rational mentoring

39 q 2000 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior TherapyVolume 18, Number 1, Spring 2000

RATIONAL MENTORING

W. Brad JohnsonUnited States Naval Academy

Jennifer M. HuweJeffrey L. Lucas

George Fox University

ABSTRACT: Psychologists and other mental health professionals often serveas mentors to graduate students, interns and junior professionals. Mentorrelationships are often long-term and emotionally complex and ideally involveprovision of both career and psychosocial functions which prepare protegesfor careers in the profession. Although experienced and accomplished, men-tors often fall prey to a range of irrational thinking which may compromisetheir effectiveness in the mentor role. In this article we briefly define mentor-ing, describe the practices of effective mentors, highlight the irrational beliefsthat most often prove troubling to mentors and outline several strategies foreffectively coping with these beliefs. We hypothesize that routine and overtdisputation of mentor-related irrational beliefs will enhance both the effectand enjoyment of mentoring.

Much like psychotherapy, mentoring is a relationship-based profes-sional activity. Psychologists and other mental health practitionersmay serve as mentors to graduate students, supervisees, or junior pro-fessionals in the field. The American Psychological Association (Mur-ray, 1997) and other organizations have recently called for greateremphasis on the frequency and quality of mentoring within the profes-sion. Although mentoring shares some features in common with pro-fessional roles such as psychotherapy and academic advising, and non-professional roles such as friendship, it is clearly distinct in character.

Address correspondence to W. Brad Johnson, Ph.D., Department of Leadership, Ethics & Law,United States Naval Academy, Luce Hall-Stop 7B, Annapolis, MD 21402.

40 Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) has often been appliedto clinical supervision in the REBT Institute’s training programs (Beal& DiGiuseppe, 1998; Woods & Ellis, 1997). Nonetheless, we found noliterature regarding the application of REBT to other student-facultyrelationships such as mentoring. The REBT model appears to havemuch to offer the practice of mentoring. In spite of the fact that manyFellows and Associate Fellows at the REBT Institute have been per-sonally mentored by Albert Ellis (Johnson, DiGiuseppe, & Ulven,1999), and many other REBT-oriented mentors have contributed im-portantly to the development of numerous proteges, no one has pre-viously discussed the mentoring enterprise from the perspective ofREBT. The purpose of this article is to outline a strategy for mentorsto use in becoming more rational and effective in their relationshipswith proteges. We briefly define and describe mentoring, consider thepractices of effective mentors and discuss the Irrational Beliefs thatappear most troubling to mentors. We conclude by proposing a strat-egy for dealing with these self-defeating beliefs, thereby enhancing theeffectiveness of mentoring, and hopefully, the enjoyment of mentor re-lationships on the part of mentors.

WHAT IS MENTORING?

Mentoring is a personal relationship in which a more experienced(usually older) individual acts as a guide, role model, teacher, and spon-sor for a less experienced (usually younger) protege. A mentor providesthe protege with knowledge, advice, challenge, counsel and support inthe protege’s pursuit of becoming a full member of a particular profes-sion (Clark, Harden, & Johnson, 1998; O’Neil & Wrightsman, 1981).The term mentor originated in Homer’s The Odyssey. Prior to embark-ing to fight the Trojan War, Ulysses entrusted the care and guidance ofhis son, Telemachus, to his wise and trusted friend Mentor. Throughthe ages, mentor relationships such as those between Socrates andPlato and between Freud and Jung have become legendary.

Although precise definitions of mentoring have been difficult to comeby (Speizer, 1981), most conceptualizations of this relationship sharethe following elements (Jacobi, 1991): (a) mentor relationships arehelping relationships designed to help the protege achieve long-termgoals, (b) mentoring often focuses on both professional developmentand psychological support, (c) mentoring is reciprocal in that both men-

W. Brad Johnson, Jennifer M. Huwe, and Jeffrey L. Lucas 41

tors and proteges benefit, (d) mentor relationships are personal versusmerely formal (as in the case of academic advising), and (e) within thementoring dyad, the mentor has greater professional experience, influ-ence and achievement.

