Jonathan Kroll ✉ (LeadershipTrainer.org) Regina M. O’Neill (Suffolk University, Boston, USA)
In traditional one-to-one mentoring relationships, the mentor is typically perceived as the leader and the mentee serves as a follower. In peer group mentoring experiences, traditional notions of top-down leadership and hierarchical decision-making are purposefully avoided. In this study we wanted to explore how leadership manifested in peer mentoring groups. A narrative inquiry was utilized to capture the voices and experiences of twelve peer mentoring group participants. Our study found leadership was necessary to ensure coordination of administrative tasks as well as to facilitate healthy exchanges between group members.
peer group mentoring, leadership, women executives, sharing authority, facilitating
Accepted for publication: 03 January 2025 Published online: 03 February 2025
© the Author(s) Published by Oxford Brookes University
In traditional one-to-one mentoring relationships, the mentor is typically perceived as the leader and the mentee serves as a follower. In peer group mentoring experiences, traditional notions of top-down leadership and hierarchical decision-making are purposefully avoided. In this study we wanted to explore how leadership manifested in peer mentoring groups.
The structure of traditional dyadic mentoring relationships reinforces historical notions of leadership. The mentor, as the individual in a position of power and authority, is the de facto leader. The mentee is assumed to be the follower. In peer group mentoring, all collaborators serve simultaneously and mentors and mentees. In practice, this confuses the concept of a mentor-leader and mentee-followers.
Because traditional notions of top-down leadership and hierarchical decision-making are purposefully avoided in peer group mentoring experiences, we wanted to explore how leadership is demonstrated in our study’s peer mentoring groups where there is no singular mentor-as-leader. Our focus was to examine how these peer mentoring collaborators create impactful developmental engagements as they challenge and support one another. Our findings describe how mentoring collaborators share the mentor—and mentee—roles to maximize the developmental relationship, distribute power and authority, coordinate administrative tasks, and facilitate healthy exchanges between group members.
In this paper, we begin with a review of both mentorship and leadership literature. We detail traditional as well as contemporary constructivist approaches to mentoring—including peer group structures. The leadership segment details the varieties of ways leadership is defined and understood with an emphasis in leadership-as-influence, leadership-as-process, and leadership-as-outcomes. We then share our methodology for this research to highlight the narrative approach to the study, our participants, and the data generation and analysis process. Before offering a discussion, we detail what we believe are limitations of this study, potential future research directions, and our findings. That is, how mentoring collaborators share the mentorship roles (i.e., mentor and mentee) to maximize the developmental relationship, distribute power and authority, coordinate administrative tasks, and facilitate healthy exchanges between group members.
The following literature review includes details of mentorship—including traditional forms as well as constructivist approaches. We also detail diverse ways we internalize and understand leadership. Part of our leadership exploration includes a comparative review of historical and contemporary perspectives of leadership found in the literature.
Mentoring has historically been considered a developmental relationship between an older, more experienced mentor and a younger, less experienced mentee. At work, mentoring relationships are intended to help the mentee’s career (Dashper, 2019; Kram, 1985; Levesque et al., 2005; Levinson et al., 1978; Murrell & Blake-Beard, 2017). Research indicates that mentoring relationships provide significant benefits to mentees, including greater satisfaction at their workplaces, career motivation, higher salaries, promotions, and career advancement (Dougherty & Dreher, 2007; Eby et al., 2013; Efstathiou et al.,2018; Wang et al., 2014).
Mentors historically represent knowledge, reflection, insight, wisdom, cleverness, and intuition. These guides appear when discernment, understanding, good advice, motivation, discipline, and planning are needed (Jung, 1958). In the most traditional sense, mentors are knowledge-bearing leaders who provide motivation, inspiration, and guidance that assist mentees in their journey (Heikkinen, et al., 2012; Mullen, 2009). The ideal mentor is often synonymously described as a leader who purposefully transmits wisdom and experience to mentees to support their growth and development.
