Culture before structure: How HR leaders can create a mentorship program that works

According to Dr Dave Sullivan, senior lecturer in the School of Management and Governance, in the Business School at UNSW Sydney, many mentoring initiatives fail not because mentoring itself is ineffective, but because companies take a blanket approach that clashes with how their organisation actually operates.

“There is no one-size-fits-all approach,” he said. “[HR leaders] have to adopt a bespoke approach to mentorship models, mentorship development programs, and it must align with the values and culture of the organisation.”

Start with culture, not templates

Too often, organisations copy mentoring frameworks they’ve seen in successful companies or read about in business publications, said Sullivan. But a program that works brilliantly in a consultative, community-focused organisation may collapse in a fast-paced, competitive one.

“If the company has a very cutthroat or competitive culture, mentoring may not work well there. Whereas, if it has more of like a clan or a familial type of culture, and there's just more general concern for the wellbeing of the employee, it'll probably work better in that type of environment,” he explained.

For senior HR professionals, the first step is diagnosing cultural fit. Sullivan believes a flexible architecture should be established, rather than rigid rules.

Sullivan recommended creating a scaffold – a loose framework that defines:

• The purpose of mentoring
• How mentors and mentees are matched
• Guidelines for the first meeting
• Expectations around communication and goals

But with plenty of room for each pair to customise the relationship. A rigid structure won’t work for everyone. But no structure at all guarantees failure, he said. HR must create the right amount of guidance while avoiding control.

Prioritise the first meeting: It determines success

For HR leaders designing programs, the first mentor–mentee meeting is the single biggest predictor of relationship success, Sullivan said.

That first conversation should establish the goals of both the mentor and mentee. This is the beginning of boundaries and expectations.

Failing to set expectations early leads to misalignment, low engagement and ultimately program abandonment.

On top of this, mentorship programs can often invest heavily in mentee preparation but neglect the mentor experience. Sullivan warned against this fatal error.

Mentoring requires time, emotional labour and social capital. Without support, mentors feel burdened and may disengage.

HR should offer training on role clarity, how to build psychological trust, how to set goals, and how to navigate common challenges.

Mentees should also be trained in how to ask good questions, drive the relationship and articulate their development needs.

Another area to avoid in mandating mentorship. “The last thing you want is to feel like a court mandated… because it's not going to be beneficial for either the mentor, the mentee,” said Sullivan.

Instead, HR should identify employees who want to mentor and promote the benefits of doing so. Buy-in should be earned, not mandated.

Programs should be led from the top. If leaders don’t participate, no one else will take mentoring seriously.

Mentoring should be modelled by executives, championed in internal communications, and embedded in leadership expectations.

Ensuring full vertical alignment helps mentors and mentees to understand why mentoring matters and encourages meaningful engagement.

“What gets measured is what gets rewarded.” Said Sullivan. HR needs to decide what mentoring is meant to achieve – and how success will be recognised.

Mentoring in action

Athena Chintis, director of people and culture at Cliftons has led mentoring initiatives in various points in her career.

She noted that the foundation of any successful mentoring program, much like Sullivan, begins with recognising there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Every organisation must design its program around its culture, strategic goals and the needs of its workforce.

It begins with understanding why the organisation is investing in mentoring at all. Some programs are designed to support graduates entering the workforce, others aim to prepare mid-level leaders for senior roles, while some focus on developing women or under-represented groups.

Clarifying this purpose early ensures HR and the business move in the same direction and provides a basis for measuring success later.

Chintis believes HR plays a critical role in creating the structure that allows mentoring to flourish. Early-career employees often lack the confidence or network to seek out a mentor on their own, making HR’s involvement essential for accessibility and fairness.

HR is responsible for designing the framework, facilitating matching, training participants, and creating an environment where mentoring is seen as a valuable use of time, rather than an optional add-on.

Structure, Chintis said, is what separates effective mentoring programs from those that gradually lose momentum.

In her experience, matching is one of the most challenging elements. Smaller cohorts can be matched manually by reviewing applications and pairing people based on goals, experience or preferences, but larger organisations may need software to manage the process.

The important thing is that the match is intentional rather than arbitrary, because a poorly aligned pairing can lead to disengagement on both sides.

Consistency throughout the program is also essential. Regular check-ins help ensure meetings are happening, goals are being set, and any issues are addressed early.

Ultimately, she says, effective mentoring requires partnership. HR designs the system, mentors bring their experience, and mentees take responsibility for driving their development.

With a clear purpose, some form of framework, and ongoing support, mentoring can become one of the most impactful tools an organisation has for building capability and strengthening culture.