Important research on mentoring by Levinson (Levinson, Darrow,Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978) and Kram (1988) has resulted in broadagreement that mentor relationships include both career functions (e.g.,access to information, sponsorship, exposure, promotion, protection,role-modeling, teaching, coaching, socialization and challenge) andpsychosocial functions (e.g., friendship, counseling, emotional support,and acceptance/affirmation) (Burke, 1984; Jacobi, 1991; Newby & Heide,1992; O’Neil, 1981; Stafford & Robbins, 1991). This unique combinationof career propulsion and psychological benefit—in a personal relation-ship between a seasoned and comparatively junior professional—ap-pears to be the salient feature of effective mentoring.

Those mentor relationships most highly rated by students and otherproteges are those characterized by mutuality (sharing of reciprocalfeelings and values), comprehensiveness (mentor and protege interactin different roles and settings) and trust (O’Neil, 1981; Torrance, 1984;Wilde & Schau, 1991). In addition, many mentor relationships arelong-term in nature and often proceed through distinct phases (Col-lins, 1993; Phillips-Jones, 1982). Kram (1988) described four distinctphases in mentoring including: (a) initiation: a period of 6 months to 1year when the relationship begins, (b) cultivation: a period of 2 to 5years when the emotional bond deepens and more frequent and mean-ingful interactions occur, (c) separation: a 6-month to 2-year period inwhich the protege’s autonomy increases and job promotion or gradua-tion decreases opportunity for continued interaction, (d) redefinition:an indefinite period after separation in which a new and less intenserelationship is formed. Of course, the duration and developmental tra-jectory of specific mentor relationships vary widely and are substan-tially effected in this regard by context.

Research on mentoring outcomes indicates that proteges in busi-ness, academia and other fields reap benefits such as more rapid pro-motion, higher salaries, stronger professional identities, greater careersuccess and higher levels of both personal and professional satisfaction(Busch, 1985; Kram, 1988; Robinson, 1994; Roche, 1979; Wright &Wright, 1987). In addition, institutions and organizations that promotegood mentor relationships tend to benefit (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Zey,1991), as do mentors themselves. Benefits accruing to mentors include


extrinsic (greater productivity and increased networking as protegesadvance) and intrinsic (sense of generativity, personal satisfaction,etc.) rewards (Kram, 1988; Levinson et al., 1979).

The sparse research on mentoring in psychology and other mentalhealth fields indicates that approximately one-half to two-thirds of re-cent doctoral students are mentored (Clark et al., 1998; Cronan-Hillix,Gensheimer, Cronan-Hillix, & Davidson, 1986) and that those who arementored report greater satisfaction with their doctoral program. Goodmentors are most often described as intelligent, supportive, ethical,humorous and caring (Clark et al., 1998). Within the field of psychology,professors and senior psychologists are increasingly called to “mentor”students and junior professionals for the betterment of the profession(H. D. Ellis, 1992; Hardy, 1994; Murray, 1997; O’Neil, 1981), yet theactual process of mentoring remains somewhat enigmatic. Nonethe-less, the most effective contributors to the field appear to be those whosuccessfully mentor promising junior talent. This has been confirmed,in part, by a study of obituaries published in the American Psycholo-gist which revealed that, among eminent psychologists, being an inspi-rational teacher and mentor was the fourth most commonly occurringtheme (Kinnier, Metha, Buki, & Rawa, 1994).

Because psychologists are increasingly called to mentor juniors inthe field and because REBT theory offers tremendous potential forhelping mentors practice this relationship form with less disturbanceand more good effect, we have developed a preliminary approach torational mentoring. In this article, we highlight the practices of effec-tive mentors, describe the ways even good mentors routinely disturbthemselves, and offer a strategy for mentors to use in overcoming theirown irrational beliefs about mentoring and thereby, become more ef-fective mentors.

THE PRACTICES OF EFFECTIVE MENTORS

Effective mentors in psychology, psychiatry, social work and otherfields are professionals who develop successful helping relationshipswith junior professionals or students in training (proteges). By suc-cessful, we mean that these helping relationships serve to prepare pro-teges for professional careers characterized by success and satisfac-tion. A successful mentor relationship bolsters the protege’s sense ofconfidence, affirms the protege’s talents and increases the probability


that the protege will function ethically and responsibly in the profes-sional world with a strong sense of professional identity.

