RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Enhancing Lean: Planning for Future Leaders with Mentorship Models at the
Washington State Department of Labor & Industries (L&I)
December 10, 2015
Jeremy Payne and Warren Wessling
The Evergreen State College
Masters of Public Administration (MPA)
Faculty Advisor: Amy Leneker
Consultant(s): Damon Drown, PhD; Cheryl Simrell-King, PhD

Abstract

Page

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Public sector organizations are well-known bureaucracies that are slow-moving and where
change is often difficult to implement. In Washington State, Lean has taken hold of the public
sector and moving towards implementing change from the ground-up. This, however, is yet
another process that dismisses the absolute need for employee engagement within public sector
organizations. We argue that human capital is more vital than creating an efficient organization
through process improvement. Knowledge transfer via mentorship is a key tenant towards
creating a highly effective, efficient workforce that places the needs of the organization before
the individual.

Page

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Table of Contents
Abstract
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Paradigm & Assumptions
Methodology
Literature Review
APPENDIX I Annotated Bibliography
APPENDIX II Survey Questions
APPENDIX III Human Subjects Review (HSR)
APPENDIX IV Research Diagram
APPENDIX V Definitions
APPENDIX VI Labor & Industries Five Goals
APPENDIX VII Research Team Work Plan

Executive Summary

Page

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Dynamic change and increasingly complex problems demand equally as dynamic and
complex organizations to manage them. For over 25 years, Peter Senge has developed
organizations like these through the implementation of his five disciplines that create a learning
organization structure. Private industry has observed the benefit of this model in many ways, but
the Public sector continues to be mainly responsive and reactionary. The reactionary nature of the
public sector hinders its ability to develop strong, dynamic systems that evolve with the
developments around it.
One of the greatest challenges facing the public sector is the development of the next
generation of leaders. With reactionary hiring practices and a lack of mentorship programs,
public agencies are losing a wealth of knowledge and experience. Through the course of this
study we hope to present the way in which the learning organizational model will drive public
agencies to become increasingly proactive, and more specifically how mentorships will develop
employees to make more informed and useful decisions.

Introduction
Public agencies are considered among the least responsive organizations in the United
States. Creating good solutions to problems often takes time, and great attention to detail in order
to ensure the most productive solution or service is being provided. Although some processes
must move slowly, others can be more dynamic and nimble to manage effective transitions more
productively. How do we change the structure of systems to produce more of what we want and
less of what is undesirable? Where in a system resides the place where small changes could lead
to a large shift in behavior? (Meadows, 2008). Our research intends to identify a small change

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

organization.

Page

in the system that could have large impacts on the behavior of employees and consequently the

Peter Senge developed the Five Disciplines model of a learning organization; building
shared vision, personal mastery, mental models, team learning, and systems thinking to provide
organizations a set of tools that facilitate and manage dynamic change. These five disciplines will
be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed through data collection and analysis of a 185 employee
division within a public agency for the State of Washington. Although these distinct disciplines
have the ability to create progress in an organization individually, the combination of all five
create a truly dynamic organization that can navigate the complications of change in an
organization.
We posit the public sector must embrace these virtues as an enhancement to the Lean
culture already embraced by management and frontline employees alike, achieving many
positive results. We believe the model of a learning organization, as described by Senge,
combined with the right mentorship model will enliven the change, raise awareness about
mentorship and its positive contributions to the workplace, and help to overcome barriers
consistent with change in an organization. In addition, workers that habitually focus their
discretionary energy towards work-related goals through building teams and achieving
organizational goals tend to perform better and may likely be more interested in mentorship
opportunities in the workplace. The development of a mentorship culture that builds on
individual learning to enhance the capabilities of an agency starts while improving
communication across the organization.

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

Generational gaps and communication pitfalls are barriers towards creating a learning
organization. Mentorship is a potential model that breaks down this barrier and develops future
leaders while building organizational capacity for remaining stable during dynamic change.
Tapping and developing the potentials of people and organizations to create the future rather
than react to the present rests on two foundations; visions for the future and an understanding of
present reality. It is through information transfer, more specifically mentorship dynamics, that
this can be fully realized (Senge 2008, p. 50). According to Brown & Brudney in 2003, the
implementation of a learning organization model or at the very least an increase in information
sharing from lower level employees is shown to increase productivity and provide organizations
with the ability to manage dynamic change more successfully.
Public agencies are known for the multi-layer decision making process that causes an oftslow bureaucratic process for even the simplest of tasks. In the State of Washington, the culture
of Lean manufacturing processes has taken hold and is creating improved processes within the
agency, some dramatic changes, some as subtle as moving a copier to a more centralized
location. The results are clear that employees are embracing their ability to make suggestions and
be a part of the improvements that provide better services for customers.
The objective of our research study is to highlight human capital within the organization,
specifically the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Fraud Prevention and Labor
Standards Division (FPLS). Mentoring is a fundamental form of human development where one
person invests time, energy and personal know-how in assisting the growth and ability of another
person (Shea, 2002, p.3). Our research focuses on one division within the Washington State
Department of Labor & Industries, that is the Fraud Prevention and Labor Standards Divisions

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

(FPLS). Our guiding research questions is: How can the FPLS Division benefit from a developed
mentorship program? In our research we hope to find an existing but relatively unknown
mentorship program from which to extend in a more formal structure to all employees in FPLS.
Additionally, we hope to enhance the current Lean structure in place to further build employee
engagement and develop potential mentorship models for future leaders within FPLS.

Paradigm & Assumptions

It is our belief that insufficient communication of career path structures, the impending
silver wave of boomer retirements, a highly compartmentalized task distribution and the
hierarchy organizational structure provides few opportunities for informal training or crossprogram knowledge sharing. Due to these factors we believe that units and programs may end up
with a large gap in institutional knowledge within FPLS. The division may benefit from blending
mentorship models into the current employee development program, facilitating the transfer of
knowledge between rising leaders and longtime employees holding a great deal of institutional
knowledge. It may be necessary to also incentivize the transfer of this knowledge, however that
criteria is out of the scope of our research.
As agencies typically operate under restrained budgetary conditions, adequate training
combined with a mentorship program can improve employee engagement and focus
discretionary energy towards building greater organizational capacity. Our research will be
viewed through the interpretive paradigm and consists of quantitative and qualitative data to
assess the current state of knowledge transfer in the organization and whether or not a
mentorship program may be desired by employees within the Division. By using the interpretive
paradigm, we will emphasize the knowledge garnered from respondents experience and direct
contact with more experienced co-workers. Through this paradigm, we assume perceptions play

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

a significant role in the construction of opportunity and career attainment. The interpretive
paradigm also informs our understanding of evolving systems within learning organizations, and
allows the research team to maintain the temporal nature of our research.

Methodology
We conducted research via peer-reviewed journal articles, contemporary business models
and websites, books (specifically Peter Senges The Fifth Discipline 1990), previously
adapted programs in the division or agency, and original data collected from the Washington
State annual statewide employee survey. We are interested in answering the following questions
to determine the veracity and strength of our guiding research question that FPLS will benefit
from an established model of mentorship within the Division.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Are there current formal and informal mentorship relationships?

