Sponsorship & Reverse Mentoring at SAP

Posted on December 1, 2016 by Components

Updated on December 21, 2023

In addition to the literature review that spawned earlier posts on sponsorship, reverse mentoring, and mentorship evaluation, I reviewed a variety of internal resources from my employer’s corporate portal, its learning management system, its enterprise social network, and prior research by stakeholders from the Learning Center of Excellence & Execution (LCoE2).  

I also hosted seven interviews: 1 with someone external to SAP, and 6 with SAP colleagues. Colleagues included the following (not their real names):

  • Director of change management for a specific line of business (Natalie)
  • 2 project/program managers from the LCoE2’s global Peer Learning team (Edith & Amalda)
  • Learning & development (L&D) strategy expert (Brenda)
  • Leadership experience program manager (Janelle)
  • Global lead for gender diversity initiatives (Nancy)

The external participant (Michelle) is a business development associate for Ellevate Network.

The following descriptions of present and past efforts (as well as their challenges) are based on findings from these sources.

Existing programs

SAP offers structured coaching and mentorship programs as part of a portfolio of peer learning programs. The mentorship program promotes a partnership with a more experienced colleague so that the mentee, or client, is able to deepen their skills and self-awareness in a specific area (SAP, 2016). Mentors provide advice based on their own experience. The coaching program pairs clients with an internal coach that has been externally certified in a coaching program so that they can enhance somewhat more abstract skill sets (ICF, 2015). Coaches ask their clients to ponder evocative questions and practice regular self-reflection in the following categories (usually one at a time): career, conflict, diversity, organizational change, leadership, life balance, skill & competency development. Both programs have specific enablement programs for mentors/coaches and clients, codes of ethics, a database where employees can go to advertise their coach/mentor services and/or to find a coach/mentor, and participant tracking tools.

Both programs measure effectiveness based on individual client exit surveys. The surveys are primarily based on a 5-point Likert scale, and they collect process-related details such as: duration of the engagement; manager involvement; participant understanding of coaching/mentorship; ease of finding a coach/mentor; existence of specific goals for the engagement; clarity of the coaching/mentorship process; feelings of trust in the coach/mentor; existence of new ideas/behaviors/feelings relevant to coaching/mentorship goals. The surveys also collect result-related data (applicability of the results in life/work; self-assessment of progress towards goals; likelihood of recommending the program; overall satisfaction; qualitative feedback) and general details (line of business, location, age, gender, tenure, and willingness to share personal success stories).

According to the LCoE2’s previous research, evaluation of coaching and mentorship relies on the establishment of clear goals at the beginning of the engagement—and these goals vary from client to client. If goals are unclear, interactions may fall short and leave sponsors with a negative perspective on the experience. Amalda advised that efforts are currently in progress to further analyze the impact of the coach role, establish a clear metric for client satisfaction, and uncover differences in relationship outcomes with the presence (or absence) of formal training. Even so, most of the internal participants noted evaluation of informal learning as one of the top challenges they face.

Sponsorship

There have been several attempts to implement different sponsorship programs at varying levels of the organization in the past—in fact, Nancy advised that her boss recently tasked her with addressing this very topic. She described two different models that she was aware of from previous attempts to standardize sponsorship: one department-level in a specific region, another limited to participants in a leadership development program for high-potential women. The regional program focused on matching participants to sponsors for a pre-defined period of time, while the leadership development program attempted to foster sponsorships’ natural development by providing participants opportunities to interact with executives via discussion groups or networking events. In the latter case, executive feedback for both the discussions and the events suggested that the potential protégés either didn’t have clear goals or were unprepared for and potentially intimidated by the engagement. The mixed outcomes turned the initiative into a negative experience for the potential sponsors, so these efforts were discontinued.

Three specific pain points dominated the conversation around challenges:

  • Confusion around the differences between coaching, mentorship, and sponsorship: Every participant cited confusion around the differences between coaching, mentorship, and sponsorship as a primary challenge, particularly for sponsors. Hewlett (2013) also pointed out the common tendency to confuse sponsorship and mentorship. Recall her illustration of the distinction (and overlap) between the two:
Figure 1-1: Sponsor versus mentor (Hewlett, 2013, p. 21)
Figure 1-1: Sponsor versus mentor (Hewlett, 2013, p. 21)
  • Authenticity of the sponsor–protégé relationship: All internal participants expressed doubt at the possibility of establishing a global sponsorship matching program and measuring its impact in the same manner as coaching/mentorship. Sponsors are expected to put their names on the line for their protégés. It’s a tall order to ask anyone to do this without there being an existing, natural rapport with the other person.
  • Tracking & analysis: The primary method of tracking sponsorship used in the past has been to directly ask leadership development program participants whether or not they have a sponsor, or someone advocating on their behalf. Of the women who responded, 38% reported having sponsors (which represents a 24% increase from their starting point in the program—a promising figure). Even so, Janelle argued that because sponsorship can be very informal and low-interaction, some individuals may have sponsors without being aware of it. Nancy recounted a personal example of this very scenario: she was working in Marketing but had made it known that she was considering a change. One day four different people sent her a job posting with Human Resources, encouraging her to apply. She was uncertain at first, given her background, but she did. Those people also contacted the hiring manager on her behalf, to vouch for her. It wasn’t until that moment that she realized these were her sponsors.