Just as there is probably no single condition which is absolutely andalways necessary for change in psychotherapy (Ellis, 1962, 1983), nei-ther is there any single mentoring condition or mentoring trait thatalways ensures successful mentoring. Nonetheless, there are someconsistent characteristics and practices of fine mentors which, in ourview, rather consistently predict effective mentoring. Excellent men-tors tend to practice somewhat as follows:

1. They are vitally interested in facilitating the personal and profes-sional development of their proteges and they work reliably and en-ergetically to help proteges achieve their goals and succeed in theircareers.

2. They are able to cope with and ameliorate their own disturbancesand consequently are not inordinately anxious, depressed, hostile,self-downing, self-pitying, narcissistic or undisciplined (Ellis, 1983).

3. They are reasonably good models of unconditional self-acceptance(USA) in that they openly monitor and dispute their own irrationalitiesthat are likely to interfere with their personal and professional ef-fectiveness (Woods & Ellis, 1997). For example, they routinely dis-pute irrational beliefs such as “I must be an excellent mentor at alltimes,” and “I can’t stand it when my proteges see my weaknessesand limitations.”

4. They recognize that emotional disturbance, in themselves and theirproteges, consists largely of taking life too seriously (awfulizing, cat-astrophizing, etc.) or not taking life seriously enough (procrastinat-ing, ignoring protege’s needs, etc.) (Ellis, 1977). They attempt tostrike a healthy balance between these extremes and encouragetheir proteges to do the same.

5. They are experienced in the field and confident of their own skillsand capabilities. They also understand the process of professionaldevelopment and as accomplished clinicians or academicians, theybelieve they have much to teach proteges about the profession.

6. They recognize that both the time and resources they may allocateto mentoring are finite and therefore are highly selective in decidingwhich students or junior professionals they will mentor.

7. They are unconditionally accepting of their proteges as fallible hu-man beings, while encouraging them to work against those self-defeating ideas, feelings and behaviors which could sabotage theirprofessional development or the mentor relationship. They acceptreality and do not disturb themselves when proteges require extratime or make mistakes (Ellis, 1977).


8. They are anti-perfectionistic and work to be excellent mentors with-out insisting on being perfect mentors. They do not demand adula-tion or approval from proteges or colleagues.

9. They attempt to offer proteges both career (teaching, coaching, spon-sorship and challenge) and psychosocial (support, encouragement andacceptance) mentoring functions (Kram, 1988; Newby & Heide, 1992).

10. They have insight regarding their own strengths and weaknesses asa mentor. They appreciate their gifts without rating themselves fortheir shortcomings. For example, many of those mentored by AlbertEllis did not find him to be especially “warm” or “friendly” (Johnsonet al., 1999), although still quite helpful as a mentor. We believeEllis would choose not to disturb himself about this in the slightest,and instead, would tell would-be proteges that if they believe theyrequire a “warm” mentor, they had better look elsewhere!

11. They engage in appropriate self-disclosure in order to help protegessee that even their wise and “perfect” mentor was once naive, inse-cure and overwhelmed, and continues to be fallible and error-prone.They understand that this sort of mutuality can enhance the valueof mentoring (O’Neil, 1981; Wilde & Schau, 1991). They are partic-ularly willing to discuss the boundaries of their knowledge and com-petence and are exceedingly comfortable saying “I don’t know” whenthat is true.

12. They intentionally model characteristics such as honesty, forth-rightness and ethical practice. Recognizing the intimacy and mutu-ality inherent in some long-term mentor relationships, they workdiligently to avoid exploitation or potentially destructive dual rela-tionships (Johnson & Nelson, 1999).

13. They are patient with their proteges and quick to affirm theirefforts, even when they perform less than splendidly. They fully ac-cept how difficult it is for proteges to learn skills and develop profes-sional confidence—particularly in light of their proclivity to self-downing and other pervasive irrational beliefs.

14. Although they enjoy mentoring and recognize the intrinsic and ex-trinsic benefits which accrue to them as mentors, they do not losesight of the fact that the relationship is primarily for the benefit ofthe protege.

15. They are active-directive and persuasive teachers. They continuallylook for new ways to teach and model effective practice and profes-sional behavior for their proteges.

16. Although quite skilled and professionally accomplished, they areflexible, undogmatic and open to acquiring new skills and changingtheir views. They attempt to model “scientific” thinking for theirproteges and they routinely modify their teaching and professionalpractice to reflect new research findings.