Evidence demonstrates that within the traditional dyadic form of mentorship—when an older and wiser mentor trains and oversees a younger, less experienced mentee—both mentees and mentors benefit (Ehrich et al., 2004). However, this one-to-one mentorship is considered elitist, exclusionary, and hierarchical (Brabazon & Schulz, 2020; Hunt & Michael, 1983). This mentorship structure reinforces traditional roles in which mentors are expected to serve as leaders and impart knowledge while mentees are passive followers who receive wisdom and do as they are told (Scully et al., 2017). Mentoring approached in this way is comparable to Freire’s (2002) banking notion of learning. Here, mentees are treated as repositories of information where mentors make deposits. This type of mentoring creates an experience that may be degrading, dehumanizing, and oppressive for mentees (Mullen, 2009).
The traditionally White, male-dominated mentoring models and the associated advantages of these relationships have historically been much less available to women and people of color (Corneille et al., 2019; Mott, 2002; Shapiro et al., 2022). For example, Ragins and Cotton (1991) found that women perceive greater barriers to finding mentors than men. With traditional forms of mentorship, marginalized groups have been barred from formal mentoring programs. And, informally, at private clubs, golf courses, and sporting events, exclusionary practices exist (Mott, 2002). These exclusionary practices of organizational mentoring experiences for women and other marginalized populations provide these individuals and communities limited access to cycles of power (Mullen 2009). Because traditional forms of mentorship can be exclusive and insular, alternative mentoring approaches can have a marked difference for groups who face exclusion (Gulam & Zulfiqar, 1998; Murrell et al., 2008; Nair & Neharika, 2017; Ragins et al., 2017).
In recent years, mentoring as a hierarchical expert-based approach has shifted to a socially constructed (constructivist) practice (Kroll et al., 2022; McGowan et al., 2007; Millwater & Yarrow, 1997). This approach is rooted in challenging traditional forms of power-laden mentorship (Kroll et al., 2022; Mott, 2002). Instead, collaborators, within a constructivist mentorship paradigm, actively construct their knowledge rather than happening upon it or passively having it deposited (Lim et al., 2015). While engaging in a co-mentorship experience, mentoring collaborators make meaning of their experience through the simultaneous and collaborative processes of challenging and supporting one another.
Group mentoring is understood as a collection of three or more people distinctly gathered for the specific and shared purpose of intentionally challenging and supporting each other to enhance personal growth and professional development (Kroll, 2016). A subset of group mentoring is peer group mentoring—whereby collaborators self-identify as peers. That is, the mentoring collaborators identify as being in a similar situation to one another (Kaunisto et al., 2012).
Peer group mentoring consists of learning that occurs through dialogue and social interaction (Capan & Bedir, 2019; Hansman, 2020; Heikkinen et al., 2012; List & Sorcinelli, 2018;). Peer group mentoring is distinctively based on the mutual mentoring practice of the collaborators. Each participant serves as both mentor and mentee (Biehle et al., 2021), creating a simultaneous experience of both mentoring and being mentored at the same time. There is an expectation that everyone receives mentoring support (engaging as a mentee)—and provides helpful challenges (serving in the mentor role) to one another. This approach to mentoring is one that explicitly values and encourages authentic dialogue, inclusion, and the distribution of power and authority through shared leadership (Dajani et al., 2021; Darwin, 2000). A cornerstone of this type of developmental experience is that it hinges upon a distribution of power and a dismantling of hierarchy (Kroll et al., 2022; Mullen, 2005).
Today, there is no shortage of literature and resources that offer diverse ideas and understandings of leadership. A simple Google search quickly retrieves millions of reflections, quotes, blog posts, videos, articles, and other ways to describe leadership. While leadership has been practiced for millennia, when it comes to defining the term, we struggle. Leadership scholars—those who spend their careers exploring, researching, and writing about leadership—have yet to agree on a single, concise, easily understood definition. An early definition suggests leadership exists “when persons with certain motives and purposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others; institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of followers” (Burns, 1978, p. 18). More succinct definitions of leadership include “an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (Rost, 1993, p. 102); “an interaction between leaders and their followers” (Lipman-Blumen, 2005, p. 17); and “sensing and actualizing the future” (Scharmer & Kaufer, 2013, p. 110). And, more recently leadership has been understood to be “not about individuals…It is a system in which each of these three parts—leaders, followers, contexts—is equally important in which each of these three parts impinges equally on the other two” (Kellerman, 2018, p. 123). With this sampling, we can see that leadership is defined and understood in wildly different ways. While earlier research defines leadership in diverse and potentially divergent ways, generally, leadership can be best understood in three ways: as influence, as process, and as outcome (Kroll, 2023).