Are FPLS employees interested in mentorships? (positive or negative perceptions)
Do existing mentorships correlate with OCB and/or LO?
Are these potential correlations peer or traditional?
How do potential correlations impact the division?
How does FPLS create an internal mentoring system in place of an agency-wide program?
Our intended audience is the Associate Director (A/D) Elizabeth Liz Smith of the

Labor & Industries Fraud Division and additional executives that may interested in the results
and findings and may be applicable to other divisions within the agency. In addition, our results
and findings will be made readily available to the respondents upon completion of the analysis.
The research team built a 40-question survey for internal distribution to FPLS employees
via surveygizmo.com. It will consist of approximately 185 potential respondents and be
voluntary; an email request to take the survey will be sent from the A/D Liz Smith to signify the
importance of survey completion in support of division goals. We have acquired permission from

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

the Directors Office via a survey application on the agency intranet and a formal interview with
the survey committee on December 2, 2015. This application will include the Human Subjects
Review (HSR) that is also required for the Evergreen State College, in order to provide clarity of
purpose and intent. The HSR can be found in Appendix III.
The research team conducted beta-testing of our survey with family and friends via an
online message distributed through email and Facebook from November 28, 2015 December 3,
2015. Prior to survey distribution we will review the beta-testing responses with the Human
Resources Organizational Psychologist, Damon Drown Ph.D. He is familiar with the survey
environment in the agency and has extensive knowledge of survey development and analysis. We
met with Dr. Drown at 11am on November 16, 2015 and 12pm on December 2, 2015 at the L&I
Headquarters. This meeting provided crucial input that has allowed the research team to build a
more robust and accurate model and research diagram for the development of our survey. Also,
we discussed anticipated outcomes to more clearly define the collection & analysis plan which
can be found in Appendix II. Dr. Drown agreed to additional meetings with our research team to
assist with finalization of the survey questions and serve as an advisor in the organization and
analysis of collected data.
The research team will use surveygizmo.com* as the tool for collecting and completing
data analytics. We will also utilize SPSS as an advanced statistical tool and run multiple
regression and factor analysis to look for correlation and relationships between our data. We
decided to create an online survey for the ease of facilitation and is most likely to garner the most
responses. Due to time constraints the research team will not conduct focus groups or individual
interviews in the initial analysis and collection of our data. However, if further research is

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

results of our research.

Page

deemed necessary then we are prepared to set-up individual interviews to further enhance the

* It is mandatory to use www.surveygizmo.com as directed by Labor & Industries as the only tool available for
conducting external surveys within the agency.

Hypotheses Expected Outputs / Results:

(1) Employees who have experience with mentorship in the organization are more likely to
exhibit OCBs and have a higher perception of the division as a learning organization.
(2) Employees who perceive the division does little to support employee personal growth
will likely be uninterested in mentorship opportunities.
(3) The division somewhat maintains an informal mentorship program that supports
employee careers and personal growth.

Literature Review
How do public agencies enhance organizational effectiveness through empowering all
employees through building strong teams and enabling a culture of learning? Studies in the
private sector suggest this dynamic culture can be created through knowledge sharing, flattening
organizations, and leveraging human capital. In the public sector today there it is nearly
essential to care for our agencies through developing systems to maintain current organizational
knowledge, often referenced as Information Transfer (IT). IT is an essential aspect of Senges
learning organization disciplines. Information must be quickly passed from managers to line
workers and back in order for any organization to develop shared vision, much less develop
systems thinking. The implementation of a learning organization model or at the very least an
increase in information sharing from lower level employees, is shown to increase productivity
and provide organizations with the ability to manage dynamic change more successfully (Brown
& Brudney, 2003).

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

10

Organizational change is a well discussed topic in public administration and multiple

Page

tactics, techniques, and tools are in current implementation throughout public sector agencies
across the nation. One such tool that is changing the way we do businesses in Washington State
is that of Lean methodology; more on this later. Within State agencies, the current climate of
independence in hand with increasingly dynamic change, it is more vital than ever for
organizations to transition into learning organizations (Senge, 1990, p.69). As researchers we
have come to understand the extreme importance to develop, implement, and sustain a learning
organization however there seem to be certain restrictions or concerns against these efforts. In
2013, Cummings et al. report the following obstacles in their study about knowledge transfer
from Boomers, [It] consisted of perception of value, communication, retrieving knowledge and
documents, lean staffing, workload/busy/distractions, staff turnover/retention, procedure
changes, lack of looking for knowledge or knowing what employees do not know. Success of
knowledge sharing processes depends on management innovations that recognize that interaction
of a variety of factors that facilitate or impede knowledge sharing activities (Zhang, Faerman, &
Cresswell, 2006, p.1).
Senges Learning Organizations provide the opportunity to develop a system that would
encourage knowledge transfer and overcome the obstacles presented by Cummings et al. These
five disciplines are not prescriptive practices; they are a foundation that when built on one
another always for development of the whole. Together they work to develop the careers of those
in the organization, provide an opportunity for reflection and alignment, and create the most
opportune conditions for an organizations success (Senge, 1990 p. 5-16).
One such way that an organization can promote becoming a learning organization is by
ensuring shared goals and visions are commonly repeated and well-known by all employees.

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

11

Another substantial way is to build a mentorship program that ensures knowledge transfer
Page

between the elder employees preparing to leave the organization and the often younger front-line
employees that will replace these mid-level leaders. Mentors serve as a vital human resource
within organizations. They help ensure the transmission of knowledge to others, assist in the
development of a competent workforce, and provide a mechanism for organizational learning
(Allen, Lentz, & Day, 2006, p. 272). Mentors provide young adults with career-enhancing
functions, such as sponsorship, coaching, facilitating exposure and visibility, and offering
challenging work or protection, all of which help the younger person to establish a role in the
organization, learn the ropes, and prepare for advancement (Kram & Isabella, 1985, p.111). We
hypothesize that developing mentors within FPLS will likely increase employee engagement
scores and thereby increase retention rates and narrow the gap of knowledge transfer. As part of
the overall agency goal of Making L&I and Employer of Choice (found in Appendix VI). We
believe that mentorship within the division will enhance the current Lean methodologies by
empowering front-line employees via open lines of communication. Employees engaged in
higher tier decision making and knowledge gained from the mentor/protg relationship are
indicators towards establishing a learning organization. Senge suggests that three factors must be
present for a learning organization to thrive:
1) finding values in ones work through personal values;
2) relationships with colleagues and co-workers instead of managers; and
3) focus on problem-solving/finding and double-loop knowledge (Hale, 1996, p.423).

Some research suggests that performance and employee turnover is a key concern for employee
engagement and performance scores. However, according to a study by the United Kingdoms
National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy employee turnover

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

12

is of least concern in the public sector and productivity may simply be an effect of workplace
Page

training to enhance basic skills (Ananiadou et al, 2004, p.11). The scope of our study will remain
less focused on performance and turnover and more focused on mentorship models that enhance
knowledge transfer and drive organizational growth, such as those discussed by Allen, Brown,
Hale, & Yang. As previously mentioned, Lean is built around the third point from Hale (above).
For instance, Lean posits that waste reduction and efficiencies should be the priority within
organizations. These principles do hold true for many organizations but we feel that efficiency
dismisses the importance of the human capital aspect of bureaucratic administrative work.
Although Lean is a rather competent and effective tool, it does not focus on what we
believe is the most important aspect of organizational effectiveness and that is having highly
engaged employees with access to knowledge about the greater organizational goals and plans.
The results of Lean are compiled on an open-source website to provide transparency for the
public in the success of the Lean goals across Washington State agencies. It is worth noting that
the measure Respect and Feedback as a sub-component of Accountable and Effective
Government has made no recorded progress since Oct 2013, although the category of
Employee Engagement experienced a slight increase from 2013 2014 within the division of
FPLS. This is likely indicative of the focus on Lean and beginning to empower employees in the
organization to challenge their own thinking about their daily routines and work processes.
A Gallup study notes The attainment of a workplace with high-caliber employees starts
with the selection of the right people for the right jobs (Harter et al, 2012, p.5). Whereas Lean is
a wonderful concept to incorporate front-line employees it should not be considered the be-all,
end-all approach to employee engagement and is shown in the year-over-year results of

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

13

employee engagement as the lowest recorded score in the division. Further, Lean is largely a
Page

private sector process requiring employees to adapt to a new organizational language that may
take years to incorporate into the daily routines of employees. On the other hand, mentorship
models may be developed and implemented almost immediately and may continue to enhance
the success of the organization. As each employee builds success by helping one another succeed
with their individual goals thereby a learning organization may arise providing further support to
both the individual and the larger organization. One such possibility of mentoring that may be of
great significance and immediately implemented is that of the peer mentor. The role of peer
mentoring has worked well for many organizations and one particular structure that embraces the
role of the peer mentor is the U.S. military.
Within the U.S. military organization strong peer relationships are the foundation of
community knowledge sharing and problem solving. Battle Buddies and Liberty Buddies in
the military are examples of shared decision making and problem solving. Through these
practices, military organizations develop unit cohesion, generate self-policing systems, and
disseminate knowledge through peer relationships. Although these examples happen within a
highly institutionalized structure, there is reason to believe the knowledge sharing models
encourage good practices even with little life experience or job training (TRADOC, 2015, p.6).