17. They use humor in a variety of ways (Ellis, 1977) with the aim ofdirectly and forcefully attacking proteges’ crazy fears and irrationalperformance demands.

18. They act professionally and appropriately as mentors and modelsfor their proteges, but are still able to maintain some degree of hu-manness, spontaneity and obvious personal enjoyment in the men-toring enterprise.

19. They strongly encourage independence in their proteges and arewilling to confront dependence which serves to undermine establish-ment of the protege’s own professional identity. When necessary,they terminate mentor relationships which have become counter-productive or harmful.

20. They understand and accept the fact that mentor relationships endand they healthily accept these endings and express sadness at see-ing their proteges move on without becoming distraught, angry, pas-sive-aggressive, or sabotaging of their protege’s success.

Although these practices are certainly laudable and would—if in-deed most mentors actually practiced them consistently—lead to veryeffective and satisfying relationships between mentors and proteges,the fact is that very few mentors (or therapists) are consistently sorational. Instead, many mentors routinely block their effectiveness byholding to a number of highly pernicious irrational beliefs. These be-liefs often sabotage otherwise good mentor relationships and result inunhelpful and even acrimonious outcomes. In the section that follows,we distill some of the more pervasive irrational beliefs among profes-sionals who mentor.

IRRATIONAL BELIEFS OF MENTORS

Since the inception of REBT, Ellis has shown how human beings arenaturally and innately limited in their reasoning ability (Ellis, 1957,1962) and that they are profoundly and biologically prone to makethemselves emotionally disturbed and behaviorally dysfunctional(Ellis, 1976). It seems that nearly all humans have a strong biologicaltendency to needlessly and even severely disturb themselves and thatthey then make matters worse by unconsciously and consistently pro-longing their disturbance by refusing to relinquish their disturbingbeliefs (Ellis, 1987).

Of course, psychologists, physicians, social workers and other rea-sonably intelligent and well-trained mental health practitioners are


also human beings with the same kinds of irrational absolutistic be-liefs held by nonprofessional humans (Ellis, 1983). So, when we con-sider the probability that mentors will be generally disturbance free, itseems the probability is poor. In fact, the kinds of psychologists andother professionals who seem to become mentors in the first place (e.g.,successful, achievement-focused, invested in helping) may be partic-ularly prone to certain kinds of irrational thinking and self-distur-bance. After considering the irrational beliefs which most commonlyafflict all human beings and the unique characteristics and role de-mands of mentors, we have developed the following list of irrationalbeliefs which we believe are most likely to disturb mentors and inter-fere with the mentoring enterprise.

1. “I must be successful with all of my proteges all of the time.” Al-though, as we have shown, good mentors generally work toward excel-lence in all their professional endeavors—including their work withproteges, they may also be prone to demand and stubbornly insist thatthey always succeed at mentoring. Of course, given the wide range ofpersonalities and proclivities among students and supervisees, theprobability that a mentor and any one protege will always form a pro-ductive and useful relationships is slim at best. In fact, the best men-tor-protege pairings may be quite rare. Still, mentors often insist thatthey successfully mentor every protege and this demand leads to sev-eral related irrational beliefs such as (a) “I should find a way to meetthe needs of every protege I take on.” (b) “Every protege I mentor shouldgo on to be successful in his or her career as a reflection of my good work.”(c) “If any of my proteges make mistakes or fail significantly, it showsthat I have failed as a mentor and that I am a failure.”

2. “I have to be greatly respected and loved by all of my proteges.”Fine mentors may inevitably go the way of moving from desire forrespect and admiration to ardent demands for such. This demand willnaturally lead to a range of harmful corollaries such as: (a) “My pro-teges must not see that I am fallible and imperfect.” (b) “If a protegedisliked or disapproved of me, it would be utterly awful and wouldprove that I am a lousy mentor and worthless person.” (c) “I mustnever dislike any of my proteges.” (d) “The proteges I like best mustremain proteges forever and must never individuate to the point thatmy guidance is no longer essential.” (e) “My proteges ought to love meunconditionally and forever because of all I have done for them.”

