Group and peer mentoring: how to set up mentoring circles

When people think of mentoring, they usually picture one mentor and one mentee. Yet in many organizations, the number of experienced mentors falls far short of the number of employees who want to grow. Group and peer mentoring close that gap. They also offer participants something a single relationship can’t: a community that learns from one another.

Three formats, three different needs

The choice of format follows from the program’s purpose. Roughly, you can tell them apart like this:

• One-to-one mentoring: Personal career decisions, sensitive topics, developing key talent. The most intensive format, and the most expensive.
• Group mentoring (mentoring circle): One mentor and 4–8 mentees. A good fit when many people face similar problems: first-time managers, women preparing for management roles, teams spread out across the field.
• Peer mentoring: Employees at a similar level support each other. Works well for onboarding, knowledge sharing and reducing feelings of isolation.

Mentor time really is scarce. According to a US survey reported in ATD’s TD Magazine, about 4 in 10 people with a mentor struggle to find time with them. And 60% of participants say their mentor has other mentees. The group format spreads limited mentor time across more people.

Research also supports the value of peers. A 1985 study by Kathy Kram and Lynn Isabella showed that peer relationships can take on many of mentoring’s functions. The difference is reciprocity: in a peer relationship, both sides give and receive. In 2001, Monica Higgins and Kram also proposed treating mentoring as a developmental network rather than a single relationship. Group and peer formats are practical ways to build that network.

Group size and duration

Group size determines whether everyone gets a chance to speak.

• 4–6 mentees is ideal for most corporate programs. You can discuss two people’s topics in depth in each session.
• 7–8 mentees is the upper limit. At this size, consider a second facilitator.
• Fewer than 3 doesn’t create group dynamics; it stays close to a one-to-one session.

Kuperminc and Deutsch’s 2021 review of group mentoring reports that practitioners mostly settle on 4–6 participants per mentor. The same review notes that smaller groups are associated with a better group climate, and that building a meaningful relationship is hard with fewer than four or five meetings. These findings come from youth programs, but they’re still a reasonable starting point for corporate design.

For duration, 6–9 months with one session a month works well. The circles that the University of Oxford’s Medical Sciences Division set up for researchers are built around one senior mentor and 3–4 mentees, over 12 months or at least four meetings.

A 60-minute circle session

A group session needs more structure than a one-to-one session. You can use the flow below as a starting template.

Time	Section	What happens
Min 0–5	Opening	The confidentiality rule is restated. Everyone answers, in one sentence, “What have I tried since the last session?”
Min 5–15	Theme	The mentor shares a short experience or framework related to the month’s theme.
Min 15–45	Two cases	Two participants whose turn it is describe a real situation. The group first asks only questions, then offers suggestions. The case owner says at the end what they’ll take away.
Min 45–55	Commitment	Everyone writes down one step they’ll take before the next session.
Min 55–60	Close	A one-sentence takeaway, the next date and the next case owners.

Plan the case rotation at the start of the cohort. That way, every mentee brings their own topic at least once during the cohort.

The mentor is a facilitator, not a speaker

A circle isn’t a presentation. The mentor’s real job is to help the group learn from one another. Oxford’s guide to circles also describes the mentor as someone who listens and opens up space for thinking, more than someone who gives advice.

• The mentor should use no more than a third of the speaking time.
• Instead of “Here’s what I’d do,” ask “What did you try in this situation?”
• Make room for quieter members without pressure: “What does this look like on your team?”
• Don’t let one person take over the session; gently remind everyone of the time.
• If the same problem comes up several times, make it next month’s theme.

Interviews with program experts by Gisbert-Trejo and colleagues in 2022 show that the coordinator’s role is more decisive in group programs. Selecting participants and preparing materials that support group dynamics is the coordinator’s job. Prepare mentors, too, with short training on group facilitation.

Ground rules and confidentiality

Trust in a group is more fragile than in a one-to-one relationship. Write the rules together in the first session and briefly restate them at the start of every session:

1. Personal situations discussed stay in the room. Lessons learned can be shared; people and details can’t.
2. No manager–employee relationships within the same circle.
3. Ask questions before giving advice.
4. Attendance is a commitment; if you can’t come, say so in advance.
5. No one speaks a second time until everyone has spoken once.

Don’t put people who evaluate each other’s performance in the same group. Nothing ends open conversation faster.

How to set up peer mentoring

Peer mentoring can take two forms: peer pairs or leaderless peer groups. Both need structure.

• A clear purpose: For example, “settling into the company in the first 90 days” or “sharing experience among first-time managers.”
• A ready agenda: A card with 3–4 questions for each meeting. The free session card works for this.
• A rotating facilitator: In leaderless groups, someone different manages the time and agenda each month.
• Coordinator follow-up: Peer groups are the structures that fade most easily. Run a short pulse check once a month.

Kram and Isabella also observed that peer relationships often last longer than mentoring relationships. A well-built peer group can keep going on its own after the program ends.

Combining with one-to-one

The strongest results usually come from blended models. Three common combinations:

• Circle plus optional one-to-one: A group session once a month; a mentee can have a 30-minute individual session with the mentor when needed.
• One-to-one plus peer group: Each mentee has a mentor; mentees also meet among themselves once a quarter.
• Mentor circle: Mentors meet among themselves to discuss situations they find difficult. It’s an inexpensive way to raise mentor quality.

Pros, cons and measurement

Pros: You reach more people, use mentor time efficiently, participants learn from one another, and a lateral network forms inside the organization.

Cons: Personal depth decreases. Sensitive topics may not come up in a group. If attendance becomes irregular, the group falls apart quickly. Kuperminc and Deutsch’s review also notes that large groups can split into cliques and that a second mentor can dilute individual responsibility.

Set up measurement with the same logic as for one-to-one programs, but add a few group-level indicators:

• Attendance rate per session
• Whether each mentee brought their own case during the cohort
• How many commitments were completed by the next session
• The share of people who say at the end of the cohort, “I meet at least one person from this group outside the program, too”

For overall program design, see the guide to building a mentoring program; for setting up indicators, see the guide to measuring impact.

Sources

• Kuperminc & Deutsch (2021), Group Mentoring – National Mentoring Resource Center Model Review — Group size, number of meetings and the risks of group programs (based on youth programs).
• Kram & Isabella (1985), Mentoring Alternatives: The Role of Peer Relationships in Career Development — The mentoring functions of peer relationships, and reciprocity.
• Higgins & Kram (2001), Reconceptualizing Mentoring at Work: A Developmental Network Perspective — Seeing mentoring as a developmental network rather than a single relationship.
• Gisbert-Trejo et al. (2022), Mentoring programs implementation: differences between group and individual mentoring — The coordinator’s role in group programs.
• University of Oxford, Medical Sciences Division – Mentoring Circles — An example of circle structure and the mentor’s role as facilitator.
• ATD, Only One in Three Employees Has a Mentor (TD Magazine, 2019) — The difficulty of finding time with a mentor, and the number of mentees per mentor.