Themes

Author(s)

Mentorship

Allen

Publication
Date(s)
2006

Baugh
Clapperton

1996
2010

Hale

1996

Key Words
Formal and Informal
Mentoring
Gender
Mentorships in Public
Sector
Mentoring in Learning
Organizations

Mullen & Noe

Page

Lucier

14

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

2009

1999

US Coast Guard

2013

Wright & Wright

1987

Senge

1990,2008

Brown

2003

Hale

1996

Mahler
Meadows
Moynihan & Landuyt

1997
2008
2009

Peer Mentorship

Kram & Isabella

1985

Career Advancement

Chetkovich
Schumaker

2003
2004

Employee Engagement

Chartered Institute of
Personal Development
Civil Service People Survey

2012

Harter et al

2013

OConnell

2010

Wright

2001

Yang & Guy

2006

Cummings-White & Diala

2013

Garnett et al.

2008

Ismail & Yusof

2008

Noor & Salim

2011

Learning Organizations

Knowledge Sharing

2013

Trust in mentor relations

and psychosocial support
roles
Information Transfer
From Protg to Mentor
Inter-generational
Communication, Survey
Support
Career Development,
Mentorship Models
Shared Vision, Personal
Mastery, Systems
Thinking, Mental Models
Public Sector Learning
Organizations
Mentoring in Learning
Organizations
Organizational Culture
Systems Thinking
Mission Orientation,
Decision Flexibility
Career Development,
Alternate Mentorship
Benefit
Motivation
Training, Development,
Collaborative Training

Leadership, Change
Management.
Performance
Measurement
Leadership for
Engagement
Motivation, Private
Public Comparison,
Survey Support and
Vocabulary
Inter-generational
Motivators,
Organizational Culture
Perception of Value,
Lean, Inter-Generational
Learning
Communication,
Organizational
Performance,
Factors to Increase
Knowledge Sharing
Public Sector Knowledge
Sharing

Watson & Hewett

Demographic Data

Page

Nutt & Backoff

15

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

1996
2006

Zhang et al

2006

Pew Research Center

2010

Results Washington

Leadership, Vision
Implementation, Strategy
Theoretical Model,
Survey Development,
Cross-Project
Communication
Management
Innovations,
Technological Factors.
Nature of Knowledge,
Knowledge Management
Generational Differences,
Perspective Analysis

2013,2014,
Employee Engagement,
2015
Lean, Agency Alignment
*When Lit review is done, delete unused sources and it becomes a Literature Review Table.

Page

16

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

APPENDIX I Annotated Bibliography

** INDICATES NEW SOURCE **

Scale of Usefulness: 1=least useful; 5=most useful

**Allen, T. D., Lentz, E., & Day, R. (2006). Career Success Outcomes Associated With
Mentoring Others A Comparison of Mentors and Nonmentors. Journal of Career
Development, 32(3), 272-285.
Ananiadou, K., Emslie-Henry, R., Evans, K., & Wolf, A. (2004). Identifying effective
workplace basic skills for strategies for enhancing employee productivity and development:
scoping and pilot study report. National Research and Development Centre. Institute of
Education: London.
Baugh, S. G., Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (1996). An investigation of the effects of
protg gender on responses to mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3), 309-323.
Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2003). Learning Organizations in the Public Sector? A
Study of Police Agencies Employing Information and Technology to Advance Knowledge.
Public Administration Review, 63(1), 30-43. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00262
(3) The authors present the benefits of the learning organizational model within the public sector.
Although focused on policy implementation, the article presents a case study for the importance
of information sharing and empowerment within the public sector. This study indicates the
benefit of the learning organizational model even within a highly structured public agency.
Chetkovich, C. (2003). What's in a Sector? The Shifting Career Plans of Public Policy
Students. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 660-674. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00330
(2) The author explains the role of motivation in career choice for public policy students. The
author finds that motivation and vision play a significant role in the career choices of students.
Chetkovich explains that the strongest motivator for students is the opportunity to make a
difference. This indicates that vision and perception of opportunity will direct the choices of
students.
** Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). (2012). Leading Culture
Change, Employee Engagement, and Public Service Transformation: Policy into Practice.
Produced in collaboration with The Public Sector People Managers Association (PPMA).
United Kingdom: London.
Civil Service People Survey. (2013). Cabinet Office: Summary of Findings. February 2014.
United Kingdom: London. Accessed via: http://resources.civilservice.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/csps2013_summary_of_findings.pdf

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

17

(3) This study was conducted by the Cabinet Office of the National UK government and is the
5th annual survey with more than 270,000 respondents in more than 98 national government
organizations. It finds Leadership and managing change is the strongest driver of engagement,
and remains a major challenge among other key findings that will support our study. Although
the study is nationwide for UK government workers the results may still allow for cross
reference as the bureaucratic establishment in the UK versus the US are likely comparable due to
negligible cultural differences (assumption). Further the study offers the full survey results via
Excel from which we can manipulate to find additional results if needed.
Clapperton, Guy. (2010) Mentoring and Leadership in the Public Sector. The
Guardian.Accessed via http://www.theguardian.com/public-sector-training/mentoring-inthe-public-sector
(4) The author discusses recent leadership training in Umbria, England in which leaders were
trained as coaches and sent back to their positions to train additional coaches and mentors. The
Guardian is the periodical known for breaking the Edward Snowden story and received a Pulitzer
Prize for these stories. This work is highly influential to our project yet being a simple online
newspaper article it does not rate a 5 on the usefulness scale but may likely lead to additional
articles and/or projects to help narrow our research questions and hypotheses.
Cummings-White, I., & Diala, I. S. (2013). Knowledge Transfer in a Municipality Study
on Baby Boomer Exodus from the Workforce. International Journal of Computer
Applications Technology and Research, 2(3), 367-373. Accessed via
http://www.ijcat.com/archives/volume2/issue3/ijcatr02031029
(4) The authors use Druckers Management by Objectives Theory along with generational,
classical, rational, and the theory of Ba to support the importance of knowledge sharing in
public sector programs. They posit the boomer workforce will create a large knowledge gap
regarding institutional knowledge. Fourteen semi-structured face-to-face interviews identified
eight core themes that provide opportunities for leadership to assess organizational readiness.
Reported obstacles in transferring knowledge consisted of: (a) perception of value,
communication, (b) retrieving knowledge and documents, (c) lean staffing, (d)
workload/busy/distractions, (e) staff turnover/retention, (f) procedure changes, (g) lack of
looking for knowledge or knowing what employees do not know (p.372). Some respondents
suggest knowledge sharing is purely social, created by interpersonal experiences and relationship
building; the majority of respondents believe that knowledge sharing is best captured through
planning, policies, and procedures. Leadership recognizes the potential loss of this knowledge
and the need to put measures in place to capture knowledge prior to the boomer exodus.
Garnett, J. L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2008). Penetrating the Performance
Predicament: Communication as a Mediator or Moderator of Organizational Cultures
Impact on Public Organizational Performance. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 266281. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00861.x