3. “Because I have invested so much as a mentor, my proteges shouldbe equally hard-working, equally high-achieving and always eager todo exactly what I recommend.” This destructive demand is rooted in


the fallacy that because I have behaved a certain way, then axiomat-ically others should follow my example or do what I say. Of course,most proteges will not model mentors in many respects, nor shouldthey always or unquestioningly follow the advice of their mentors (par-ticularly as they gain professional confidence and autonomy). This de-mand often leads to the additional problem of low frustration tolerance(LFT) and anger when mentors disturb themselves about their pro-teges’ independence or lack of compliance. Related and equally unre-alistic corollaries include: (a) “My proteges should work just as hard asI do for the same reasons and the same outcomes.” (b) “My protegesshould understand that I always know what is best for them, and theyhad better damn well do what I tell them.” (c) “My proteges shouldalways get things done on time, perform exactly the way I want themto and even read my mind on occasion.” (d) “I should only have thebrightest, most gifted, and easy proteges to mentor.”

4. “I must reap tremendous benefit from mentoring and should thor-oughly enjoy mentoring all the time.” Although research from the men-toring literature confirms the fact that active mentors reap a numberof tangible and intangible personal and career rewards (Newby & Heide,1992; Phillips-Jones, 1982; Roche, 1979; Wright & Wright, 1987), not allmentor-protege exchanges nor all mentoring relationships will neces-sarily be delightful or rewarding. Predictably, this irrational belief tendsto produce some equally self-defeating corollaries such as: (a) “My pro-teges, colleagues and even the institution in which I work should takenotice of my mentoring talents and reward me handsomely.” (b) “Imust feel good all the time about mentoring and if I don’t, it is thefault of my protege and shows how inadequate he or she is.” (c) “Be-cause I am such a fine mentor, I should be able to miss meetings withmy protege, overextend myself and have little time for my protege, andeven exploit my protege at times.” (d) “I should only engage in thosementor functions which I enjoy and neglect the rest—regardless ofwhat my protege actually needs.” As you can see, each of these corol-laries smacks of mentor narcissism, characterized by the erroneousand highly irrational idea that one is entitled to have a mentoringrelationship deliver precisely the way he or she would like.

5. “My proteges must never leave or disappoint me.” Levinson (Levin-son et al., 1978) recognized that mentor relationships nearly alwaysend and that even when they do not, they naturally change as theprotege successfully develops into a professional, completes a graduateprogram, or moves far away. Levinson rather dramatically describedthese endings this way: “After the relationship has been terminated,


both parties are susceptible to the most intense feelings of admirationand contempt, appreciation and resentment, grief, rage, bitterness andrelief—just as in the wake of any significant love relationship” (Levin-son et al., 1978, p. 334). Obviously, Levinson was not particularly ra-tional in his conceptualization of how to respond to the loss of a love!Still, many mentors may successfully get themselves quite disturbedwhen their proteges—in whom they have invested a great deal of timeand energy—are ready to redefine the mentor relationship, lessentheir involvement with the mentor, move away, or even choose an ap-proach to practice or a research paradigm which directly contradicts orchallenges the one held by their mentor. Freud, for example, managedto get himself quite disturbed when his excellent protege, Carl Jung,distanced himself from some of Freud’s psychoanalytic hypotheses.

Some corollaries to the belief that a protege must never disappointor leave me include: (a) “My proteges should realize that they need myguidance in most professional matters and they must not make impor-tant career decisions apart from me.” (b) “My proteges should experi-ence great grief and turmoil about leaving me behind or transitioningout of the mentor relationship.” (c) “I can’t stand the sense of loss andfeelings of sadness that accompany saying goodbye to an intense men-toring relationship.” (d) “If a protege chooses a different career path ordoes not adhere to my beliefs and practices, it simply proves they areno good and I should reject them.” Not only are mentors prone to irra-tional beliefs at the separation phase of mentor relationships, they areprobably prone to some specific irrational beliefs at each of the com-mon developmental phases in mentor relationships (Kram, 1988). Ta-ble 1 offers a brief summary of the irrational beliefs that may be mostpronounced at each of Kram’s mentor relationship phases.

