Business Corner
STRATEGIES & ANALYSIS
BY PHIL PHILLIPS
CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
PHILLIPS@CHEMARKCONSULTING.NET
Mentoring: a lost technique
Over the years Chemark has written
about the attributes and merits of mentoring as a tactic when, properly administered and supported, can provide a great number of positives at the management level in our
industry today. This remains true especially in
today’s economic environment.
In our column in February 2002, Chemark
discussed this topic and mentioned several
persons in well-respected chemical companies
that have been the beneficiaries of the process,
and, particularly, several from one company:
Goodyear T&R Chemical Division.
Of the 21 mentored members of the Chemical
Division class of 1964 the mentoring tactic proved
to be extremely successful. For example, Jim Lee
became president of Henkel, his brother Bob
“Robert E.” Lee, vice president of Shell Chemical;
Jim Fiedler became executive VP of Goodyear and
his brother, Lee Fiedler, president of Kelly-Springfield Tire (a subsidiary of Goodyear).
These people were assisted and molded by mentors at The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
through a simple well-defined process that was
sponsored at the chairman’s level and nurtured
by all management throughout Goodyear. One
might observe that several of these people left
Goodyear to achieve their ultimate position and
Goodyear “lost” the talent they spent resources on
in the process.
It is true that some did leave, but they also
achieved high-level positions within Goodyear and
contributed to the success of the company prior to
leaving. Additionally, Chemark determined that
Goodyear had one of the highest employee hire
retained rates in the industries they served. There
are other companies with historic stellar performance in the management ranks credited in part to
a strong mentoring program. 3M, Dow and Loctite
are just a few.
Some would offer many valid reasons for the
demise of the mentoring concept, saying that
20-30 years ago and beyond things were different in the supply chain when compared to
what we experience today. They would say
that the economy was booming in the 50s
through the 80s, when, due to explosive
The tactic of
mentoring
could be a
valuable
asset for
business
managers.
growth, capacity was challenged, and expan-
sion in all major segments was the rule.
With this robust economic backdrop, relative to
today’s standards, tactical “sloppiness” was also
in vogue and accepted simply because the expansion boom would tolerate slack and mediocre,
somewhat careless quality, delivery, service and
communications. Today, with consolidation, tightening quality and service demands in combination with severe price/margin pressures, something has to go. Mentoring has been one element
of management that is sacrificed primarily due to
time availability constraints.
Or, the argument that one simply cannot afford
mentoring. It is as a luxury that has seen its day
and cannot be practically duplicated and used in
today’s coatings, adhesives and sealants businesses with the demands on perfection at every aspect
of doing business, is a common comment.
In considering the middle and upper management attrition rates within our supply chain at
over 20% complicated by our industry’s lack-lus-ter image versus other more glamorous industries
such as E-business, electronics and others, to
attract high caliber graduates, we have a problem
now and a larger one as we move forward.
Can mentoring shoulder the responsibility
of getting and keeping high caliber people? No.
Not by itself. But it can bring a company and
industry a long way into the process.
In the January 2008 Harvard Business Review,
“Why Mentoring Matters in a Hypercompetitive
World,” they develop four principles regarding
mentoring:
• Principle 1 Mentoring Is Personal: We are universal in our disdain for “packaged mentorship”
instead they want concrete, hands-on feedback
from a senior professional who takes a personal
interest in their careers. New and senior management demand some degree of predictability, but
are willing to work very hard in the process.
• Principle 2 Not Everyone Is an “A” Player: “A”
players usually constitute only 20% of the professional staff and “C” players another 10%.
Therefore, “B” players make up the remaining
70%— a large group we call the “solid citizens.” “B”
players are the heart and soul of an organization.