Original Research

From guidance to growth: Mentorship as a human resource development practice in graduate internship programmes

Mariette Coetzee, Joan-Ark M. Agyapong, Louise M. Mariba

Received: 05 Feb. 2026; Accepted: 22 May 2026; Published: 04 Sept. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Orientation: Mentorship is examined as a developmental mechanism within graduate internships, focusing on how embedded practices support interns’ professional learning and employability development.

Research purpose: This study explored how mentorship processes within a graduate internship programme support employability development.

Motivation for the study: Although graduate internship programmes are promoted as employability interventions, limited research examines how mentorship practices shape interns’ developmental outcomes.

Research approach/design and method: Using a qualitative phenomenological approach, the study draws on 34 in-depth interviews with interns, former interns, mentors, and line managers in a university internship programme. Data were analysed using the Gioia Methodology to develop a process-oriented account grounded in participants’ experiences.

Main findings: Four interrelated mentorship processes were identified: (1) scaffolded skill translation, supporting application of academic knowledge at work; (2) professional identity formation, facilitating transition from student to professional roles; (3) network brokerage, enabling access to professional communities; and (4) emotional scaffolding, fostering psychological safety, resilience, and risk-taking. These processes position mentorship as a multidimensional developmental mechanism rather than an incidental feature.

Practical/managerial implications: The findings guide practitioners, higher education institutions, and policymakers seeking to strengthen internships.

Contribution/value-add: The study contributes to human resource development scholarship by explaining how mentorship operates within graduate internship programmes in a high-unemployment setting.

Keywords: mentorship; graduate internship programmes; human resource development; employability development; scaffolded skill translation; professional identity formation; network brokerage; emotional scaffolding.

Introduction

A persistent paradox continues to characterise the graduate labour market in South Africa and comparable developing economies. Despite sustained increases in university enrolment and graduation rates, employers report ongoing difficulties in recruiting graduates with the capabilities required for entry-level professional roles (Samuel & Moagi, 2022). This condition of structural unemployment, in which unemployed graduates and unfilled vacancies coexist, reflects not a simple shortage of jobs but a misalignment between higher education outputs and the complex demands of contemporary workplaces (Daka et al., 2023). The resulting underutilisation of graduate human capital carries high socio-economic costs, as qualifications alone no longer guarantee successful labour-market entry or sustained employability (Iwara, 2025).

In response, academic scholarship and policy discourse increasingly position graduate internship programmes as key interventions for addressing employability challenges (Halabieh et al., 2022; Templer et al., 2024). These programmes are valued for providing work-integrated learning (WIL) opportunities that support the transition from academic study to professional practice by enabling experiential learning that formal curricula alone cannot fully deliver (Galloway et al., 2014). Within the South African context, national skills development strategies further reinforce the role of internships as mechanisms for labour-market transition, emphasising their contribution to workplace exposure and early-career development (Harry et al., 2018).

However, a primary limitation of this focus on internship structure is that it obscures important variation in interns’ developmental experiences. Programmes with similar designs often yield markedly different outcomes, suggesting that structural features alone cannot explain how learning and professional development occur during internships. This variation points to underlying processual dynamics within internship contexts that remain underexamined. By prioritising inputs and outcomes, much of the existing literature treats the internship experience as a ‘black box’, leaving the mechanisms through which development is enacted largely unexplored.

One relational mechanism that remains underexamined within internship research is mentorship. Although mentorship is frequently mentioned in studies of internship programmes, it is typically positioned as an informal or incidental feature of placement rather than as a deliberate developmental practice (Chopra et al., 2016). This stands in contrast to the human resource development literature, which conceptualises mentorship as a structured process supporting skill development, professional socialisation, and psychosocial adjustment. Limited attention to how mentorship operates in practice restricts understanding of why some internships facilitate meaningful development while others do not.

Guided by this perspective, the present study examines mentorship as a developmental mechanism within a graduate internship programme in South Africa. Rather than treating mentorship as an assumed by-product of workplace exposure, the study focuses on the processes through which mentors support interns’ learning and transition from academic study to professional work. Drawing on the perspectives of interns, mentors, and organisational supervisors, the study explores how mentorship is enacted within organisational contexts and how it shapes developmental experiences.

