Trust and interdependence

Trust relationships in the world of the mentor seem to feature a marked interdependence. I'll consider this with respect to the relationships between mentor-student, mentor-university link, mentor-colleague and mentor-patient.

In the mentor-student relationship, the interdependence is concerned with the mentor depending on the student to practise in a responsible and reliable way (do no harm to patients) and to report back to peers and university staff in a way that is fairly representative of the experience they have had on placement, and that is respectful of some of the difficulties and subtleties of professional practice. The student depends on the mentor to show them good practice, open doors to learning experiences (make them available, e.g. access to patients and other professionals), and to assess their performance fairly.

In the relationship between the mentor and the university link person, the mentor depends on the university link person/people to provide the right information and training/updating when needed, and support and back-up in cases of difficult student-related issues. They also depend on the university sending students in manageable numbers and appropriately, in terms of matching learning needs to the practice area. Mentors rely on the university to prepare students appropriately for their forthcoming practice experiences. The university depends on mentors to provide the appropriate practice experience, communicate with them as necessary, and assess students appropriately.

In the relationship between the mentor and their immediate colleagues, the mentor depends on colleagues to show goodwill, cooperation and support towards the student, and to deputise in their absence. Mentors often depend on the opinions of and evidence provided by colleagues in assessing the capabilities of students. As having a student may be seen as competing or interfering with day-to-day practice, the mentor also relies on colleagues to be tolerant and accepting of their position and responsibility. There is probably less dependence in the other direction, unless colleagues are also mentors, in which case giving support can be reciprocated mentor-to-mentor. In some senses, then, the relationship between mentors and close colleagues could be unbalanced or unidirectional in terms of dependence.

With patients, mentors depend on patients allowing students to take part in their care. Patients depend on the mentors to delgate and supervise appropriately to deflect risk of harm.

Where there is obvious interdependence, this must be different to situations where the mentor is more dependent, for example, on colleagues to provide support. Where does trust come into this? Is it easier to make yourself vulnerable, knowing that the other can also be vulnerable?

How do nurses negotiate multiple trust relationships in their mentoring roles?

Trust exists in relationships with patients, colleagues, managers, and relevant professional bodies. Indeed, the first item in the Nursing professional code of conduct is that “The people in your care must be able to trust you with their health and wellbeing” (Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2008). The code further stipulates that nurses have an obligation to work collaboratively in teams and behave in such a way as to uphold the reputation of the profession.

Trust is thought to be important for cooperative behaviour. Workers are said to trust others when they have optimistic expectations of them and are willing to be vulnerable and take a risk with regard to the other fulfilling their expectations (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998; Whitener, 1997). The relationships between mentors and students and with their work colleagues seem to call for a consideration of collegial trust. Collegial trust operates on an interpersonal level and carries an expectation of the other person working with professional integrity and doing what is expected (Jackson, 2008; Sullivan, Francis, & Hegney, 2008).

The data in my study reveals a complex web of relationships that mentors negotiate. With their work colleagues, they sometimes need to advocate for their mentoring activities and the presence of students in the workplace, or they may need to confide in colleagues about aspects of their mentoring practice, or delegate to them for supervision of and judgements about their student. With the partner university, it is important to them that their judgements and concerns about students are taken seriously, but also that their goodwill in taking students and making the effort to support students is recognised and not taken for granted. With students, they make efforts at befriending in order to put students at ease, and to foster a sense of trust that enables disclosure by the student. Such disclosures can be seen as essential for supporting reflection on practice. However, this befriending must be tempered by the requirement of mentors to assess students' practice, determining their eligibilty to progress in their training, or even to progress onto the professional register. With regard to patients, mentors are protective, seeking to reduce any risk associated with students providing care. They also require patients to cooperate with the student, and accept that some patients will refuse care by a student.

A development of mentoring styles

Mentoring styles could be seen as approaches to mentoring that can be fluid and adaptable according to characteristics of the mentee or the demands of any particular work situation. They can also be seen as more stable aspects of a mentor’s practice that relate, for example, to their own personality, values and preferences for learning. In reality, there is good reason to suspect that there is a combination of forces at work. Hence, one would expect to see mentors adjusting their repertoire according to any situation, while constrained to an extent by their own preferred style of being with students. I'm adopting the term “mentoring style” to denote a more personal attribute, and “mentoring approach” as a behaviour that can be adapted. I have also tried to attach an interpretation of the relationship style based on what I know about transactional analysis (TA).

In the following list, I’ve ordered the latest style classiifications roughly in a hierarchy of passive-active intervention.

1) Providing a link between the learner and the practice

chef with menu TA Adult-Adult)

co-worker to an apprentice (TA Adult-Adult)

taxi driver (TA Adult-Child)

2) Role model

Role model(TA Adult-Adult)

3) On a mission

Crusader

personal trainer or coach (TA Parent-Child)

4) Actively supporting, probing, monitoring and nurturing

nurturing parent or gardener (TA Parent-Child)

shepherd and trail guide (TA Parent-Child)

Probing parent or advocate/ mediator (TA Parent-Child)

responsible parent (TA Parent-Child)

5) Creative mentoring

scientist or pedagogue (TA Adult-Adult)

nurturing, intuitive parent (TA Parent-Child)