An influence lens views leadership as a relational mechanism to create change. Leadership, when thought of in the context of influence, is about intentionally shaping the beliefs, desires, and priorities of others. Individuals who wield significant social power and authority or hold a formal position can strategically utilize their influence for goal achievement. This shaping of beliefs, desires, and priorities is not tied to a value. Rather, the influence can be for what might be considered good or bad. Influence may take the form of inspiration. Or influence could be rooted in cultivating fear. Leadership scholar Sumru Erkut’s (2001) notion of influence is about persuading other people.
A process lens considers leadership as an activity—those tangible actions that enable change to occur. Mobilizing seems to be the process of choice. Burns (1978) and Heifetz (1994) both strategically utilize that term. However, other leadership processes include developing, directing, educating, engaging, facilitating, guiding, motivating, organizing, orienting, and training. Although there is a relational element to this understanding, the focus here is on the actions—the processes—undertaken by leaders.
An outcome perspective distinguishes leadership by what occurs following the leadership action. With this understanding of leadership, the result is what matters. Boyatzis and McKee (2005) detail that effective leadership should “build a sense of community and create a climate that enables people to tap into passion, energy, and a desire to move together in a positive direction” (p. 22). As an outcome, leadership is determined by leaders’ ability in bringing forth desired change.
Historical perceptions of leadership continue to inform leadership practices. Not surprisingly, these perceptions of leadership are rooted in severely embedded and widespread assumptions. Kroll (2023) explores these assumptions as a way to clarify and compare them against leadership scholars’ contemporary understandings.
One outdated perspective of leadership is that it is solely connected to one’s position. Contemporary perspectives reflect that leadership is experiential. Leadership is about what we do—rather than the role we hold. Leadership is about the pursuit of change we drive rather than the position attained within our groups, organizations, and communities’ hierarchical structures.
Another historical perspective is that leaders are born. Contemporary perspectives recognize leadership as a developmental skill and capacity. Being ‘born to lead’ is a fallacy. This suggests only a few special individuals have the capacity to lead. This is limiting. All of us have the potential to develop leadership skills and capacities.
An additional historical perspective of leadership is that the best leaders are extroverts. Contemporary perspectives regard exceptional leaders as those who capitalize on their strengths and authenticity. Charisma and extroversion are wonderful traits. They do not, however, determine leadership ability. Effective leaders are those who exploit their strengths and lead with a genuine and self-authored sense of self.
A further historical idea is that leadership can be learned quickly without much practice or energy investment. Contemporary perspectives highlight that leadership is a lifelong developmental journey that requires intentional practice and significant emotional reserves. If we are serious about developing our leadership skills and capacities, we need to dedicate purposeful time and energy—over the course of our lives—to become the leaders we dream of being.
Historical perspectives of leadership advance the notion that there is one universally perfect way to lead. Contemporary perspectives illuminate that leadership is context-based and socially constructed. Leadership is determined and co-constructed by the leaders, followers, situation, and interaction among these three elements in that particular time and place. Ultimately, there is no universally perfect way to lead.
Classical understandings of leadership—which still greatly influence contemporary considerations and practices of leadership—presume that leadership is role-based, directly and solely connected to the positions we hold and formal power we wield. More, leadership traits are innate. These traits are the result of winning the genetic lottery or God-given. Here, an assumption is that regular people, most of us, do not have the natural capacity to lead, and that leadership is solely reserved for rare, elite, and superior beings. Or, because we are not in a formal leadership role, we simply shouldn’t be considered leaders. Philosophically, leaders are revered as the heroes of our organizations and protagonists of our communities. It is this traditional notion of leadership that, in part, informs our conceptualization of the mentor-as-leader archetype.