Reverse mentoring

None of the internal participants were aware of previous efforts to establish reverse mentoring programs, but Brenda mentioned that she had personally benefitted from reverse mentoring. The Hartford reported notable success in implementing a formal program, having yielded multiple promotions for top-talent mentors, innovation, employee engagement, process improvements, policy updates, and enterprise social network adoption (DeAngelis, 2013).

Since there hasn’t been an effort to formally implement reverse mentoring at SAP, there haven’t been any opportunities to observe specific challenges within SAP’s setting. Even so, that’s not meant to imply that challenges couldn’t potentially exist. Recall the 5 that Marcinkus Murphy (2012) identified: individual differences; cross-generational differences; difficulty with role reversals; interaction frequency; trust and interpersonal comfort. 

Recommendations

Per this project’s proposal, I set out in August with high hopes of delivering comprehensive design recommendations for sponsorship and reverse mentoring that included matching processes and all support required for participant enablement, along with an evaluation strategy. After completing internal and external research, the end result has deviated from the original goals. Following are several recommendations for further action related to sponsorship and reverse mentoring at SAP.

Sponsorship

When it comes to confusion around the differences between coaching, mentorship, and sponsorship, the solution is fairly straightforward: educate employees about the differences. Catalyst (2014) summarizes the approach as follows: “a coach talks to you, a mentor talks with you, and a sponsor talks about you”. Some recommendations:

  • Consider addressing sponsorship as a part of the career development roadmap, and don’t limit it to a specific level of tenure or seniority—it can occur at all levels.
  • Include resources like the 7 steps outlined in an earlier post for all audiences, then work with different specialized groups to tailor the content beyond the core assets. For example, Ellevate Network events or subscriptions (or something similar) may be valuable for leadership development program participants or a group of female executives.

To promote authentic relationships between sponsors and protégés, consider focusing on conversion rather than matching. As discussed previously: all participants expressed skepticism that formalized sponsorship programs based on a matching process could create intimate connections for most participants. Sponsors and protégés need to connect with one another to establish trust; it doesn’t develop overnight. Once protégés understand how to identify and foster sponsorship, they can focus on planting their first deliberate seeds with their mentors (if it is appropriate for their own personal goals).

To address the biggest challenge—tracking/evaluation of sponsorship’s effectiveness—there are several additional layers of measurement that could be introduced to obtain a better picture of whether or not efforts are paying off:

  • Continue with efforts to evaluate the impact of coaches/mentors, including specific questions about sponsorship-related behaviors described in the tools surveyed in a previous post (such as the Alleman Mentoring Activities Questionnaire or the Global Measure of Mentoring Practices).
  • Consider incorporating 1-2 sponsorship-focused questions into the annual employee survey to get better perspective on SAP employees’ exposure to sponsorship outside of those who are engaged with peer learning or leadership development programs—particularly when it comes to the statistics within individual board areas, this is helpful in identifying opportunities as well as champions and case studies.
  • Consider measuring the coach/mentor experience, similarly to the Negative Mentoring Experience Scale. This could uncover SAP-specific challenges to address through additional program modifications.
  • Refer to the Ernst & Young Career Watch case study in The Sponsor Effect (Hewlett et al, 2010, p. 66): they found that ~70% of women promoted into a partner position were program alums. Consider first implementing some easy programming updates, then allowing 6-12 months to pass before reviewing similar advancement statistics within SAP.

Reverse mentoring

In Modern Mentoring, Randy Emelo (2015) argued:

People will throw around all kinds of phrases to describe mentoring connections… Instead of adding to the confusion, I urge you to simplify your message… Modern mentoring is about helping people come together so they can learn from one another. It uses technology to do so and removes barriers and limitations found in more traditional programs, but ultimately it is still about learning from those around you (p. 30).

Stick to the inclusive view that mentorship is based on experience level rather than seniority/tenure, and promote typical reverse mentoring topics like new media as options for future clients/mentors. Keep it simple! Add a common reverse mentoring topic as an example on SAP’s mentoring program 1-pager, and include enablement resources about the topic itself. Comparing recommendations from The Hartford (DeAngelis, 2013, pp. 15-16) to the structure of SAP’s existing program, it doesn’t seem like there’s a need for any more than this, at least within the framework of Peer Learning offerings. Other strategic initiatives may be appropriate elsewhere—perhaps focused on program adoption among the typical reverse mentee demographic.

References

Tags:

Share