Although not all professionals who mentor juniors in the field neces-sarily hold to all—or even most—of these beliefs strongly or routinely,we suspect that most will at least occasionally suffer the negative con-sequences of holding to some mentoring-related irrational beliefs. Al-though professionals who mentor are prone to a host of self-defeatingbeliefs regarding the mentoring relationship, themselves as mentors,and their proteges they may be reluctant to recognize the irrationalnature of their beliefs or to work at correcting them—in spite of theirself-defeating character. This reluctance may stem from the fact thatmentors are typically somewhat seasoned and therefore unlikely toview themselves as prone to making cognitive and relational errors, orbecause they have developed an inflated sense of professional value—


Table 1

Mentor Relationship Phase-Specific Irrational Beliefsand Outcomes

Irrational Beliefs Mentoring Outcome

Phase 1: Initiation1. I must see a vision of myself inmy protege. 2. My protege mustalways be interesting and excit-ing to interact with. 3. My pro-tege must adopt my values andfully share my interests. 4. Myprotege ought to be deferentialand rather in awe of my experi-ence and expertise.

The mentor’s demands squelch thenaturally occurring processes ofmutual attraction and explorationof the “goodness of fit” betweenmentor and protege. The protegefeels pressured to “be like” thementor in all regards which limitsdevelopment of unique charac-teristics, viewpoints and skills.

Phase 2: Cultivation1. I must meet all my protege’sneeds and deliver all the mentorfunctions perfectly. 2. It would beawful if our relationship did notbecome more enjoyable and mean-ingful. 3. My protege must acceptand affirm the value of my friend-ship and support. 4. He or shemust become more competent.

The mentor’s grandiose demandslead to sabotaging dependency inthe protege and intense pressureto exclusively affirm the mentorand the relationship. Fear of dis-apointing the mentor preventshonest assessment of strengths,weaknesses and needed modifica-tions in the relationship.

Phase 3: Separation1. My protege should not sepa-rate until I say it is time for sep-aration! 2. My protege shouldflawlessly tolerate this changeand not behave oddly. 3. Duringthe separation and afterwards, Ishould withhold all mentoring somy protege learns to make italone. 4. I should not feel loss orsadness at the change.

The mentor’s difficulty toleratingvarious emotions such as sadnessand satisfaction with regard tothe protege’s increasing auton-omy interferes with normal sep-aration and fosters eitherdependency or an abrupt andunhelpful halt to the mentorrelationship.


Table 1 (Continued)

Irrational Beliefs Mentoring Outcome

Phase 4: Redefinition1. My protege must demonstrateeternal gratitude for my invest-ment in them. 2. My protegeshould be high achieving andsuccessful in the field. 3. If theyleave the field or fare poorly, it ismy fault and shows I am a lousymentor. 4. I couldn’t stand it ifmy protege didn’t need me anymore.

Undue focus on the protege’sgratitude or subsequent perfor-mance may result in bitternessand resentment. Rigid expecta-tions regarding the form andfunction of the redefined relation-ship results in power struggles,hostility and perhaps permanenttermination of the relationship.

based on the adulation and worshipful responses they sometimes re-ceive from proteges.

HOW TO COPE EFFECTIVELY WITHMENTORING-RELATED IRRATIONAL BELIEFS

Because even fine mentors occasionally fall prey to some of theseirrationalities, we recommend several methods mentors might employfor effectively coping with them. In our view, any professional who ex-periences some degree of anger, anxiety or depression related to thementoring role, is likely telling himself or herself something irrationalabout proteges, about himself or herself as mentor, or about the spe-cific mentor context. These irrational beliefs may be overt and con-scious or unconscious. In order to become more effective as a mentorand in order to enjoy the mentor process more thoroughly, we recom-mend the following strategies.

1. Acknowledge evidence of disturbance and search for contributingirrational beliefs. When a graduate school professor becomes anxiousabout his or her performance as a mentor, or when he or she becomesangry at a protege for slow progress on a dissertation, it is imperativethat the mentor admit that these emotional consequences are neitherfunctional nor helpful to the relationship. Just as therapy clients are


taught to self-apply the A-B-C model of REBT (Ellis, 1962; Woods &Ellis, 1997), so too should mentors acknowledge problem emotions andbehaviors and ask themselves “what am I telling myself about my pro-tege or about myself to get myself so upset?” As noted above, absolutis-tic shoulds, musts, and oughts are typically at the root of mentoring-related irrational thinking.