To better understand how leadership manifests in peer mentoring groups, we listened to and learned from the voices of those intimately involved. We used a qualitative inquiry approach to uncover a rich and detailed understanding of leadership in peer mentoring groups.
Narrative inquiry was strategically utilized for this study because it allows researchers to frame questions for exploration, rather than form and then prove or disprove hypotheses. Specifically, the lens of individual experience is a hallmark of narrative inquiry because it can uncover cultural and social patterns (Macintyre Latta, et al., 2020; Patton, 2002). With this methodology, deeply listening to stories and lived experiences of others is emphasized in lieu of quantitative measurement such as surveys. The narrative inquiry research approach is designed to capture participant perceptions, describe beliefs and attitudes, and consider implications. Moreover, the publishing of research such as this helps advance learning (Magolda, 2000; Timpani et al., 2022).
To best understand how leadership manifests in peer mentoring groups, we utilized narrative inquiry to explore the lived experiences of twelve executive-level professional women who participated in peer group mentoring relationships. The women were from a mid-west American city and they each volunteered to share their experiences. Interviews were conducted and a thematic analysis of the data illuminated how leadership was understood and enacted within their peer mentoring groups. When analyzing peer group mentoring experiences, narrative inquiry provided an appropriate method for exploring leadership.
Although narrative inquiry seeks individualized perspectives and subjective assessments of the phenomena, there are certain criteria that enable narrative research to be more (or less) trustworthy: thick description, data triangulation, member-checking, confidentiality, and transferability. A key component of narrative inquiry is trustworthiness because it assesses the believability, credibility, and validity of this research. Trustworthiness is derived from evidence of personal meaning of the events and experiences described by the participants (Polkinghorne, 2007). Each participant in this study provided her own point of view regarding her lived experiences and reflection on leadership within her peer mentoring group.
Detailed accounts encourage readers to fully understand the meaning of behaviors and importance of events (Mobley et al., 2019; Curtin & Fossey, 2007). Thick description was used during the interview process and by providing detailed, descriptive quotes from the participants’ accounts that describe, in their own words how leadership manifested within the peer group mentoring experience. During the interviews, rather than seek surface-level expressions of the peer group mentoring experiences, participants were encouraged to share in-depth stories. Follow-up questions were purposefully utilized to expand about these storied reflections and to assist participants in investigating the meaning behind these stories. In the Findings section, we provide direct quotes to offer participant insights into their perspectives and convey the nuances of how leadership dynamics were experienced within the peer group mentoring experience.
Data triangulation occurs when diverse views of the same phenomenon are utilized (Curtin & Fossey, 2007). By incorporating different perspectives, biases that could be associated with a single group or individual are minimized. It is the convergence of multiple and different sources of information that strengthen the credibility of the findings and allow for confidence in the trustworthiness of themes (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Jentoft & Olsen, 2019). Within this study, triangulation occurred by interviewing multiple individuals from multiple peer mentoring groups, which ensured that the themes that emerged were identified across different groups and participants. Specifically, one dozen executive-level professional women, representing four independent and autonomous peer mentoring groups volunteered to contribute to this study. While the twelve women represent four different peer mentoring groups, they are not representative of all PaceSetter Mentor Circles. Nor is any one Mentor Circle fully represented. This diversity of voices from differing PaceSetter Mentor Circles enables us to effectively triangulate our data.
Member-checking serves as an invitation for participants to be involved in the inquiry beyond the interview. Participant involvement includes reviewing, commenting on, and contributing to the findings (Curtin & Fossey, 2007; Varpio et al., 2017). The research participants in this study were sent a draft of the findings and given an opportunity to (a) challenge the ways the researcher understood and interpreted the stories they had shared; (b) suggest alternative accounts or explanations; and (c) clarify, enhance, and enrich details previously presented by offering additional information or clarifications. Involving participants in the analysis and interpretation of the data ensured that their experiences were accurately reflected.
It is critical that participants in narrative research freely consent to willingly participating in the research processes. In this research study, participants acknowledged their voluntary engagement in the research by signing the Informed Consent Form and verbally expressing their ability to end the interview at any time, therefore ensuring that they were freely participating.
