๐ Itโs here!
๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ฃ ๐ข๐ป๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฒ.
Our self-paced course is designed to help organisations create mentoring programmes that actually work.
Standardisation reduces management cost and enables comparison across programmes. But applied too broadly, it strips out the elements that make mentoring work in a particular place, with a particular group, at a particular moment.
The structure travels. The relevance doesn't.
Most mentoring programmes are built on one of two assumptions.
The first: give people a good system and results will follow.
The second: find people with the right capabilities and they'll figure it out.
Neither is wrong. But neither is enough.
โ ๏ธ If no feedback loop is designed in from the start
โณ problems surface too late to fix and the final report explains what could not be recovered
The programme did not fail at the end. It failed at the beginning.
When mentoring budgets tighten, design is usually first to go. Everyone agrees it is a reasonable trade-off. The delivery budget stays intact. The timeline holds. And then, about six weeks in, the real costs begin.
โ ๏ธ If success metrics are not built into the design
โณ you reach the evaluation and find you measured activity, not outcomes or impact
โ ๏ธ If the design doesn't account for context
โณ it lands poorly and facilitation becomes damage control
Properly resourcing a programme goes beyond spreadsheets. Mentoring with adequate capacity investment yields a 3x to 8.5x return in three years. But it's not just about money. Well-resourced teams can prevent issues, support mentors and document success.
If you're a funder or a programme manager who want to run mentoring programmes that actually produce a return, this is for you.
๐ https://t.co/iQjlXwZ1TQ
REMP Online is a training and development programme for mentoring programme managers, the people whose decisions determine whether a mentoring programme produces a real return on the investment.
The design choices in REMP reflect exactly the principles behind the
capacity investment argument: building capability before delivery begins, structured support throughout and a clear connection between what participants learn and what it enables them to do differently.
induction session and support during delivery so that relationships get the attention they need.
Without that investment, you don't get a lower return. You get reactive management, mentor attrition and a report that proves the programme ran.
That's not a claim about a particular programme type or population. It's what happens when the investment includes the things that make mentoring actually work: time spent on design before the programme launches, mentor and mentee selection, preparation that goes beyond an
He asked the right questions and she worked it out herself. 2 years later, the business is profitable. That outcome didn't appear in the report. There was no box for it. Which raises the question: if your evaluation framework can't capture what actually changed, what is it for?
๐๐ก๐ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ง๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ ๐ฆ๐๐ค๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ
An entrepreneur comes into a programme convinced she needs to raise investment. She leaves having realised she needs a different business model entirely. Her mentor didn't give her the answer.
Not the wrong participants. Design that was rushed, trimmed or cut to bring the headline cost down.
The most expensive mistakes are the ones caught late. A design flaw identified before launch costs a fraction of one found six months into delivery.
๐๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ ๐๐ญ ๐ ๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐
Most mentoring budgets are built around delivery: staff time, sessions, events, communications. The things you can point to and say, that's where the money went.
A programme that skips proper design doesn't fail at the end; it fails at the beginning and then spends the rest of its budget trying to compensate.
Underinvesting in design is the single most common reason mentoring programmes underperform. Not bad mentors.