“As interaction frequency increased, so did the mentee’s sense of support and the quality of the relationship.”
Eby et al. (2013), Psychological Bulletin, 173 samples, 40,737 mentees
Mentorship program infrastructure
Keep mentorship
on track.
Every meeting logged, every mentee accounted for, every leader in the loop.
Built for career services and academic mentorship programs.
- Track every pairing's progress across a cohort, not just the ones a survey happens to reach.
- A culture of belonging built through mentorship is linked to stronger career and job-placement outcomes.
- Set up the way career services and academic programs already structure mentorship.
Built for employee mentorship and manager accountability.
- See which manager-mentor pairings are keeping their cadence, across every team.
- A culture of consistent mentorship is linked to lower turnover and stronger retention.
- Start with one pilot team, prove it, then roll out company-wide.
What the program lead sees. Illustrative example with sample data.
75Mentors active
at BYU Marriott
at BYU Marriott
119Mentees tracked
across cohorts
across cohorts
Fortune 500Enterprise
currently piloting Trackr
currently piloting Trackr
The problem
Is your mentorship program
actually happening?
Most organizations can’t say. A roster tells you who was paired. It never tells you which pairs stopped meeting in March. Most programs find out at the end-of-program survey, when there’s nothing left to do about it.
2 of 6 pairings have gone quiet.
Executive Mentorship cadence set by the program lead
- R. Okafor → J. Lindqvist 31 days past cadence
- S. Bergström → T. Nakamura 12 days past cadence
The other four are on cadence
- M. Delgado → A. WhitfieldLast met Apr 11Every 2 weeks
- H. Adeyemi → C. RousseauLast met Apr 14Every 2 weeks
- L. Marchetti → P. IyerLast met Apr 6Every 2 weeks
- D. Kowalski → E. MensahLast met Apr 9Every 3 weeks
- R. Okafor → J. LindqvistEvery 2 weeksNo meeting record
- M. Delgado → A. WhitfieldEvery 2 weeksNo meeting record
- S. Bergström → T. NakamuraMonthlyNo meeting record
- H. Adeyemi → C. RousseauEvery 2 weeksNo meeting record
- L. Marchetti → P. IyerEvery 2 weeksNo meeting record
- D. Kowalski → E. MensahEvery 3 weeksNo meeting record
Leaders see the rhythm and whether it is holding. What was said in the meeting stays between mentor and mentee. Illustrative example with sample data.
Illustrative example
One pairing · January to June
JanFebMarAprMayJun
Today
Trackr flagged the pairing the day it passed its cadence. The program lead reached out the next day.
The evidence
Matching isn’t
mentoring.
“How often a pair met mattered more to how mentees rated the program than racial or gender differences within the pair.”
Federal-agency study, 565 protégés
“Students who received regular, structured contact were 5.2 percentage points more likely to still be enrolled six months later.”
Bettinger & Baker (2014), a randomized trial of academic coaching
“A mentor who encouraged their goals and dreams more than doubled a graduate’s odds of being engaged at work and thriving overall.”
Gallup-Purdue Index, national survey of U.S. college graduates
Sources
- Eby et al. (2013), Psychological Bulletin, a meta-analysis across 173 samples (40,737 mentees) spanning youth, academic, and workplace mentoring. Correlational: interaction frequency tracks with relationship quality, not proven to cause it.
- A federal agency study of 565 protégés, for the finding that meeting frequency and feedback in the assignment process outweighed racial and gender differences within the pair.
- Bettinger & Baker (2014), Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, a randomized trial of academic coaching, not peer mentoring. Read as evidence for structured, proactive contact, not a direct mentoring claim.
- The Gallup-Purdue Index (2014), a national survey of U.S. college graduates. Correlational survey data; its causal inferences have been publicly challenged, so read it as “associated with,” not “caused by.”
Ragins, Cotton & Miller (2000), quoted above the fold, is self-reported and cross-sectional: it shows what satisfaction tracks with, not what it causes. Allen et al. (2004) and Eby et al. (2008) put the average effect sizes across this literature at modest. None of these numbers are Trackr’s own outcome data, because we do not have any yet.
“Satisfaction with the relationship predicted job satisfaction and intention to quit better than whether someone had a mentor at all.”
Ragins, Cotton & Miller (2000), Academy of Management Journal
How it works
0103
Three things happen after every meeting.
Mentors log a short note
After each meeting, the mentor writes a few sentences about what happened. About two minutes, from a phone or a laptop.
Trackr turns it into a record
The note becomes a summary, goals, and next steps the pair can pick up at their next conversation. It stays with them.
Falling behind gets flagged early
Each program sets how often pairs should meet. Any pairing past that cadence is flagged for the mentor and the program lead. While there’s still time to step in.
Trackr record01 / 03
Mentor notePrivate to pair
“Talked through the
next role transition.”
next role transition.”
A short note starts the record.
Methodology
observed
Cadence
observed
Why cadence
Cadence is the signal you can act on early.
By the time a satisfaction survey goes out, a quiet pairing has usually been quiet for months. Goals can be vague, and outcomes take time. But when a pairing misses the rhythm it agreed to, there is a specific, observable moment to pay attention. Trackr makes that moment visible to the people who can help, without making the conversation visible to everyone else.
Read the method behind it
Privacy boundary
Mentors and mentees see their own conversations. Program leads see progress and cadence, never the conversation itself. That boundary is how the product is built, not a policy layered on top of it.