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

18

(2) The Authors present the very difficult task of presenting the role of communication in
organizational attainment and accomplishment. The authors present what they call the
Performance Predicament indicating that it much more difficult to find the benefits of
communication and far more simple to find the flaws. Although their research finds a
relationship between a very specific work culture and communication, this study expresses most
simply the problem with measuring positive effects of communication, and the reasons why.
** Garvin David, A., Edmonson, Amy C., & Gino, Francesca. (2008). Is Yours a Learning
Organization. Harvard Business Review. March. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/03/isyours-a-learning-organization
**Gordon, Shea F. (2002). Mentoring: How to Develop Successful Mentor Behaviors. A
Crisp 50-Minute Series Book. Axzo Press.
Hale, M. M. (1996). Learning Organizations and Mentoring: Two Ways to Link Learning
and Workforce Development. Public Productivity & Management Review, 19(4), 422.
doi:10.2307/3381002
(5) Hale presents the benefits of moving from more traditional didactic mentoring relationships
into a more rounded organizational model of mentoring relationships. Hales Organizational
Mentoring involves all managers and organizational executives, and those specific managers
mentor based on the specific skills the mentor has, and the mentee needs at a given time. This
provides the organization with the connections and information to encourage the growth of the
learning organization model. Hales work will be very influential to our understanding of
traditional didactic mentorships and our perception of our own findings.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., & Plowman, S. K. (2012). The Relationship
Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes: 2012 Q12 Meta-Analysis.
Washington, DC: Gallup Inc. Accessed via http://www.gallup.com/services/177047/q12meta-analysis.aspx
(5) The study is a foundational document for Results Washington and matter of importance for
measuring Employee Engagement with respect to organizational results. The authors conduct
meta-analysis of 263 research studies exploring the relationship between employee engagement
and performance across 192 organizations and 49,928 business/work units including 1,390,941
employees. The study had a few major assumptions such as the quality of an organizations
human resources is perhaps the leading indicator of its growth and sustainability and the
attainment of a workplace with high-caliber employees starts with the selection of the right
people for the right jobs (albeit this is a commonly shared project management principle as
well). The authors provide a utility analysis that breaks down the results into useable,
correlated data between engagement, employment performance, cost-savings, and a variety of
other factors to include safety. Although Gallup surveys and results have been heavily criticized
we feel this research will be highly valuable for comparison and towards writing up and
interpreting our own findings from research and original survey data.

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

19

Ismail, M. B., & Yusof, Z. M. (2008). Factors affecting knowledge sharing in public
organizations in Malaysia. Knowledge Management International Conference and
Exhibitions. Accessed via http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.402.9007&rep=rep1&type=pdf
(1) The authors lay the groundwork for a statistical study using 12 distinct hypotheses (factors)
that include: Awareness, Trust, Personality, Job Satisfaction, Org. structure, Org. culture, Reward
and Recognition, Work Process, Office Layout, and IT tools, Infrastructure and Know-How. The
authors do not conduct the study but merely lay the ground-work. However, they do a fine job at
clearly defining knowledge sharing and cite some excellent resources that may be followed up
at a later time.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring Alternatives: The Role of Peer
Relationships in Career Development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 110-132.
doi:10.2307/256064
(4) The authors highlight the special role of peer relationships in career development during
various career stages through life. The Authors present a great deal of information regarding the
important role of peers in developing one another in the absence of traditional mentors. The
authors do express that peer relationships do not create the same outcome as traditional didactic
mentorships, but create another separate benefit to an organization. The authors conclude that
fostering strong peer relationships is equally as important as a good mentor relationship.
Lucier, J. (2009). Affective Trust as a Mediator between Subordinate Organizational
Citizenship Behavior and Supervisors Willingness to Mentor. A Student Thesis, Telfer School
of Management: University of Ottawa. Canada.
Mahler, J. (1997). Influences of Organizational Culture on Learning in Public Agencies.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(4), 519-540. doi:
10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024364
(2) Mahler presents a foundational analysis of learning organizational learning theories and
implications for public agency. Mahler presents the role of organizational culture on the
implementation of learning organizational models and the interpretation of performance results.
This article is also useful due to the extensive explanation of vocabulary relating to
organizational culture and learning.
** Meadows, Donella H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Wright, D. (Ed.). The
Sustainability Institute. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Moynihan, D. P., & Landuyt, N. (2009). How Do Public Organizations Learn? Bridging
Cultural and Structural Perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1097-1105.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02067.x
(2) The authors present a very thorough study on the way in which organizations can develop
learning models to relay information through the organization in a productive way. They use
quantitative data to explain that providing information systems, mission orientation, decision

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

20

flexibility, and resource adequacy (PP 1103) supports learning within the organization. The
authors also advocate for the development of learning forums. Learning forums would be an
informal opportunity for employees to discuss information, and develop ties between the cultural
and structural divide.
Mullen, E. J., & Noe, R. A. (1999). The Mentoring Information Exchange: When do
mentors seek information from their protgs? Journal of Organizational Behavior J.
Organiz. Behav., 20(2), 233-242. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199903)20:23.0.co;2-f
(2) The Authors provide a useful understanding of the way in which protgs influence their
mentors. Although their findings were only somewhat useful, they indicated that the relationship
between mentors and protgs play a significant role in the information sought by mentors.
Strong relationships generally found more information sought from the protg by the mentor.
This indicates the importance of two-way information sharing as relationship bonds grow
stronger.
Noor, N. M., & Salim, J. (2011). Factors influencing employee knowledge sharing
capabilities in electronic government agencies in Malaysia. IJCSI International Journal of
Computer Science Issues, 8(4/2). Accessed via
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.402.6003&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=130
(3) This study is very similar to Zhangs in that knowledge sharing is well-defined but they also
go further to explain how knowledge sharing capabilities or KSC affect the nature in an
organization. It is important to find results outside of Washington and outside of the U.S. to
further our understanding of KS as more than simply cultural incentives and support from
management seems to be helpful in propagating knowledge transfer, but more research should
help to ascertain if this is indeed true. Along with other studies that authors conclude the
importance of the human factor in analyzing knowledge management. This aspect will be the
most important aspect of our research study and these findings may confirm or deny our
suspicions about the importance of perception and employee empowerment.
Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1996). Walking the Vision and Walking the Talk:
Transforming Public Organizations with Strategic Leadership. Public Productivity &
Management Review, 19(4), 455. doi:10.2307/3381004
(5) The authors present the differences in leadership and vision implementation for private and
public organizations. There are vast differences in the accountability and leadership strategies in
public and private organizations. The authors present a comprehensive list of stakeholder
responsibilities and implementation actions that would develop a positive result within public
agencies. This article not only provides excellent information, but a wealth of sources regarding
vision strategy and implementation.
OConnell, Graham. (2010. A Recipe for Success. The Guardian. Online, US Edition 24
August, 2010. Accessed via http://www.theguardian.com/public-sector-training/recipe-forsuccess