Narrative research does not claim to be generalizable, as the data only represent those specific participants and their unique experiences, at that point in time. Nevertheless, the trustworthiness of a narrative study depends on the extent to which its findings can be applied to other contexts—a practical application of the findings (Gill et al., 2018). The data gathered in this study is enlightening, offering valuable insights from the contributions and voice of the participants. This learning has the potential to shape, frame, and inform other peer group mentoring relationships and experiences.
Twelve executive-level professional women, who represented four independent and autonomous peer mentoring groups volunteered to take part in this research project. At the time of the inquiry, these women were active, dues-paying members of PaceSetter, an exclusive, invitation-only professional development and networking organization in a city in the midwestern region of the United States of America. Each participant independently chose to participate in the research after receiving an invitation that was sent through the PaceSetter Mentorship Circle Coordinator. When participants were recruited, they were promised confidentiality to help encourage them to be detailed and forthright in their answers to the questions they were asked. To ensure confidentiality for PaceSetter and the participants, pseudonyms were used to protect their identities.
PaceSetter membership is restricted to “women of talent, ambition, and drive who are expected to be a part of decision-making and power structures, hold positions of influence, and are or have the potential to have significance” in the greater metropolitan community. Collectively, the participants are Caucasian, live in or around the same Midwest American city, and range in age between late 30s and mid 80s. By becoming a member and paying the annual membership dues of $475, individuals gain entry to a wide range of PaceSetter's programs. These programs encompass professional development seminars, social and networking gatherings, two annual marquee events, and the opportunity to participate in peer mentoring groups known as Mentoring Circles or simply Circles. The establishment of these peer mentoring groups in 2010 was a direct response to member interest. The purpose of these Circles is to create a confidential environment where participants can openly exchange valuable insights and experiences.
PaceSetter Circles are comprised of 6–8 participants and are organized in part by functional areas (e.g., nonprofit leaders, marketing/communications executives, banking and finance, those working in small organizations or large corporations.) Within the PaceSetter Circles, no participants were charged with or responsible for “leading” the mentoring. Additionally, at least one participant in each PaceSetter Circle volunteered, rotated into, or was selected to serve as in a facilitator capacity to coordinate administrative tasks and be mindful of group dynamics.
PaceSetter Circles are autonomous. They operate independently from other circles and only those individuals within a particular circle determine how the mentoring occurs. Furthermore, membership for each circle is kept confidential.
As a supportive measure to the peer mentoring groups, PaceSetter established a Mentor Circle Committee. The eight-member committee serves as a link between the organization and the individual Circles. The Committee is charged with creating new Mentor Circles and supporting the groups as they launch. Yet, they intentionally allow each Circle to operate in the ways that best serve the needs and development goals of those particular members. As a Committee, they have a formalized application and placement process as well as a facilitator’s guide and best practices document for the participants. Four of the twelve research participants serve on the Mentor Circle Committee. This does not alter the fact PaceSetter Mentor Circles are peer group mentoring experiences. Although Committee members have leadership responsibilities within PaceSetter, they are viewed as equals within their Mentor Circles.
Data were gathered for this study with individual, confidential, face-to-face reflective interviews in a semi-structured format (Nardon et al., 2021; Roulston 2010). Four principles were followed while conducting the interviews: using open-ended questions; framing questions to elicit stories; avoiding “why” questions; and utilizing the participants’ own language with follow-up inquiries (Savin-Baden & Niekerk, 2007).
The data were analyzed using thematic analysis, a method designed to identify, analyze, and report themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Ewick & Silbey, 2003; Varpio et al., 2017). These themes serve to describe and organize observations (Boyatzis, 1998; Lochmiller, 2021). In applying this data analysis method using a four-phase process, it allowed for knowing the data (immersion), organizing these data into chunks (analysis), and bringing meaning to those chunks (interpretation) as described by Leedy and Ormrod (2004).
Phase I began by simply listening to the audio recordings to become familiar with the spoken words as well as the emotion associated with them. As a method to record and capture these emotions and linguistic nuances, notes and reflections were drafted as memos. Phase II began with another round of listening specifically designed to assign codes to the data. This coding process was a systematic way to identify and draft labels within and across transcripts and create representational codes. Rather than approach the data with preconceived codes, an inductive approach allowed codes to surface.