This study makes three contributions. Firstly, it advances human resource development scholarship by offering a process-oriented account of mentorship in internship contexts, extending research that has predominantly focused on programme structure. Secondly, it provides empirical insights from a South African setting characterised by high graduate unemployment, enriching mentorship research in contexts of labour-market constraint. Thirdly, it offers practical guidance for organisations, higher education institutions, and policymakers by highlighting how mentorship can be more intentionally designed and supported within graduate internship programmes.

Literature review

This review situates mentorship within graduate internship programmes at the intersection of three interrelated literatures: graduate employability, work-integrated learning and internship design, and workplace mentorship as a human resource development practice. The review critically synthesises them to foreground mentorship as a developmental mechanism that operates within organisational contexts to support graduate learning and professional formation.

Graduate employability beyond structural deficits

Graduate employability is increasingly conceptualised as a multidimensional construct encompassing not only employment outcomes but also the skills, attributes, and dispositions required for effective participation in professional contexts (Clarke, 2018). While early definitions emphasised individuals’ capacity to obtain and retain employment (Hillage & Pollard, 1998), more recent scholarship frames employability as a developmental process shaped through education, work experience, and organisational engagement (Abbas & Sagsan, 2020).

Despite this conceptual expansion, employers continue to report gaps in graduates’ workplace readiness, particularly in communication, problem-solving, adaptability, and professional confidence (Al Asefer & Zainal Abidin, 2021; Tushar & Sooraksa, 2023). In South Africa, these challenges are intensified by persistent inequalities in access to educational resources and professional exposure, resulting in uneven graduate preparedness (Timmis & Muhuro, 2019).

Policy and institutional responses have therefore prioritised graduate internship programmes as mechanisms for improving employability through work-integrated learning (Dutta, 2025; Khan, 2024). However, this emphasis often rests on an implicit assumption that workplace exposure alone produces employability. As illustrated in Figure 1, much of the internship literature adopts a predominantly structural focus, emphasising programme inputs and outcomes while leaving the developmental processes through which learning occurs conceptually underexamined. Figure 1 was developed through a thematic synthesis of the internship and employability literature reviewed in this study. The figure reflects recurring patterns identified across the literature, particularly the predominant emphasis on programme structures, workplace exposure, and employability outcomes, with comparatively limited attention to the relational and developmental processes through which learning is enacted during internships.

FIGURE 1: Internship literature approach.

Internship programmes as sites of human resource development

From a human resource development perspective, internship programmes can be understood as early-career development interventions that support skill acquisition, professional socialisation, and identity formation within organisational contexts (Clarke, 2018). Internships occupy a transitional space between education and employment, exposing graduates to organisational norms, expectations, and work practices.

Empirical research nevertheless demonstrates considerable variation in interns’ developmental experiences, even within programmes that share similar structural characteristics (Galloway et al., 2014). This variability suggests that internships are not uniform learning experiences, but socially embedded processes shaped by workplace relationships, managerial practices, and organisational cultures. Without deliberate developmental support, internships risk reproducing existing inequalities, particularly for graduates with limited prior exposure to professional environments.

These patterns reinforce the limitations of structurally oriented internship models depicted in Figure 1 and underscore the need to examine the relational dynamics through which development is enacted during internships.

Workplace mentorship as a developmental practice

Workplace mentorship offers a theoretically grounded lens for understanding developmental relationships within organisational settings. Kram’s (1985) seminal framework conceptualises mentorship as comprising both career functions, such as instructional guidance, exposure, and sponsorship, and psychosocial functions, including role modelling, counselling, and affirmation. Together, these functions support skill development, organisational integration, and the formation of professional identity.

Subsequent research has demonstrated that mentorship contributes to a range of developmental outcomes, including enhanced competence, confidence, and career progression (Forbes et al., 2021; Morgan & Rochford, 2017). Importantly, mentorship builds both human and psychological capital, reinforcing its relevance as a human resource development practice (Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017).

Within internship contexts, however, mentorship is often conflated with supervision or treated as an informal feature of placement rather than as a deliberate developmental practice (Chopra et al., 2016). This limited conceptualisation constrains understanding of how mentorship operates within internships and contributes to the persistence of the internship ‘black box’.

Synthesising employability, internships, and mentorship

Synthesising these literatures highlights a critical insight: while internship programmes provide the organisational context for learning, mentorship constitutes the relational mechanism through which developmental potential is activated. Employability research identifies the capabilities required for workplace participation, internships offer opportunities for experiential learning, and mentorship explains how learning and professional formation unfold within organisational settings.

