Getting your fellow mentors on board

[Nick Seidl]

I have been mentoring teams in varying capacities for a few years now and feel like I have gotten a decent grip on working with the students. The other adults on the team however are a whole other spicy meatball. This has become more apparent to me now that I am at the top of the mentor totem pole for my team. Please don’t take this as me throwing my fellow mentors under the bus. The problem I believe stems more from my leadership style and inability to articulate some things.

I have my philosophies on what the division of labor and decision making between students and mentors should look like. I call this “The Oldest Question in FIRST.” There are plenty of threads on this, so I am not looking to flog that particular deceased equine any further . The problem I am running into is that I have mentors on my team that are all at different points on that continuum. My question for the more experienced mentors out there is twofold:

1. How do I quantify things so as to better articulate where I think we should be on this as a team?

2. How do I go about either making my case and getting the other mentors on board with where I stand, or at least get them to arrive at a consensus on the issue that they feel they can live with?

Apologies for the wall of text.

[marshall]

Honestly, your first mistake was starting this discussion on CD and not with your fellow mentors.

Your second mistake is not having this discussion with them now. Talking to the Internet means people can (and will) respond with "LOL... HAR HAR... MENTORS BUILD ROBOTZ" or "On my team, we have the students turn all of the screwdrivers".

And discussion with your fellow mentors does not mean just talking to them. It means asking them to talk to you and listening as they explain their methods and concerns.

EDIT: To be clear; teams should be having the discussion about the role of mentors and students as regularly as is productive for the team. It's important to have an understanding of what it means to be a team.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by Nick Seidl

1. How do I quantify things so as to better articulate where I think we should be on this as a team?

2. How do I go about either making my case and getting the other mentors on board with where I stand, or at least get them to arrive at a consensus on the issue that they feel they can live with?

Apologies for the wall of text.

Great post. Getting a cohesive unit of mentors is one of the most critical and challenging things for a team. I'll give some ideas, but they are by no means perfect.

I'm not sure how invested your mentors are, but for most groups the most important thing is fostering that investment. Just like students need to feel ownership and excitement on the team, so do mentors. Keeping them involved in the planning process, even just keeping them informed of the short-term and long-term plan, is important (and something I still struggle with). Second, make sure they are working on projects that they are passionate about. Even if the team doesn't need a new flag, letting a group make one can foster that passion.

Once you have that passion, having a big discussion about where the team is headed (with concrete dates, milestones, and goals) can help galvanize support. Now, everyone won't agree on the same path towards those goals, but that is probably a positive. Use your experience to push for your plans, but be open to the ways that they want to do things.
As far as quantifying, you could try quantifying those goals. Something like "Our goal is to go to DCMP. To get there we need twice the driver practice. To get that we need to design freeze in week 2. To get that we need to finish prototyping major mechanisms by week 1.5." Then put the question to everyone "how to we rearrange resources to improve prototyping, so that we can go to DCMP?"

Basically, quantify individual things in terms of completing a goal. Once the other mentors are invested in the team, they will be more likely to work with you towards a consensus that they can live with.


That's my take on it anyway. Not sure how clear it was though, so feel free to ask any questions

[Boltman]

What works for us pretty well... We have the team student officers decide the workgroups for the season, we then have a meeting and let mentors decide which workgroup to join. We tend to get all basis covered by letting students pick the groups and where they want to be as well as the mentors. We kind of self police to make sure each group is strongly represented for a season with key students and a strong mentor in that area or two. For returning student mentors we allow them to be floaters to help any group that needs help, since they came from the prior actual team environment and get it.

I think both students and mentors should be in areas the want each season not where they are told to be.
Also during the season each mentor has autonomy along with the student officer over what happens in a specific group (we don't step on each others toes). There is some cross- help but mostly each unit does their own thing to deliver the final bot and gameplay.

This is our fourth year and out of the main mentors the groups are pretty consistent as new ones come in they pick and can bolster/replace. In some areas we force change like finance. In others its semi-permanent and voluntary.

Size wise we are fairly small... 30+ students 8 mentors

This year we are pretty solid with students and mentors, its challenging though because this being out 4th year the original Freshman will graduate... so we are trying to bolster continuity this season and find new strong student leaders and need to find new drivers for next season and beyond.