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

21

(2) The article is a highlight of a large scholarly study titled Leadership for Engagement
which will be reviewed and discussed further. The author has many articles related to leadership
and training in the public sector. He is head of organizational learning and standards and one of
several specialist consultants on employee engagement at the National School of Government.
The article can provide further insight into the public sector in the UK as well as provide
additional terminology and research related to our topic on the importance of mentorship and
training via knowledge sharing to prepare for the boomer exodus.
Pew Research Center. (2010). Millennials: A Portrait of Generation New. Confident.
Connected. Open to Change. Accessed via
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/millennials-confident-connected-open-tochange.pdf
(3) This study has multiple authors/contributors from the Pew Research Center which is an
extension of a study that began in 2006. A total of 2,020 survey respondents is the main source of
evaluation and compares data between generations for topics concerning lifestyle, education,
work environment, political leanings, religion, and future outlook. Although fairly
comprehensive the survey has drastic limitations that causes the usefulness to be a 3 instead of a
4 or 5. Our research can benefit from the graphics and generational differences that support the
model for which public sector leaders may attempt to engage millennials. We can benefit from
this research to further investigate key areas of focus such as lifestyle (i.e. work/life balance and
how to communicate) as well as workplace and education outlooks (is it worth
educating/training/mentoring these young, promising leaders if they intend to move onto bigger
and better things?).
Results Washington. (2015). Customer Satisfaction and Confidence: Employee
Engagement. Accessed via https://data.results.wa.gov/en/stat/goals/i9wq-h48w/77st9yep/msqz-drxu
(5) The website provides data from surveys and the status of the Results Washington Goals. In
particular, Goal 5 is divided into three components with Customer Satisfaction and Confidence
as a main indicator of progress. Under this goal lies three data tracking points; customer
satisfaction, employee engagement, and timely service delivery. For our study we will focus on
employee engagement and compare/contrast data collected from the development of our own
survey. These results are required annually and L&I initiated this survey on October 27, 2015 in
order to collect results by the close of the 2015 calendar year (assumption).
Schumaker, A. M. (2004). Predicting perceived effectiveness of training in local
government: A study of a municipal clerks training program. Public Performance &
Management Review, 27(3), 51-59. Accessed on October 18, 2015 via
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3381145
(5) This study is highly useful in our study due to the framework for which we are approaching
our project. The author uses a survey of 434 respondents (of 596) to determine perceived
effectiveness of training. This is a critical component of defining our research questions while

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

22

attempting to understand all of the factors applicable towards perceived advancement

opportunities based on institutional knowledge sharing and formal training programs. Some
findings consist of breaking down barriers between those selected for training and those not
selected. Additionally, training could be developed collaboratively instead of in a vacuum
soliciting input from others may strengthen the bond between the trainers, trainees and managers.
The organizational environment may be a further area for research beyond this study our
research on emphasizing learnings organizations may come in handy here.
**Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday/Currency. Print.
**Senge, P. M. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are
working together to create a sustainable world. New York: Doubleday. Print.
Training & Doctrine Command (TRADOC). (2015). Enlisted Initial Entry Training Policies
and Administration. US Army Regulation 350-6. Department of the Army, Headquarters:
Virginia.
US Coast Guard Auxiliary. Planning & Performance. (2013). Working with Millennials:
Understanding the Past, Knowing the Present, Planning the Future. Accessed via
http://cgaux.org/strategic_analysis/documents/WorkingwithMillennials.pdf
(2) The training manual offers a 14-item quiz to discover how millennial are you and tips for
how to work across generational differences. Although an internet research would offer
thousands of documents regarding generational differences with a variety of definitions and
naming conventions, this document was chosen for its basic ease of understanding and tips for
not only working with millennials but also tips for how to communicate to older generations.
Although not a scholarly journal article the manual offers real world insight to working and
communicating across generational differences and will be foundational to developing our
research hypotheses and survey questions.
Watson, S., & Hewett, K. (2006). A MultiTheoretical Model of Knowledge Transfer in
Organizations: Determinants of Knowledge Contribution and Knowledge Reuse. Journal
of Management Studies, 43(2), 141-173. Accessed via
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sharon_Watson/publication/4771139_A_MultiTheoretical_Model_of_Knowledge_Transfer_in_Organizations_Determinants_of_Knowled
ge_Contribution_and_Knowledge_Reuse/links/00b7d51aca5b798ca2000000.pdf
(4) In this study the authors argue that the effectiveness of intrafirm knowledge transfer based on
the reuse of existing knowledge depends on two key factors: (1) the willingness of individuals to
contribute their knowledge to the system; and (2) the rate at which individuals access and reuse
knowledge within the system. They also use expectancy theory to look at reuse of the knowledge
across time. The authors postulate that KS in project heavy firms is essential and this is studied
via research within a management consultant firm. One of the most integral parts of KS is
developing a knowledge management system for sharing across projects. The authors create
hypotheses based on two categories: intra-firm knowledge transfer systems from a social

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

23

exchange perspective and an expectancy theory perspective for factors influencing knowledge
reuse. The study will further guide the research team's development of a survey and gathering of
original data as was created in this study. Statistical analysis was conducted via a survey
response of 480 individuals (of 900) and the respondents were largely representative of 900
employees in sex, age, and tenure. The results strongly support viewing knowledge contributed
as an exchange between the individual and the organization (p.163). The study also finds that
computer self-efficacy is an element that should be considered in future studies. Additional
factors such as this make this study a good resource for further development of our survey
questions as well as providing some insight into knowledge sharing in the private sector and
factors affecting the willingness to capture and/or share knowledge.
Wright, B. E. (2001). Public-Sector Work Motivation: A Review of the Current Literature
and a Revised Conceptual Model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
11(4), 559-586. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003515
(5) Wright presents a thorough literature review on the motivation of public sector employees.
This article provides many insights into the theoretical framework that is public employee
motivation, but also develops the consistent factors that enforce the narratives presented by
public sector employees. By comparing private and public employees, the author explains the
failings of public sector leaders to correctly identify the motivations of public employees. The
author provides a wealth of sources and a great deal of vocabulary to use when discussing the
role of motivation in the workplace, and conceptual framework for applying his ideas to public
sector.
Wright, C. A., & Wright, S. D. (1987). The Role of Mentors in the Career Development of
Young Professionals. Family Relations, 36(2), 204. doi:10.2307/583955
(1) The authors provide a narrative approach to expressing the role of mentor relationships in the
career development process. This article is especially helpful in comparing several different
types of careers and how the mentor process can be useful. This is especially useful when
perceiving the state agency as many different types of work, and understanding the different
roles that mentors can fill to achieve the best result.
Yang, S., & Guy, M. E. (2006). GENXERS VERSUS BOOMERS: Work Motivators and
Management Implications. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(3), 267-284.
doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576290302
(2) This article presents the implications of generations differences in the management process.
The authors successfully develop the intergenerational dynamics that will change the best
approach to communication and motivational factors. The authors present that the organizational
culture provides an avenue to developing the bonds between generations. Although employees of
different generations may have different motivators, the organizational culture will develop a
common vision for all employees if the motivators for all generations are taken into account.
Zhang, J., Faerman, S. R., & Cresswell, A. M. (2006). The effect of
organizational/technological factors and the nature of knowledge on knowledge sharing.

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

24

In System Sciences. JAN, 2006. HICSS'06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on (Vol. 4, pp. 74a-74a). Accessed via
http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/journals/hicss_2006_knowledge/hicss_2006_knowle
dge.pdf
(4) The authors find that the success of knowledge sharing processes depends on management
innovations that recognize that interaction of a variety of factors that facilitate or impede
knowledge sharing activities. The review the factors via analysis of the MACROS system which
supervises the fiscal affairs of 3200 local governments in NY state. This system looks at
knowledge sharing activities between local governments and customers focusing on both explicit
and tacit understanding required to serve customers. The authors focus on the capability of
information systems to institutionalize knowledge sharing as an organizational practice. The
organizational and technological factors are categorized into 4 sections: leadership, trust, issues
and incentives, and information technology. According to the authors, this study provides a new
and more comprehensive framework for investigating the relevance of the nature of knowledge
in knowledge management research.

APPENDIX II Survey Questions*

Page

25

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

*distributed via www.surveygizmo.com

DEMOGRAPHICS
1.

