How to match mentors and protégés for successful mentorship programs: a review of the evidence and recommendations for practitioners

Purpose The purpose of this qualitative review paper is to identify for practitioners ways of matching mentors and protégés to enhance the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs. Design/methodology/approach The paper qualitatively reviews the best available evidence of ways to match mentors and protégés to maximize mentorship outcomes. Findings Two factors to consider when making mentor–protégé matches emerged from the research literature (1) the matching process (i.e., how matches are made and facilitated by practitioners such as incorporating participant input on matches): and (2) individual characteristics (i.e., individual differences that may serve as matching criteria such as experiential, surface-level, and deep-level characteristics). This qualitative review resulted in three practical recommendations to practitioners interested in matching mentors and protégés using evidence-based methods: (1) match based on deep-level similarities, (2) consider developmental-needs of protégés during matching, and (3) seek mentors' and protégés’ input before finalizing matches. Research limitations/implications Limitations of the research reviewed are highlighted: measures of perceived similarity, relative effectiveness of matching-related factors, limited research investigating the role of dissimilarity on mentoring outcomes, and linear relationship assumptions between matching-related factors and mentoring outcomes. Practical implications The authors’ recommendations suggested greater use of valid psychometric assessments to facilitate matching based on actual assessed data rather than program administrators' personal knowledge of mentors and protégés. Originality/value The literature on mentor–protégé matching is missing practical guidance on how to apply the research. This highlights a need for a qualitative review of the literature to identify what matching processes and criteria are most effective, providing a “one-stop-shop” for practitioners seeking advice on how to construct effective mentor–protégé matches in formal mentorship programs.