[Nick Seidl]

The conversation with the other mentors is what spawned my post, not the other way around. The problem I run into is I am having a hard time sharing my thoughts with them due to the distance between my brain and mouth. Additionally, they are all good about sharing their opinions (which is awesome!), but I'm running into problems getting that conversation to a conclusion. Lots of talking, not much listening to each other or coming to conclusions going on. How do I play referee between the grown ups?

I realize this thread will probably attract some her-dur posts, but I'm hoping to find the toad of truth in the swamp of posts.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by marshall

To be clear; teams should be having the discussion about the role of mentors and students as regularly as is productive for the team. It's important to have an understanding of what it means to be a team.

^^This. And this discussion should not be limited to just mentors (though having some mentors-only discussions before the whole team discussion is a good idea).

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Nick Seidl

The conversation with the other mentors is what spawned my post, not the other way around. The problem I run into is I am having a hard time sharing my thoughts with them due to the distance between my brain and mouth. Additionally, they are all good about sharing their opinions (which is awesome!), but I'm running into problems getting that conversation to a conclusion. Lots of talking, not much listening to each other or coming to conclusions going on. How do I play referee between the grown ups?

I realize this thread will probably attract some her-dur posts, but I'm hoping to find the toad of truth in the swamp of posts.

Sorry, a bit reactionary on my part. CD is a mess for this time of the year.

In seriousness, it sounds like you need to come up with a decision making process with the group of mentors. "Hey guys, I've noticed we have a hard time coming to conclusions so here's my idea for how we can do that". It can be as simple as "quick verbal vote" or dictatorship-like-final-call-by-lead-mentor if you've got one mentor who is making decisions. I suggest some kind of happy medium with a tie-breaker rule or decision-tree.

As a bonus, one handy trick for these types of discussions (and really all types) is to never assign ideas to people or associate ideas with people. It's not "her idea" or "Timmy's idea"... it is "an idea about XYZ". This helps to remove personalities from the decision making process and causes people to look at ideas dispassionately.

[mathking]

This has been an issue for us at various times over the years. We are fortunate in that I have been the co-head or head mentor for the entire time of our team, and my co-head for the past eight years and I have very similar philosophies. That said, we have had somewhere north of 60 mentors work with our team and this problem does come up.

#1 suggestion: Listen first. Have a meeting with the mentors. Consider having two or three student leaders as well, but only if you think they won't be intimidated or feel like they are being made to choose between mentors. Lay out your issue, that you think that everyone needs to be on the same page as to the proper role of mentors on the team. Listen to everyone's input and try to focus on the common ground. After you have listened lay out your concerns. It is not really any different than developing a vision for the operation of any organization. If you want it to work well you need to get people to buy into it. Focusing first on the common ground is an important part of cooperative bargaining, which is a good model to try to emulate.

#2 suggestion: Keep the lines of communication open for students. They need to know that mentors will listen to their concerns.

#3 suggestion: If you feel like their is a distance between your brain and your mouth, make sure you right up your concerns before a meeting. And then talk through them at least once on your own. Or even better share what you wrote with someone not on the team who can give you feedback to see if it makes sense. It is always amazing to me how much better I feel about meetings when I prepare what I want to say ahead of time.

[Greg Hainsworth]

I can’t tell from your post if you have mentors that need development of specific FRC skills (learning about how FRC works as a program, understanding and using common parts, etc) or if they are trying to change the direction of the team to suit their ideas and goals.

Have a mentor meeting and tell each mentor what your expectations are for being a mentor. Basic ground rules – and keep it clear and concise. How much help do you expect the mentors to provide? Do you want a mentor built robot or a student built robot?

At the risk of sounding cliché: Business plan – 1, 2, and 5 year goals. You need to have this in all the mentor’s hands as soon as they come on board. These goals can be fluid year to year but not mid season. This is where the team is headed for the current and future year. This is where your vision for the team needs to be enumerated.

Good CEO’s do not get down in the trenches. They hire good people and entrust them to get their jobs done. Your responsibility as the lead is to get your mentors the skills and tools needed to do the job you want them to do. Empower them and accept that their approach may be different from yours. It shouldn’t matter as long as they get to the goal that is set. Resist the urge to get hands on or direct mentors to one specific path. I can’t tell how many ‘training’ seminars I sat through encouraging me to ‘think outside the box’ only to be told by higher management “the way we do it now works just fine and we’re not changing”.