Age: 18-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46-50, 51-55, 55+

2.

Tenure in agency (Categories) 1-5, 6-10, 11-15,16-20, 20+

3.

Education: What is your highest level of education? (Categories) High School, Some
College, BA, MA, PhD

LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS: 10-Qs in 5 categories; team learning (TL), shared vision

(SV), mental models (MM), personal mastery (PM), systems thinking (ST)
1.

My manager/supervisor/lead make employee development a priority? (TL)

2.

My team values my opinions and willingness to provide critical feedback? (TL)

3.

My team has a built in system to share material from training or meetings when others are
unable to attend? (TL)

4.

I am constantly learning new things from my coworkers? (TL)

5.

My manager/supervisor/lead explains the larger picture of my daily work? (SV)

6.

I am committed my role in the larger picture of my current work? (SV)

7.

I communicate my personal career goals to my supervisor? (SV)

8.

I discuss career goals with my coworkers and find common interests? (SV)

9.

I know my strengths and they are leveraged for the benefit of the team? (MM)

10.

I consider others perspective when making decisions for my team? (MM)

11.

I understand the structure of my team and its role in the larger picture of the division?
(MM)

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

I think about new ways to accomplish tasks to make my team more efficient? (MM)

13.

I continuously develop my own skills to prepare for advancement opportunities? (PM)

14.

My work is consistent with my personal values? (PM)

15.

I consider my goals when completing work tasks? (PM)

16.

I seek out information that will increase my knowledge, skills, and abilities? (PM)

17.

I understand the effects of my actions within the goals of the Division? (ST)

18.

I am encouraged to think about my work and the effect it has on our customers? (ST)

19.

I know my work benefits my customers? (ST)

20.

I know my work benefits the agency? (ST)

Page

26

12.

MENTORSHIP
1.

I am currently in a mentorship relationship. (Yes/no)

2.

If yes, what do you gain from your mentorship relationship? (Fill)

3.

I am not currently in a mentorship relationship, but would be interested in joining one.

4.

If yes, I would want to be: (Mentor, Protg, Peer Mentor)

5.

What would you hope to gain from a mentorship relationship? (Fill)

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS

1.

I help others who have been absent.

2.

I help others who have heavy workloads.

3.

I assist the supervisor with his/her work (when not asked).

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

I take time to listen to co-workers problems and concerns.

5.

I go out of the way to help new employees.

6.

I pass information along to co-workers.

7.

I take a personal interest in other employees.

Page

27

4.

ROLE AMBIGUITY
1. I feel certain about how much authority I have.
2. Clear, planned goals and objectives exist for my work.
3. I know when I have divided my time at work properly.
4. I know what my job responsibilities are.
5. I know exactly what is expected of me at this job.
6. I have clear expectations of what has to be done on a day to day basis.
Variable Table

Survey

Associated
Code

Page

Variable Type

28

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Definition

Demographics

1,2

DEM

Education

EDUC

(Control) The highest level of educational

attainment.

Team Learning

4,5,6,7

TL

Testing the accumulation and sharing of

knowledge.

Shared Vision

8,9,10,11

SV

Testing the communication of

organizational goals and potential
developments.

Mental Models

12,13,14,15 MM

Testing the ability for the respondents to see

their place within the organization.

Personal Mastery

16,17,18,19 PM

Testing for the continued development of

skills and values.

Systems Thinking

20,21,22,23 ST

Testing the respondents ability to see the

system as a whole.

Learning
Organization

5-23

LO

The combination of the last five variables to

create a model that will test the presence of
behaviors that will encourage a dynamic
and transformable model.

Organizational
Mentorship
Behaviors

24-28

OMB

Testing the frequency of mentorships,

interest in mentorship; both qualitative and
quantitative data about mentorship practices

Organizational
Citizenship
Behaviors

29-35

OCB

Testing the employee for commitment to the

division that goes beyond current position
obligation.

Role Ambiguity

36-41

RA

Testing the level of ambiguity surrounding

daily expectations.

Research Questions:

(Age and Tenure)

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

29

Are there current formal and informal mentorship relationships?

Are FPLS employees interested in mentorships? (positive or negative perceptions)
Do existing mentorships correlate with OCB and/or LO?
Are these potential correlations peer or traditional?
How do potential correlations impact the division?
How does FPLS create an internal mentoring system in place of an agency-wide program?
Page

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Page

30

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

APPENDIX III Human Subjects Review (HSR)

Return this application to:

The Academic Deans Office
Library 2002; MS: L2002
The Evergreen State College
APPLICATION PACKET

Olympia WA 98505
Phone: 360-867-6810

Human Subjects Review

Research project title:

Enhancing Lean: Planning for Future Leaders with Mentorship Models

Name of Applicant(s)/Project Director(s): Jeremy Payne

Evergreen ID #: A00278960

____Undergraduate Student

_X__Graduate Student

____Faculty/Staff

Mailing Address or Mailstop: 219 Pinehurst Dr SW 304 Tumwater WA 98501

Phone Number: (360)556-1983

Email: PayJer06@evergreen.edu

My use of Human Subjects is for a(n): X__Academic Course or Program ___Individual Learning Contract
___Internship Learning Contract

Quarter(s)
Year(s)

F ____

W _X__

SP ____

2014 ____ 2015 ____

SU ____

2016 _X___

Proposed project dates: 1/4/16-1/30/16

Date application submitted:

Faculty sponsor, immediate supervisor, director or dean: Amy Leneker

12/10/15

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

31

Funding agencies/research sponsor (if applicable): N/A

INDICATE IF THE PROJECT INVOLVES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

_____ Vulnerable populations (circle: minors, prisoners, individuals with intellectual disabilities). Work
with vulnerable population usually requires additional safeguards as well as the consent of legal guardians
(parents, institutions, etc.)
_____

Pregnant women. Only non-invasive and minimal risk procedures allowed.

__X__ A cooperating organization (such as a tribal government, school, residential institution, etc.).
Cooperative agreements with organizations are frequently required when research happens in schools,
institutions, on tribal lands, or among tribal people. Many of these organizations have their own
requirements for research review and approval.

Certification. We understand that the policies and procedures of the Evergreen State College apply to all research activities
involving human subjects which are being performed by persons associated with the College and, therefore, that these
activities cannot be initiated without prior review and approval by the appropriate Academic Dean and, as required, by the
Human Subjects Review Board.

X____Jeremy Payne_____________________________12/10/15___________________
Signature of Applicant(s)/Project Director(s)

Date

I certify to the policies and procedures listed above and I have reviewed this application for content, consistency, clarity, and
accuracy. To the best of my knowledge, the application meets Evergreens Human Subjects Review requirements.

X_____________________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Faculty Sponsor or Immediate Supervisor

Date

1. How would you summarize, in the form of an abstract, the nature and purpose of your research
project?
With the rise of dynamic change, organizations and the people within them must develop systems for
information sharing and employee development to ensure the successful implementation of policy and the
highest level of customer service to the residents of Washington State. We intend to use Peter Senges
model of Learning Organizations (1991), Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (Williams & Anderson

Page

32

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

1991), and the perceptions of role ambiguity (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman 1970) in this case study to assess
the role and efficacy of Mentor/protg relationships in the Department of Labor & Industries, Fraud
Division.

2. What are the procedures to which humans will be subjected, i.e., questionnaires, interviews,
audio or video recordings, etc.? When, where, and how will these procedures be carried out? In the
case of questionnaires or interviews, please attach a copy of the questions you will be asking.

