuccessfully suggested that "mini class action cases" be filed relating to individual stores, rather than citing all 3,500 stores for similar practices.  

Small employers are not immune from class action suits. In some cases, it only takes three representatives of a definable class to file suit on behalf of all who are affected. Class action suits are often used as a way of instigating organization-wide changes. But the stakes are high. A better way is to listen to employees, pay attention to complaints as they occur, and take corrective action promptly when bad practice is discovered. Class action lawsuits, although sometimes necessary, are a costly way of making change, for all involved.  

Source: Associated Press, June 22, 2004

© Linda F. Willing, 2004