Hope this helps. Good luck

[Andrew Schreiber]

TLDR - different interaction methods are good, respect your fellow mentors enough to trust them to be decent people.

Why do all mentors have to have similar philosophies in mentoring?

As a student on RUSH I was lucky enough to be exposed to a variety of mentors with a variety of styles and philosophies when it comes to mentoring. Some were more hands on, others were more sarcastic, yet others had other styles. I naturally gravitated towards working with mentors that worked with my personal style of learning.

To me, I have a style of mentoring in line with my personality, asking (or telling me) to do something very different than that is going to be a very unpleasant experience and, in my experience, counter productive. Sure, your fellow mentors could all try to be nurturing, kind, and hands off (if that's what you want) but that may be counter to their personality which increases stress on them. Couple that with the fact that some students may learn better with other approaches and it stops making sense to mandate mentoring styles.


On 79 and 125 I respected (most of) my fellow mentors. I assumed if they were interacting with a student a certain way they either knew the student reacted well to that sort of interaction OR that the student would ask someone else for help if it bothered them. Really I think what you're missing isn't knowing your mentors but respecting them as adults and professionals and trusting them to do what they think is in the best interest of the students and the team.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

TLDR - different interaction methods are good, respect your fellow mentors enough to trust them to be decent people.

Why do all mentors have to have similar philosophies in mentoring?

I'll second this.

Additionally, if you are "top of the mentor totem pole", and you state that many different mentor styles/philosophies are encouraged on your team, I think you'll find you welcome more people than you turn away with your inclusive policy. On the other hand, dictating a laborious set of rules/guidelines that goes well beyond FIRST's standards for mentors will almost definitely turn away many adults.

One caveat, I do encourage all teams to have all of their mentors YPP certified. I know, YPP isn't a catch-all, but it is supported by FIRST and a great addition to a mentor's tool belt.

-Mike

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Why do all mentors have to have similar philosophies in mentoring?

Inconsistent mentoring philosophies drive students away (we lost at least four a few years ago on this). They don't have to be identical, but they can't be too disparate. If you don't have a common purpose, you don't have a team.

Originally Posted by mathking

I do agree with this. Think of inconsistent in terms of incompatible...

I've been trying to compose an answer. ^^This is what I was going to say, though I would not have been as eloquent. The most charitable explanation of the issue is that we had different (incompatible) ideas of what "inspiring STEM 'n such" means.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Inconsistent mentoring philosophies drive students away (we lost at least four a few years ago on this). They don't have to be identical, but they can't be too disparate. If you don't have a common purpose, you don't have a team.

My experience is quite literally the exact opposite.

And they DO have a common purpose - inspiring STEM 'n such.

I'm not talking mentors who are at odds, I expect them to behave like adults. But things like level of hands on, tone of voice, and the like. For example - I expect students to either know how to do something or come and ask, I don't have a lot of patience for people who sit and do nothing because they don't know how to do it. I tend to treat students as adults until they demonstrate they can't be. I trust them to do their job or find one. Other mentors have a different approach to student interactions - they hover more or perhaps are a little less blunt.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

My experience is quite literally the exact opposite.

And they DO have a common purpose - inspiring STEM 'n such.

I kinda agree. Disagreement is good for the soul but it does need to be constructive disagreement. You don't want to encourage cults of personality around mentors and having students take sides (or maybe you do if that's how your team runs).

[mathking]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Inconsistent mentoring philosophies drive students away (we lost at least four a few years ago on this). They don't have to be identical, but they can't be too disparate. If you don't have a common purpose, you don't have a team.

I do agree with this. Think of inconsistent in terms of incompatible. So if it is a question of a warm, fuzzy and outgoing vs. gruff and quiet approach, no, not all the mentors need to or should be the same. If it is a question of "I design the robot and tell the students exactly what to do" vs. "the students design the robot with guidance and feedback from the mentor" then it can cause a lot of problems on a team. I am not arguing here about which of these is a better approach, but we have had problems like this in the past when new mentors joined our team expecting one when we were doing the other. Mostly the mentors adapted to the team culture. But not always, and when they didn't it caused them, me and the students a lot of stress.

So if/when you meet with the other mentors you need to identify which differences are differences in style that you can live with or even celebrate and which are differences in philosophy of operation that you can't.