We will be conducting a 41 question email survey of approximately 185 employees in the Washington
State Department of Labor & Industries, Fraud Division. The department maintains an internal survey
committee that reviews all surveys distributed within the agency and will provide support for distribution
and discussion of the results upon completion of the study. We have received full support from the
committee and from the Division Manager, Assistant Director Liz Smith. Researchers may also request
interviews for this project. Interviews could potentially support the findings of the survey and enhance the
potential outcome. Any potential interview will be formally requested and conducted by one or both
researchers. A list of potential questions cannot be generated at this time, as the questions will be highly
dependent on the outcome of the e-mail survey.

3. How will the recruitment of human subjects for your proposed project be carried out? Include
your recruitment criteria and procedures. Attach copies of any advertisements, flyers,
announcements, or messages you will use to recruit participants

The Assistant Director will send the email request (noted below) to all employees in the Division
requesting their responses. The survey will remain open for a period of 7-10 days allowing for as many
responses as possible to obtain the best results. A second email will be sent two days prior to survey
closing to request any final participation.

4. What are the possible risks to the human subjects? Specify possible kinds and degrees of risks,
e.g., minimal, emotional risk in the form of distress or embarrassment. Outline the precautions that
will be taken to minimize these risks, including methods of ensuring confidentiality or obtaining a
release to use collected material and information.

Respondents may feel awkward with some questions. Survey questions may generate anxiety or
frustration for respondents. Respondents may feel negative emotions concerning career opportunities and

Page

33

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

could develop anger or frustration. To provide respondents with ample opportunity to ensure their wellbeing, respondents may choose to skip any questions for any reason. Respondents may also choose to
stop the survey at any time without criticism. Confidentiality will be maintained through securing the data
on a portable hard drive and will be wiped of any personal identifying information such as IP addresses
for the computer user. In addition, some respondents may choose to answer open questions candidly and
this information will be provided directly to the A/D Elizabeth Smith for disposal and/or use within the
agency only.

5. What are the specific, anticipated benefits to be gained by completing the project? These may be
at an individual, institutional, or societal level. How do these benefits justify the risks identified in
question 4?

The Office of Financial Management (OFM) distributes a statewide survey each fall that is completed by
many employees in Washington State. One of the consistently lowest scores over the past 3 years has
been employee engagement. Our belief is that mentoring provides an intrinsic benefit for both the mentor
and protg that empowers employees through shared knowledge and nesting shared vision and
organizational goals.

Through our research and our survey analysis we hope to learn the frequency and benefit of current
mentorships within the Fraud Division at L&I. Further, through understanding and possible correlations to
well established organizational models, we intend to assess the need/ desire for mentorships and assess
the potential roles for mentorships in the future. Through this case study, we hope to provide L&I Fraud
Division with a better understanding of how mentorships effect and potentially aid the division in
strategic goals, specifically employee engagement.

6. How will the information derived from this activity be used? To whom will the information be
distributed, and if made, how will the promise of confidentiality be kept or carried out in the final
product?

All information obtained will be primarily used for academic/agency use, with potential to be used to
develop a capstone project. The research conducted could also be used for publishing at a later date. The
survey data will be scrubbed of all identifying information to provide the respondent with confidentiality.
Assistant Director Liz Smith and whomever she designates will have full access to the data. The data will
only be used to describe the existence current mentor relationships within the division and analyzed to
determine how they correlate with organizational citizenship behaviors (employee discretionary energy),
Senges learning organizations, and the level to which employees perceive ambiguity within their current
position.

Page

34

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Survey Request Email

Hello,

Two Graduate Students at The Evergreen State College are conducting a survey of employees in the
Division of Fraud Prevention and Labor Standards. They hope to provide data analysis to develop a better
understanding of how mentoring relationships assist in learning for employees within the division. I hope
you will take a few minutes to complete the survey.

Survey participants are reminded that the data derived from this survey will remain confidential between
the students and the Assistant Director Elizabeth Liz Smith. Participants should maintain
professionalism in their responses and if you feel uncomfortable you may skip a question at any time.

The following link will provide a survey of 41 questions that takes less than 10 minutes to complete. Your
participation is voluntary and you may stop the survey at any time. <insert link here>

(AD Closing)

Second Survey Request Email

Hello,

Page

35

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Just a reminder, Two Graduate Students at The Evergreen State College are conducting a survey of
employees in the Division of Fraud Prevention and Labor Standards. They hope to provide data analysis
to develop a better understanding of how mentoring relationships assist in learning for employees within
the division. I hope you will take a few minutes to complete the survey.

The survey will close in two days, if you havent responded, now is the time. The following link will
provide a survey of 41 questions that takes less than 10 minutes to complete. Your participation is
voluntary and you may stop the survey at any time. <insert link here>

(AD Closing)
Survey Introduction Letter:

Hello,

Thank you for participating in the 2015 Mentorship Models survey. Our Survey is 41 questions in
length and will take less than 10 minutes to complete. This survey has been reviewed and is in
compliance with L&I regulations regarding the distribution and analysis of surveys conducted by external
audiences.

This survey is an opportunity to reflect and consider the opportunities for personal development in the
attainment of career goals and shared knowledge within the division. For your own comfort you may
choose to skip any question or stop the survey at any time.

Your participation and completion of this survey implies consent for the academic and agency use of all
information provided. All responses will remain confidential between the students and the Assistant
Director Elizabeth Liz Smith.

If you have any questions about this project or your participation in it you may email the research team at
Payjer06@evergreen.edu, or weswil12@evergreen.edu. You can also contact Warren Wessling at (360)
902-5557.

Jeremy Payne

Page

Thank you for your participation and assistance!

36

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Warren Wessling

APPENDIX IV Research Diagram

*These are working diagrams for the research team to follow as an outline recommended by the
L&I Organizational Psychologist, Dr. Damon Drown. Our study will search for correlations
between influential models previously developed by scholars: Senges Fifth Discipline and the
behaviors attributed to OCB with the intent to understand the extent of their presence within
FLPS.
The research team will look for correlations between these two established models and
mentorship behaviors. This case study will provide insight into the relationships between the
presence of mentor relationships and how OCB characteristics may be influential in building a
learning organization through the role of mentoring. These models will be heavily utilized to
develop our survey questions and serve as a guide for conducting the analysis of our survey data.

Page

37

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Learning Organizational Scale

Diagram #1

Organizational Citizenship
Behavioral Scales

Result is potential correlations between:

*Individual Learning Organization Disciplines
*LO Scale
*OCB Scale
*Mentorship Scale

Team Learning

Shared Vision

Mastery
APPENDIX V Personal
Definitions

Role Ambiguity
Scale

38

Mental Models

Page

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Human Capital: The

stock of knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including
Systems Thinking
creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value. (Wikipedia)
Mentorships/Mediator

Information Transfer: the systematic sharing of organizational knowledge between employeees

Interpretive Paradigm: The perspective that knowledge is constructed subjectively, and
information must be analyzed and implemented within a specific context. (Babbie, 2013)
Lean: Refers to the application of Lean Production (also known as "Lean") principles and
methods to both identify and then implement the most efficient, value added way to provide
government services. Government agencies have found that when Lean is implemented, they see
an improved understanding of how their own processes work, that it facilitates the quick
identification and implementation of improvements and that it builds a culture of continuous
improvement. (Wikipedia)
Learning Organization: A learning organization is the term given to a company that facilitates
the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself. Learning organizations develop
as a result of the pressures facing modern organizations and enables them to remain competitive
in the business environment. (Wikipedia)
Mental Models: A mental model is an explanation of someone's thought process about how
something works in the real world. (Wikipedia)
Mentorship Relationship: A relationship in which a more experienced or more knowledgeable
person helps to guide a less experienced or less knowledgeable person. The mentor may be older
or younger, but have a certain area of expertise. It is a learning and development partnership
between someone with vast experience and someone who wants to learn. (Wikipedia)
Personal Mastery: a discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of
focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively. (Wikipedia)
Peer Mentor: a form of mentorship that usually takes place between two people on the same
general level within a career, where one person has lived through a specific experience (peer
mentor) and another that is new to that experience (the peer mentee). (Wikipedia)
Private Sector: the part of the economy, sometimes referred to as the citizen sector, which is run
by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of enterprise for profit, and is not controlled
by the State. (Wikipedia)
Public Sector: The part of the economy concerned with providing various government services.