2. Actively dispute mentor-related irrational beliefs (in front of pro-teges). Once the mentor has discerned the basic irrational beliefs lead-ing to emotional disturbance (e.g., “my protege should do exactly whatI recommend and if they do not, they are no good,” or “It would beawful if my protege selected a different mentor and it would mean thatI am inadequate”), he or she should actively dispute them using one ormore of the basic disputational approaches (Walen, DiGiuseppe, &Dryden, 1992). For example, the mentor may employ logical disputes(“how does it follow logically that because I would like my protege todo something, they must therefore do it?”), reality-testing disputes(“where is the evidence that my value is determined by a student’sselection of a mentor?”), or pragmatic disputes (“how is telling myselfthat a protege must not disengage from our mentor relationship help-ing me or my protege?”). When a mentor is willing to do this work inthe presence of a protege, we believe the effect is much more substan-tial. Not only will the mentor be modeling a healthy method of copingwith irrational thinking, he or she will simultaneously be engaging ina shame-attacking exercise of sorts (Ellis, 1969). So, the mentor mightsay to the protege “You know, when I didn’t see a copy of your firstdissertation chapter when you promised it, I got angry. Then I realizedI was disturbing myself with the crazy thought that you should per-form perfectly and always turn things in exactly on time. I then real-ized there was no evidence that you had to be perfect and that gettingangry probably wouldn’t make my day any better, so I decided thetruth is that I’d like you to turn things in on time, but that if you don’tit certainly is not catastrophic and it doesn’t mean you are a louse.Now I’m feeling just a bit annoyed.”

3. Refuse to awfulize about anything. Ellis (1983) warned psycho-therapists that awfulizing about anything a client does is always dys-functional and rooted in irrational thinking. Similarly, we can think ofnothing a protege might do (or not do) which would appropriately elicitcognitive evaluations along the lines of “awful,” “horrible,” or “terri-ble.” So when a protege fails to show up for an important conferencepresentation, behaves unethically, exploits the mentor or publicly ridi-


cules the mentor and terminates the relationship, the mentor can ide-ally express disappointment, sadness, regret or annoyance while si-multaneously refusing to become enraged, depressed or anxious. Ofcourse, the mentor should also face the unpleasant tasks of confront-ing the protege, holding him her accountable, and so on, yet withoutthe additional burden of the effects of awfulizing.

4. Separate human worth from mentor performance. As we havementioned already, professionals who actively engage students andjunior professionals in strong mentor relationships are often high-achieving, invested in the success of proteges and prone to finding en-joyment in the mentor role. Because good mentors take the role seri-ously, they may be inclined to emotional upset when negative mentoroutcomes occur as well as prone to engage in self-downing. Therefore,mentors must often work diligently to separate their intrinsic humanvalue from their performance as a mentor. This is equally true whetherthe mentor receives accolades or critical feedback.

5. Frequently and humorously find ways to display human fallibility.We think there maybe nothing as powerful and useful to a fledglingprofessional as a human mentor. By human we mean open, self-disclos-ing, prone to certain errors, insightful regarding personal strengths andweaknesses, and most importantly, unwilling to take himself or herselftoo seriously. Mentors may find that the more often they disclose mis-takes, irrational beliefs and failures to proteges, the less likely theywill be to demand perfection from themselves and their students. Al-though high expectations and strong preferences for excellence arepositive attributes of mentors, the most effective mentors are thosewho seek and model excellence as well as acceptance of fallibility. Thisis by no means an easy balance to strike. One way to assess the extentto which a mentor is successful in this regard is to ask the question“How often do your proteges both perform excellently and also sharefears and failures?”

Mentoring is a complex and demanding professional role. In this ar-ticle we have highlighted the practices of effective mentors, describedthe most common irrational beliefs among mentors and outlined astrategy for coping effectively with mentoring related self-disturbance.When mentors refuse to take themselves too seriously and consciouslymodel disputation of irrational thinking for proteges, we hypothesizethat they will be healthier, enjoy the mentor role to a greater extentand have a more significant and positive impact on the personal andcareer development of their proteges.


REFERENCES

Beal, D., & DiGiuseppe, R. (1998). Training supervisors in rational emotivebehavior therapy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 12, 127–137.

Burke, R. J. (1984). Mentors in organizations. Group and OrganizationalStudies, 9, 353–372.

Busch, J. W. (1985). Mentoring in graduate schools of education: Mentor’sperceptions. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 257–265.

