Below are some notes on what is expected of a mentor and how to help your mentee in their training to become a GCCF Judge.
Setting Expectations and Understanding Limitations
Mentors are deemed to be the experienced person, which is why they are placed in a position to give advice, guidance, practical help which will, at times, include constructive criticism.
It is beholden on a mentor to be fully up to date on the SOP for the breed/s on which a candidate is training. Although an experienced judge of the breed/s, it is expected that they are 100% cognisant with the wording of the current SOP, given the candidate is on a learning pathway, misinformation could be damaging to a candidates progress.
It is especially important that both mentor and candidate apriciate the expectations of each person’s designate role throughout the training period. This is especially important should the mentor and candidate be friends.
Both mentors and candidates must not lose sight that this professional relationship.
If it is perceived by either the JPG or the mentor/candidate that the friendship is clouding the mentor/candidate relationship then new mentor should be found.
There should be a preliminary conversation and expected outcomes agreed by both parties prior at the start of the mentorship.
- Mentors must make it clear that their job is to listen, support, facilitate and give advice and guidance. A mentor must not do the work for the candidate or protect them from failure/criticism as this is an important part of the learning experience.
- Mentors must not resolve a candidate’s problem but they can give advice to help them work through the issue.
There has to be mutual trust/respect for the relationship to work:
- No betrayal of confidences from both sides: trust would be broken.
- Mentor must not devalue the candidate’s ability to anyone, including the candidate however, they must be honest in their evaluations if requested by the relevant JPG/BAC/
- If the mentor does not feel the relationship is working, they should discuss with the candidate and if the issues cannot be solved, agree to sever the relationship. If it is severed, neither the candidate or the mentor should denigrate the other’s ability or commitment to anyone.
- If the candidate does not feel the relationship is working, they should discuss with the mentor and if the issues cannot be solved, agree to sever the relationship. If it is severed, neither the candidate or the mentor should denigrate the other’s ability or commitment to anyone.
Responsibilities
- Mentor should be a sounding board for problems and ideas.
- Suggest resources to assist: templates/reading/”this worked for me”. If a candidate is new a mentor could consider introducing them or pointing them in the direction of breeders, exhibitors, stewards, other judges who may add an extra dimension to the learning experience.
- Challenge in a positive way a candidate’s thinking on aspects of the breed, if it is apparent that the candidate is struggling with certain aspects. Mentors should suggest that they may wish to consider X instead of Y or to look at things in a different way.
- Mentor should not be afraid to constructively criticise and a candidate should see this as a positive thing.
- The mentor must not condemn what the candidate has done: mistakes are made and people usually learn from them. Condemnation = loss of confidence.
- A mentor should take pride in a candidate’s success: a well-placed “well done” is a great motivator.
- Mentors must not do what the candidate should do for themselves, especially with report writing. An experience candidate will have their own style and this must not be criticized. If it is a candidates first list then they must be encouraged to develop their own style.
- If a candidate asks the mentor to look over a draft report, that is fine but the mentor must not alter/totally re-write.
- It is not the mentor’s role to demand to see the reports before the candidate sends them to the JPG secretary in order to give them the thumbs up or down.
- Mentor’s must not ‘protect’ the candidate by rewriting reports. If a mentor is asked for their opinion on a draft report and terminology mistakes are identified, the mentor can ask the candidate why they have used that terminology or why they have described something in a particular way.
- Mentor’s must not override the candidate’s opinion/placings.
- If the mentor and candidate discuss a particular exhibit at a show and the candidate has obviously got something very wrong, e.g. they say the cat has 3 legs, mentor sees 4, the mentor should point this out but if the candidate cannot see it or insists they are right, the mentor should accept this. However, they should advise the candidate of the risks – potentially falling foul of the JPG, poor feedback etc. If that comes to pass, it would be hoped that the candidate shows respect to their mentor going forward.
- The candidate must not expect the mentor to resolve problems that they themselves have made and/or try to resolve them. It is up to the candidate to proffer ideas/solutions although the mentor could suggest points for the candidate to consider/pathways to follow.
- Mentor’s should respect the candidate’s opinion of a cat: it may differ from theirs and both should respect a difference of opinion. However, a candidate must explain their rationale for placing, and if the mentor sees that the rationale is not fully explained, point this out constructively.
- If the candidate’s reports, placings and rationale included and/or based on points that are at odds with the SOP this must be pointed out and the issues discussed.
