| Course | GM585 Mentoring and Coaching |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Mentoring program design |
| Length | About 920 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM585 Unit 7
Launched Twice, Faded by Summer Both Times: A Unit 7 Mentoring Program Design for First- and Second-Year Staff
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM585: Mentoring and Coaching
Unit 7 Mentoring Program Design
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The accounting firm, its earlier programs and every figure are composite and illustrative; the research cited is real.
Rationale
Tanner Pryce launched a mentoring program for new staff four years ago and again two years ago. Both began in September with about 40 pairs. By the following June, records showed fewer than 10 pairs still meeting in each case. Exit notes from the second program, collected by the human resources office, point to three causes. Pairs were assigned by human resources from a spreadsheet, with no input from either party. Neither mentors nor mentees received any preparation, so many first meetings ended with neither knowing what to talk about. And the program had no end date or review point, so when a pair stopped meeting during busy season, there was no moment to restart or close it, and most simply faded.
The research supports these lessons. Tammy Allen, Lillian Eby and Elizabeth Lentz found that in formal programs, participants' input into matching and the quality of training were associated with higher perceived mentorship quality (Allen et al., 2006). Belle Rose Ragins, John Cotton and Janice Miller found that protégés in poor or marginal formal relationships reported work attitudes no better than people with no mentor at all, which means a program that produces many weak pairs does little good (Ragins et al., 2000).
Program Structure
The design follows Kathy Kram's four phases of a mentoring relationship: initiation, cultivation, separation and redefinition (Kram, 1983). The earlier programs planned only for initiation. This one gives each phase its own provisions.
Phase One: Initiation, September and October
Who takes part. The program is offered to all first- and second-year staff in audit, tax and advisory. Participation is voluntary for mentees. Mentors are managers and senior managers who volunteer and are approved by their practice leaders.
Matching. Mentees read short profiles of available mentors, grouped into three types: technical depth, for staff who want to master a specialty; career path, for staff deciding between audit, tax, advisory or industry; and working life, for staff managing workload, flexibility or family commitments. Each mentee ranks three mentors. Mentors come from outside the mentee's reporting line, so that a mentee can speak openly without it affecting reviews.
Preparation. Every mentor and mentee attends a ninety-minute preparation session before the first meeting. The session covers what each party can expect, how to set two or three goals for the year, how to handle confidentiality, and how to end a pairing that is not working.
Phase Two: Cultivation, November to the Following August
Pairs meet at least once a month for an hour, including during busy season, when a thirty-minute meeting is acceptable. Each pair records the date of each meeting in a simple form, with no content required, so the program office can see which pairs are meeting.
The ninety-day check. At ninety days, the program office sends each party a short, separate survey. Either party can end the pairing at this point without giving a reason, and the mentee can be rematched. The earlier programs had no exit, so pairs that were not working simply stopped meeting, and both people felt they had failed. A no-fault exit at a set point makes ending normal.
A pairing that can end at ninety days without explanation is more likely to be a real relationship when it continues, because both people have chosen to stay.
Mentors' reasons to stay. Mentors in the earlier programs received nothing for their time, and many stopped during busy season. In this design, each mentor receives eight protected hours a year, recorded as development time and not counted against utilization targets. Mentoring is also added as a rated item in managers' annual reviews, with the mentee's feedback as one input. Mentors meet as a group three times a year to share what is working.
Phase Three: Separation, September of Year Two
The formal pairing ends after twelve months. In a closing meeting, each pair reviews the goals set at the start and what changed. The program office provides a short guide for this meeting, because the earlier programs had no ending, and pairs did not know how to close.
Phase Four: Redefinition, After Year Two
After the formal pairing ends, the relationship may continue informally or become a lighter contact. In Kram's account, this is the phase in which the two people settle into something closer to colleagues, or let the tie lapse (Kram, 1983). The program does not track redefinition, but it invites former mentees to become peer mentors for new first-years, which keeps the program connected to its graduates.
Evaluation
The earlier programs counted the number of pairs. This one measures what changes for mentees. The primary measure is second-year retention: today about 78 percent of first-year staff are still with the firm two years later, and the program's target is 85 percent for participants. Secondary measures are readiness for in-charge roles, measured by the share of participants promoted to senior on schedule, and mentees' ratings of the relationship at ninety days and at the close. Tammy Allen and colleagues' meta-analysis found that mentored protégés reported higher career satisfaction and more promotions than non-mentored employees (Allen et al., 2004). Comparing participants with non-participants each year will show whether this program delivers those effects for Tanner Pryce.