After all hand-written codes were identified and organized, initial themes were produced to provide an overarching perspective of the data. This view allowed for connections across codes from the 12 transcripts. Once themes were construed, another review of the transcripts identified relevant participant quotations.
The final phase of a research project is to draft a report. This manuscript serves as a report of the research findings pertinent to how leadership manifests in peer group mentoring can serve as a meaningful developmental experience and outlet for women when there is no formal leader-mentor role and participants exchange insights and experiences.
The PaceSetter participants are all women of power and authority. As organizational executives, they hold formal leadership positions and exert influence in their workplaces. For them, the peer mentoring group was not intended to be a space for traditional notions of top-down leadership and hierarchical decision-making. It became evident from the interviews that none of the participants were formally responsible for leading the mentoring. This means that no participants were charged with the responsibility for being the knowledge-bearer, wisdom disseminator, or directing of the mentoring exchanges and experience. Yet, to facilitate healthy exchanges and engage in robust mentoring practice, leadership was necessary. Leading, in these peer group mentoring experiences, occurred in two domains: sharing authority and facilitating.
These peer group mentoring collaborators were intentional with sharing their power and authority. In describing how leadership was distributed in their Circles, Alexandra expressed, “We’re all equals around the table.” Henrietta claimed, “It’s the closest thing to a leaderless collective.” Henrietta further explained that the desire from the beginning was for a “self-directed, co-created kind of a group.”
Jesse’s initial thoughts about what to expect differed from the reality of her experience: “I went into it thinking it was going to be more one way and I view it as more of an equal—we all are equal, equally contributing and mentoring each other.” Paula shared that different individuals step up from one gathering to the next depending on the issues being presented:
Somebody always steps up if we seem to be spending more time on something and we know that there's somebody else, somebody's always looking at the clock and will say, you know, we should look at moving on because so-and-so had something else to bring to the group.
As collaborators in their mentoring experience, they recognize that shared leadership allows for the peer group mentoring to unfold in a way that benefits everyone. It is a co-created experience that is directed from the group-as-a-whole rather than any one individual. Additionally, participants also identified the role of a facilitator as a vital function of peer group mentoring.
Although the groups encourage shared leadership, the existence of an essential role emerged from the data, that of the peer mentoring group facilitator. This individual (or sometimes pairs) does not have mentoring leadership responsibilities. Rather, the facilitator is charged with handling administrative and organizational aspects of the group and is responsible for managing group dynamics. Henrietta was forthright in detailing why this role was central to effective peer group mentoring:
Well, somebody's gotta send out a years’ worth of Outlook notices and somebody's gotta remember whose turn it is to bring lunch. I mean that's about the most that we look at for the people who have taken the subsequent leader roles.
Jesse discussed the responsibilities of the facilitator in the context of group member participation. That individual is “tasked with being cognizant of the hour and a half and making sure that we have participation amongst all of the circle participants.” Similarly, Jewel spoke about Joy, her group’s convener. Once everyone has arrived and gotten settled at the gathering, Joy, as the Circle facilitator, will engage the group.
Joy, typically, as the leader of our group, will say “how is everyone doing? Is there anything pressing with anyone that anyone wants to talk about first?” So she is good at facilitating a little bit of that conversation…she keeps it together…She takes on a facilitation role for the conversation.
When speaking of her function as the facilitator, Joy echoed what Jewel and others shared about this role:
The role of facilitator is to make sure that everybody's engaging…if somebody is not communicating during the session you say, “what do you think, so-and-so? Have you had any experiences that could be helpful?” To help people engage who are quieter in the group.
The PaceSetter Mentor Circle Committee also recognizes the importance of each Circle having a facilitator. The PaceSetter Mentor Circle Committee dictates that every group requires someone in each Circle to serve formally in the facilitator role. Susanna emphasized that the Committee “will not stand in for leadership.” She went on to explain,
We've learned a lot about the importance of leadership and we won't form a group without a leader. We attempted to do that, and it was a disaster…the leadership is really key, and it needs to be somebody who is skilled at facilitating discussion. We've been very fortunate to have found that with most groups.