Clark, R. A., Harden, S. L., & Johnson, W. B. (1998, August). Mentoring rela-tionships in clinical psychology doctoral training: A national survey ofrecent graduates. In N. J. Reich (Chair), Mentoring Relationships inGraduate Psychology Training. Symposium conducted at the annualmeeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Collins, P. (1993). The interpersonal vicissitudes of mentorship: An explora-tory study of the field-supervisor-student relationship. The Clinical Su-pervisor, 11, 121–135.

Cronan-Hillix, T., Gensheimer, L. K., Cronan-Hillix, W. A., & Davidson, W. S.(1986). Student’s views of mentors in psychology graduate training. Teach-ing of Psychology, 13, 123–127.

Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring amongmen and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539–546.

Ellis, A. (1957). How to live with a neurotic. New York: Crown. (Rev. Ed.,1975, North Hollywood, CA: Wilshire).

Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. Secaucus, NJ. CitadelPress.

Ellis, A. (1969). A weekend of rational encounter. In A. Burton (Ed.), Encoun-ter (pp. 112–127). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ellis, A. (1976). The biological basis of human irrationality. Journal of Indi-vidual Psychology, 32, 145–168.

Ellis, A. (1977). Fun as psychotherapy. Rational Living, 12, 2–6.Ellis, A. (1983). How to deal with your most difficult client—you. Rational

Emotive Therapy, 1, 2–8.Ellis, A. (1987). The impossibility of achieving consistently good mental health.

American Psychologist, 42, 364–375.Ellis, H. D. (1992). Graduate education in psychology: Past, present, and fu-

ture. American Psychologist, 47, 570–576.Hardy, C. J. (1994). Nurturing our future through effective mentoring: Devel-

oping roots as well as wings. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6,196–204.

Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A litera-ture review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505–532.

Johnson, W. B., DiGiuseppe, R., & Ulven, J. (1999). Albert Ellis as mentor:National survey results. Psychotherapy, 36, 305–312.

Johnson, W. B., & Nelson, N. (1999). Mentor-protege relationships in gradu-ate training: Some ethical concerns. Ethics and Behavior, 9, 189–210.

Kinnier, R. T., Metha, A. T., Buki, L. P., & Rawa, P. M. (1994). Manifest values


of eminent psychologists: A content analysis of their obituaries. CurrentPsychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality and Social, 13, 88–94.

Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in orga-nizational life. New York: University Press of America.

Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B.(1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Ballentine.

Murray, B. (1997, May). Unique mentor programs bolster students’ careers.APA Monitor, p. 50.

Newby, T. J., & Heide, A. (1992). The value of mentoring. Performance Im-provement Quarterly, 5, 2–15.

O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Toward a theory and practice of mentoring in psychology.In J. M. O’Neil & L. S. Wrightsman (chairs), Mentoring: Psychological,personal, and career development implications. Symposium presented atthe annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Los An-geles, CA.

O’Neil, J. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). The mentoring relationship in psy-chology training programs. Unpublished manuscript.

Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentors & proteges. New York: Arbor House.Robinson, E. H. (1994). Critical issues in counselor education: Mentors, mod-

els and money. Counselor Education and Supervision, 33, 339–343.Roche, G. R. (1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review, 57,

14–28.Speizer, J. J. (1981). Role models, mentors and sponsors: The elusive con-

cepts. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 6, 692–712.Stafford, B., & Robbins, S. P. (1991). Mentorship for graduate social work

students: Real and ideal. The Journal of Applied Social Sciences, 15,193–206.

Torrance, E. P. (1984). Mentor relationships. New York: Bearly.Walen, S., DiGiuseppe, R., & Dryden, W. (1992). A practitioner’s guide to ra-

tional-emotive therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Wilde, J. B., & Schau, C. G. (1991). Mentoring in graduate schools of educa-

tion: Mentee’s perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 165–179.

Woods, P. J., & Ellis, A. (1997). Supervision in rational-emotive behavior ther-apy. In C. E. Watkins Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision(pp. 101–113). New York: Wiley.

Wright, C. A., & Wright, S. D. (1987). The role of mentors in the career devel-opment of young professionals. Family Relations, 36, 204–208.

Zey, M. G. (1991). The mentor connection: Strategic alliances in corporate life.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

rational mentoring

Documents