References
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: Closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 567-578. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.567
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for proteges: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608-625. https://doi.org/10.2307/255910
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1177-1194. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556344
Reading the GM 585 Unit 7 instructions
In GM585 Unit 7 you design a formal mentoring program an organization could adopt. Begin with a rationale based on evidence, such as earlier attempts, exit notes or participation records, and connect what went wrong to research on formal mentoring. Organize the design around the phases of a mentoring relationship, such as Kram's initiation, cultivation, separation and redefinition, with provisions for each. Address matching, preparation, meeting frequency, a review point with a way to end a pairing without blame, and reasons for mentors to stay. Plan the ending as carefully as the launch. Evaluate the program by what changes for mentees, such as retention or readiness for promotion, rather than by attendance. Expect about eight pages written as a program document, citing mentoring research in APA 7.
Inside the GM585 Unit 7 example
The rationale reviews two launches at Tanner Pryce and the three causes in exit notes, citing Allen, Eby and Lentz on matching input and training and Ragins, Cotton and Miller on marginal mentoring. Kram's four phases organize the design. Initiation covers voluntary participation, ranking three mentors from technical depth, career path and working life profiles, mentors outside the reporting line and a ninety-minute preparation session. Cultivation sets monthly meetings with shorter ones in busy season, a meeting log and a ninety-day no-fault exit, which the highlighted sentence defends, plus protected hours and review credit for mentors. Separation closes pairings at twelve months with a guide. Redefinition invites former mentees to mentor new staff. Evaluation targets retention from 78 to 85 percent, on-schedule promotion and relationship ratings, citing Allen and colleagues' meta-analysis.
Reading the GM585 Unit 7 grading rubric
GM585 instructors grade this design on whether it learns from evidence and covers the whole relationship. A rationale grounded in earlier attempts or records earns more than a general case for mentoring. Organizing the program by relationship phases shows the writer understands that pairs need different support over time. Matching with participant input, preparation for both parties, a review point with a blameless exit and reasons for mentors to stay are the provisions instructors most often look for. A planned ending carries weight because formal pairs often fade without one. Evaluation should measure outcomes for mentees, not activity. Allen, Eby and Lentz, Allen and colleagues' meta-analysis, both in Journal of Applied Psychology, Kram in Academy of Management Journal and Ragins, Cotton and Miller provide the reference list in APA 7.
Common GM585 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GM585 Unit 7 designs plan the launch in detail and say nothing about what happens after the first few months, which is when most formal programs fade. Others assign pairs administratively and skip preparation, repeating the most common causes of failure. A frequent gap is mentors' incentives: programs that ask managers to give time without recognition lose them in the busiest season. Some writers measure success by the number of pairs. Start from evidence about what went wrong, design for each phase of the relationship, give mentees a voice in matching, prepare both parties, build in a review and a blameless exit, reward mentors, plan the ending and measure what changes for mentees.
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. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GM585 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM585 Unit 1: Mentoring Functions Discussion Post
- GM585 Unit 2: Coaching Skills Self-Assessment
- GM585 Unit 3: OSKAR Coaching Transcript
- GM585 Unit 4: Feedback Scenario Response
- GM585 Unit 5: Intentional Change Development Plan
- GM585 Unit 6: Coaching Spectrum Seminar Reflection
- GM585 Unit 8: Boundaries and Ethics Case
- GM585 Unit 9: Progress Review Memo
- GM585 Unit 10: Coaching Philosophy Paper
- GM543 Unit 7: Matrix Dispute Case Analysis
- GM541 Unit 7: Sensor Service Stakeholder Impact Map
- GM506 Unit 7: Second Plant Funding Memo
- GM505 Unit 7: Insider Consultant Reflexivity Analysis
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.
Where can I find a free GM585 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM585 Unit 7 mentoring program design for an accounting firm's first- and second-year staff, organized by Kram's four phases, with APA 7 references.
Why include a no-fault exit at ninety days?
In the firm's earlier programs, pairs that were not working simply stopped meeting and both people felt they had failed. A set point where either can end the pairing without explanation makes ending normal, and pairs that continue have chosen to stay.