In addition to her comments about leadership, Susanna also shared several characteristics of how she perceived good facilitators:
They need to be excellent listeners—that would be the number one characteristic. They need to be people who can just sit and let the discussion flow. They need to be able to diplomatically close out a piece of discussion that needs to move on so that everyone else can get a chance…
If a peer mentoring group is going to be effective, they need to have an in-group facilitator to organize administrative responsibilities and to navigate group dynamics. As these participants discussed—from the lens of mentoring collaborators as well as organizing body of the Mentor Circle Committee—this is a critical role. Although leadership is shared in terms of the actual mentoring, someone within a peer group mentoring experience needs to step up and take responsibility in this coordinating function.
The results of this study emphasize the importance of sharing power and authority when engaging in peer mentoring groups, underscoring the ways that leadership manifested itself in these mentoring groups. Within the PaceSetter Circles, no participants were charged with or responsible for “leading” the mentoring. Yet for the mentoring collaborators to engage in a meaningful developmental experience, at least one participant from each group is tasked with the leadership roles of administrator and facilitator.
Interestingly, the participants found that leadership was indeed necessary for effective mentoring to happen in the Circles. As Susanna stated, “the leadership is really key,” explaining that from her experience on the Mentor Circle Committee, a group with no leader had been a disaster. By rotating the leadership responsibilities and tasks between the Circle collaborators, they encouraged the sharing of authority as well as co-facilitating tasks. This enabled the collaborators to engage with shared leadership that benefitted all members and enhanced the mentoring experience. To highlight this, Paula explained that individuals share authority as facilitators by stepping up depending on the issues under consideration. Her statement that “we are all equal, equally contributing and mentoring each other” describes a co-created experience that is directed from the group-as-a-whole rather than any one individual.
Just as positional authority is not needed to practice leadership, our study illuminates that formal authority from a single individual (i.e., the mentor in a traditional, hierarchical mentorship structure) is not necessary for effective mentoring. Rather, shared authority among peers can enhance the value of the experience while strengthening the developmental outcomes of the mentorship experience. As we create peer group mentoring experiences in other contexts, it will be important to emphasize the value of distributing power and authority amongst all the group members, especially when groups are comprised of members within hierarchical systems and structures.
This study also emphasizes the importance of the role of a facilitator as a vital function of peer group mentoring. Although no participants are selected to ultimately be responsible for the mentoring function, at least one participant per PaceSetter Circle volunteered, rotated into, or was selected to serve as in a facilitator capacity. In this capacity she fulfilled two important duties: coordinating administrative tasks for the group and being mindful of group dynamics.
As an administrative leader, the facilitator organized and managed meeting space reservations, calendar coordination and invitations, meals, and other tasks that enabled the smooth and successful operations of the peer mentoring group. Henrietta’s statement that “somebody's gotta send out a years’ worth of Outlook notices and somebody's gotta remember whose turn it is to bring lunch” clearly describes the importance of this function.
This leadership role proved vital to the effective functioning of the group and the mentoring experience. While nobody was formally elected to the position or forced into it, by serving in this facilitator capacity, leadership was enacted that enabled these critical administrative tasks to be successfully navigated and helped ensure a fruitful mentoring experience for all participants.
The facilitator was also conscientious of the group dynamics and participant engagement. In this capacity, she would ensure the dialogue focused on mentoring, all voices were included, and time was managed effectively. The importance of this role was articulated by numerous participants. Jesse explained that the facilitator makes sure all Circle members participate and Joy described how the facilitator will make sure everyone is engaging in the discussion and will encourage the quieter group members to join in the conversation.
As a leadership practice, these facilitators ensured accountability. They were conscious of whose voices were included and contributory—and whose were not—and helped make sure that all Circle members were participating. More, these facilitators ensured the group stated on task with cultivating a space for mentoring, rather than letting the discussion slide into a gripe session or strictly social affair.
