An accounting firm's third attempt at mentoring, rebuilt around Kram's phases with mentee-led matching, prepared mentors and a no-fault exit, is the GM585 Unit 7 program design shown here. Searches like "gm 585 unit 7 assignment example", "gm585 unit 7 sample" and "gm585 unit 7 example" land here.
What a finished GM585 Unit 7 mentoring program design looks like
Eight pages organized as a program document a firm could adopt, with a short rationale up front. The rationale reviews the two earlier attempts from exit notes and participation records: pairs assigned by the human resources office, no preparation, and no end date, so pairs simply stopped meeting. The design follows Kram's four phases, initiation, cultivation, separation and redefinition, each with its own provisions. Mentees choose from three mentor profiles, mentors come from outside the mentee's reporting line, and both attend a ninety-minute preparation session. A check at [ninety] days lets either party end the pairing without explanation. Mentors receive protected hours and recognition in their own reviews. Evaluation measures what changed for mentees, such as second-year retention and readiness for in-charge roles, rather than attendance.
How a GM585 Unit 7 example is structured
The design argues from failure first, because the firm has tried twice and the causes are documented. Each earlier weakness then receives a specific provision, so the program reads as a set of answers rather than a list of good practices. Kram's phases organize the provisions in time. Initiation covers matching and preparation. Cultivation covers meeting rhythm, mentor support and the boundary with supervision, since mentors sit outside the reporting line to keep evaluation out of the relationship. Separation is planned from the start: a twelve-month term, a closing conversation, and a no-fault exit at ninety days for pairings that have stalled. Redefinition allows a continuing informal relationship on both parties' terms. Mentors' reasons to take part are designed, not assumed. Evaluation closes the document, with measures tied to mentees' development and a stated limit on what a one-year program can show.
Two launches, one pattern
Assigned pairs, no preparation and no end date, then meetings thinning by [June]. Exit notes and participation counts are cited, and each weakness is carried forward as a design requirement.
Matching by mentee choice
Each mentee reviews three profiles from outside their reporting line and ranks them. The coordinator matches from those rankings and mentor capacity, and records why any first choice was not met.
Preparing both sides
A ninety-minute session covers the difference between mentoring and supervision, the agreement each pair writes, and what mentors should refer elsewhere. Mentees prepare too, with a short statement of what they want from the year.
Why mentors stay
Protected hours during [the slower months], recognition written into mentors' own reviews, and a quarterly mentors' roundtable. The design treats a busy senior manager's time as the scarcest input in the program.
Endings built in
A twelve-month term with a closing conversation, and a no-fault exit at ninety days that either party can use without giving reasons. Whatever follows the term is left to the pair.
Measures that concern mentees
Second-year retention, time to first in-charge assignment and mentees' own ratings of progress on their stated aims, compared with the prior two cohorts. Attendance is tracked only as a warning sign.
Where marks go in GM585 Unit 7
Program designs in GM585 are marked on the parts that come after the launch. A document built around a kickoff event, a matching form and enthusiasm for mentoring usually loses the design marks, because nothing in it keeps pairs meeting in month five. Evaluation by participant satisfaction costs ground as well, since the course asks what changed for the people being mentored. Designs that ignore the mentor's side, time, recognition and preparation, are commonly faulted, as are programs in which a mentee's own manager serves as mentor, which merges development with evaluation. The designs that score answer documented failure causes, organizes provisions across the relationship's phases, plans a respectful exit, and measures mentee outcomes honestly, including what a single year cannot show.
Get a GM585 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Describe the organization or group your Unit 7 program would serve, any earlier mentoring efforts and how they went, and who might serve as mentors. Send the prompt and rubric along with it. The first design is on the house and usually returned in 24-48h, from matching through to how pairs end.
GM585 Unit 7 questions, answered
Should matching be done by the organization or by the participants?
Practice increasingly favors giving participants a voice. Pairs formed with some mentee choice tend to report stronger relationships than those assigned administratively, though full self-matching can leave quieter employees unmatched. A hybrid, where mentees rank a short list and a coordinator makes final matches, balances choice with coverage, and the design should say how unmet preferences are handled.
Why keep mentors outside the reporting line?
Because a supervisor evaluates, and mentoring works best where a mentee can raise doubts, mistakes and career questions without affecting a rating. A manager can still coach and support development, but the mentoring relationship gains candor when the mentor has no hand in the review. Many firms adopt this rule for exactly that reason.
How long should a formal mentoring pairing last?
Most formal programs run six to twelve months, long enough for Kram's cultivation phase to produce something and short enough to keep a clear end. The sample uses twelve months because the firm's year has a busy season that would otherwise swallow a shorter term. Whatever the length, a planned ending tends to preserve goodwill better than a relationship that simply fades.