39

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A concept that describes a person's voluntary

commitment within an organization or company that is not part of his or her contractual tasks.
(Wikipedia)
Role Ambiguity: The degree to which a person understands the daily expectations of their
position in their work center.
Shared Vision: The process of creating common understanding of an organizations mission and
goals.
Systems Thinking: The process of understanding how those things which may be regarded as
systems influence one another within a complete entity, or larger system (Wikipedia)
Team Learning: The process of working collectively to achieve a common objective in a group.
In the learning organization context, team members tend to share knowledge and complement
each other's skills.

Page

40

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

APPENDIX VI Labor & Industries Five Goals

*This study focuses on a sub-component of Goal 5 Ensure L&I is an employer of

choice specifically on employee engagement as an aspect of increase
opportunities for staff to learn and grow.

41

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

APPENDIX VII Research Team Work Plan

Team Member Roles and Responsibilities
The workload for this project will be split evenly between the group members. The work will be
evenly distributed as outlined below:
Team Member
Warren Wessling

General Class Assignment Duties

Research Proposal from self-research

and Submit Assignment

Drive for Shared File Management

contact for HSR (both TESC and L&I)

Draft
Review Drafts
Setup Google
Point of

Jeremy Payne

Draft
Research Proposal from self-research

Develop
conceptual framework

Review Drafts

Develop
visually appealing graphics and synopsis

Review
organizational chart for clarification of impact

Point of
contact for developing the survey with L&I

Both

Communicate
with each other and meet weekly to ensure project is on
target to meet deadlines

Carefully
annotate research notes for discussion at in-person
meeting

Discuss any
sticking points with one another and faculty sponsor in
a timely manner

Use visual
management and adhere to the team work plan

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

42

Communication Plan
Timely and concise communication is recognized as a key component of project success.
Regular formal and informal communication will be employed to keep the project on track.
Weekly meetings will be held Tuesday evenings and during breaks in the ATPS-I/II class.
Between meetings, frequent email and text message check-ins will be used to communicate
project status updates. The team will use Google Drive and the Work Plan to keep project
materials and deadlines organized. Additional face-to-face meetings, Google Hangouts and work
sessions will be scheduled on an as needed basis.

Team Work Plan Table

Week
Deliverable*
1

10

Concept Paper/Group Formation

Draft Research Proposal #1
Draft Research Proposal #2
Annotated Bibliography
Draft Research Proposal #3
Literature Review

Methodology, Measures and Variables

Draft Research Proposal #4

Research Plan for Survey

Draft Data Dictionary
Final Research Proposal & Final HSR

*All deliverables will be drafted collaboratively, edited by both, and submitted by Warren.

Agenda Items for Team Meetings

Check-in for clarification of meeting purpose, verify current status of upcoming assignments,
decide logistics of future meeting dates, and work through the details of each current assignment.

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Page

43

Each meeting will end by identifying action items that each team member must address before
the next meeting or deliverable deadline.
Definition of Graduate Level Work
It is agreed that deliverables will display critical thinking skills and clear comprehension of
subject matter. All internal and external, verbal and nonverbal communication will be concise,
comprehensible and professional. Written assignments are to be well constructed, display highquality writing conventions, and be thoroughly reviewed and edited before final submission. All
submissions are expected to meet stated deadlines and be free of errors and omissions. Team
members are expected to be adaptive and supportive, while fostering an inclusive environment
that allows for innovation, trust, open dialogue and inclusiveness of diverse viewpoints.
Conflict Resolution Plan
Unresolved issues can create significant risks to project success. As conflicts arise, work will be
stopped to address issues and team members will determine a mutual agreement or compromise.
The first step will be to address disputes internally. If a satisfactory solution cannot be reached,
students will seek guidance and resolution support from faculty.
Deliverables
Each phase of the project will start and end with a clearly defined deliverable. Each deliverable
must be completed before the next phase of the project can begin. Therefore, its essential to
clearly define each deliverable, and in which phase of the project it is due.
Deliverable

Definition

Phase

Team Formation

Build a team of 2-3 members with similar project

ideas and begin narrowing your problem statement.

Initiation

Draft Research Proposal

#1

To include: Problem Statement, explanation of

purpose, Paradigm Identification, and Work Plan.

Planning

Draft Research Proposal

#2

To include: Revision of Draft 1, Annotated

Bibliography, and Usefulness Scale.

Planning

Draft Research Proposal

#3

To include: Revision of Draft 2, Literature Review,

Guiding Research Questions, Key Terms, Defined
Sample, and Defined Methodological Approach.

Planning

Draft Research Proposal

#4

To include: Revision of Draft 3, HSR Application,

Data Dictionary, And Research Plan.

Planning

Final Research Proposal

and Final HSR
Application

To include: Revision of Draft #4, Revision HSR

Application.

Planning

Keywords and Research

Log

Each team member will keep a log of research and

list the keyword searches and databases used to be
able to forensically reach back to prior research.

All Phases

The research team will conduct a lessons learned

after each deliverable in order to build continuous
improvement into the research process -- students
will use professor feedback to guide the
conversation.

All Phases

Page

Lessons Learned Log

44

Mentorship: Wessling & Payne

Project Schedule
Phase

Activity
Est. Comp.
Team Formation and SWOT Analysis
10/08/2015
Problem Statement Creation
10/08/2015
Project
Initiation
Problem Statement Refinement and Initial Research
10/15/2015
Milestone 1: Draft Research Proposal #1
10/22/2015
PHASE OUTPUT/INPUT FOR NEXT PHASE: Incorporate/Discuss Feedback
High-level planning, Scope of Work identified
10/24/2015
Annotated Bibliography Draft #1
10/27/2015
HSR Application Draft
10/29/2015
Project
Planning
Annotated Bibliography Final / Begin Literature Review
10/27/2015
Discuss Survey of Employees (L&I) -- GO/NO-GO
10/29/2015
Milestone 2: Draft Research Proposal #2
10/29/2015
PHASE OUTPUT/INPUT FOR NEXT PHASE: Incorporate/Discuss Feedback
Literature Review Draft
11/01/2015
Methodology, Measure, Variables, and Sampling
11/03/2015
Project
Literature Review Final
11/04/2015
Planning
Identify Survey Participants (L&I) -- GO/NO-GO
11/05/2015
Milestone 3: Draft Research Proposal #3
11/05/2015
PHASE OUTPUT/INPUT FOR NEXT PHASE: Incorporate/Discuss Feedback
Create Survey Questions (Draft #1)
11/08/2015
Draft Data Dictionary & Coding Scheme
11/10/2015
Project
Planning
Research Plan for Survey
11/11/2015
Milestone 4: Draft Research Proposal #4
11/12/2015
PHASE OUTPUT/INPUT FOR NEXT PHASE: Incorporate/Discuss Feedback
Create Survey Questions (Draft #2)
11/17/2015
Coordinate w/Faculty -- Draft Instruments & HSR
11/19/2015
Project
Pilot Test Instruments with Family & Friends
11/26/2015
Planning
Finalize Survey Questions & Methodology
12/01/2015
Milestone 5: Final Research Proposal and HSR App
12/03/2015
Prep for Phase II: Conduct Survey & Analysis
01/06/2015
PHASE OUTPUT: Project Team prepared for Collection/Analysis (Winter Quarter)