Effective peer group mentorship is a developmental experience where power and authority are shared. While dyadic mentoring has been historically understood as a developmental relationship with power and authority centered from one expert mentor in a dyadic relationship, this study was designed to explore and better understand the leadership experiences of executive-level professional women who participate in peer mentoring groups. When peer mentoring groups include leadership factors of sharing authority and a facilitator role, collaborators can maximize the developmental opportunity. This study provides opportunity to better understand the role of leadership in peer mentoring groups in a number of ways.
While traditional one-on-one mentoring involves a mentor as the leader and a mentee as a follower, peer group mentoring avoids the traditional notions of top-down leadership, providing opportunities for peer group members to enact leadership within the group. Leadership in peer group mentoring provides an important, new perspective on the ways mentoring groups operate and the distribution of responsibilities among members. This constructivist model of peer group mentorship is built upon an intentional focus on the distribution of power and authority and the flattening of hierarchy (Mann et al., 2022; Mullen, 2005), important components of contemporary leadership. In contrast, the traditional hierarchically based model of mentoring precludes women and other marginalized communities from the benefits of mentoring that are more often afforded to White men and others-of-privilege. An important conclusion is that a peer group mentoring model can promote equal access to opportunities for women and other marginalized groups, eliminating disparities that exist with privileged groups (Kroll et al., 2022) as well as offering opportunities for leadership for people participating in these groups.
Peer group mentoring offers a unique lens into theory on mentoring relationships and this study serves as one attempt to explore and illuminate the leadership experiences of peer group mentoring participants. As Kroll (2023) notes, leadership can be understood as influence, as process, and as outcome. Future research could consider each of these areas in peer group mentoring.
Future research that explores leadership in peer group mentoring should address the limitations of this work. One limitation of this study is that the interviews were conducted by a man. Gender dynamics between researcher and participants may have resulted in false interpretations or information withheld during the interviews. Any misunderstandings may be the result of the interviewer and participant lenses of their respective worlds. As an outsider to the experiences of women, a man may not be able to fully recognize structural inequalities and other forms of prejudice and exclusion that women face. Future research should ensure a data collection process that includes a diverse research team of interviewers as well as other data collection methods such as a survey.
A second limitation is that these participants are representative of the privileged class. They were financially secure, well-educated, held positions of power, and wielded significant influence within their organizations and communities. Furthermore, they all identified as Caucasian and live in one specific regional area in the United States of America’s Midwest. Future research should examine the peer group mentoring experiences of more diverse women and people of color. It is important to consider racially, ethnically, religiously, diverse populations as well as those at lower ranks or in hierarchical systems and from diverse locations within the USA and other parts of our world. Research on these various dimensions is sure to contribute to new findings on leadership in peer group mentoring.
Finally, while the narrative research approach of this paper was chosen to garner the rich, detailed stories-of-experience, the size of the participant body is a limiting factor. This paper is only demonstrative of the 12 participants and not representative of any larger or more diverse populations. Narrative research, by design, is intended to be trustworthy, not generalizable. The intent of this research was to provide a deeper exploration into the lived experiences of select individuals who are presently participating in peer group mentoring experiences. Although our hope is that the presented factors can inform current and future group mentorship experiences, the data only speak to the experiences of those specific participants. Future research should consider larger populations from a broad spectrum of organizations to provide insights that are more generalizable.
The insights of this study offer implications for practitioners interested in supporting mentoring in their organizations. Specifically, this study illuminates how peer group mentoring can be an important and developmental experience when power and authority are purposefully shared amongst the peer group mentoring collaborators. The peer mentoring group experience should be intentionally structured so that power and authority are shared. Additionally, the data suggest that a member of the peer mentoring group serve in a facilitator capacity. In the role, the individual would not have leadership responsibility for mentoring, but would conduct administrative tasks, encourage collective and complete group engagement, and ensure healthy group dynamics.
Our study's findings underscore the significant value of a participant serving as a facilitator within a peer mentoring circle. As we seek to craft peer group mentoring experiences in various contexts, it will be important to infuse the role of facilitator into the function. This individual—or rotation of mentoring collaborators—conducts the administrative tasks as well as mindfully guides their peer mentors to ensure all voices are included and each participant is able to have a meaningful peer group mentoring experience. Just as recent research points to the role of facilitation in leadership capabilities, the role of a facilitator is key for effective peer mentoring groups.