Through practices such as role modelling, developmental guidance, network facilitation, and psychosocial support, mentors mediate interns’ engagement with work, organisations, and professional communities (Choudhary, 2025; Forbes et al., 2021; Kram, 1985). While employability research identifies the importance of workplace readiness and professional adaptation (Harry et al., 2018), mentorship literature provides the explanatory basis for understanding how these developmental processes are relationally enacted within workplace settings. This synthesis is depicted in Figure 2, which conceptualises mentorship as the mechanism that transforms structural internship opportunities into meaningful developmental experiences. The conceptual model presented in Figure 2 does not position instructional guidance and mentoring as synonymous constructs. Rather, mentorship is conceptualised as the overarching developmental relationship through which multiple forms of support are enacted, including instructional guidance, professional socialisation, psychosocial support, and network facilitation. In line with contemporary developmental literature, formal instructional guidance is recognised as a distinct professional practice characterised by structured, goal-oriented facilitation and non-directive developmental dialogue (Bachkirova et al., 2020; Passmore & Evans-Krimme, 2021). The present study therefore focuses specifically on mentorship processes within internship contexts and does not claim to examine professional instructional guidance as a standalone intervention.

FIGURE 2: Mentorship as the unlocking mechanism.

As illustrated in Figure 2, mentorship is a human resource development mechanism through which graduate internship programmes generate employability outcomes. While internships provide structural opportunities for work-integrated learning, mentorship enables learning, professional identity formation, access to networks, and psychosocial adjustment within organisational contexts. The figure positions mentorship as a core Human Resource Development (HRD) practice that translates workplace exposure into meaningful early-career development rather than an incidental feature of internship participation.

Theoretical framework and sensitising concepts

Guided by this synthesis, this study draws on Kram’s (1985) mentoring framework as a set of sensitising concepts rather than a deterministic model. Sensitising concepts provide a general orientation to empirical inquiry, offering interpretive guidance without imposing predefined categories (Blumer, 1956). This approach is particularly appropriate for qualitative research aimed at understanding complex developmental processes within organisational contexts.

Two sensitising domains inform the analysis. Firstly, career management functions guide attention to mentoring practices such as instructional guidance, sponsorship, exposure, and challenging assignments, and how these practices support interns’ skill development and organisational visibility. While Kram’s (1985) framework historically included instructional guidance within broader mentoring functions, contemporary scholarship increasingly differentiates mentoring and instructional guidance as distinct developmental practices with different relational and methodological foundations (Bachkirova et al., 2020; Passmore & Evans-Krimme, 2021). In the present study, references to ‘coaching’ are therefore understood narrowly as task-related instructional guidance embedded within mentoring relationships rather than as formal professional instructional guidance practice. Secondly, psychosocial functions sensitise the analysis to relational practices that foster professional identity, self-efficacy, and resilience, including role modelling, counselling, and affirmation. Consistent with contemporary developmental scholarship, the study distinguishes mentorship from formal professional instructional guidance. References to developmental guidance within mentoring relationships therefore refer to workplace-based instructional and relational support rather than to formal instructional guidance methodologies or accredited instructional guidance practice.

By adopting this framework, the study examined how mentorship functions are enacted in practice, how they intersect, and how they collectively shape developmental experiences within a graduate internship programme. This approach avoids treating mentorship as a uniform intervention and instead foregrounds its processual, contextually embedded nature.

Research methods and design

Research design

This study adopted a qualitative, interpretive research design to examine mentorship as a developmental mechanism within a graduate internship programme. The study’s focus on understanding how mentorship processes are enacted in practice and experienced by different organisational role players justified a qualitative approach. Rather than testing predefined relationships or measuring outcomes, the study sought to develop a process-oriented explanation of mentorship within its organisational context.

The research was informed by a phenomenological orientation, privileging participants’ lived experiences of mentorship during graduate internships. This orientation aligned with the study’s interest in socially constructed, relationally enacted, and contextually embedded developmental processes. To support systematic theory building from qualitative data, the study employed the Gioia methodology, which enables transparent linkage between participant accounts and higher-order conceptual insights (Gioia et al., 2013).

Research context and site selection

The study was conducted at a large residential university located in South Africa’s Limpopo province. The site was selected as a critical case because mentorship processes were formally institutionalised within a structured graduate internship programme and were subject to multiple layers of organisational accountability, making it particularly suitable for examining developmental processes within a bounded organisational system (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 2018).

This made the setting particularly suitable for examining how mentorship operates as a developmental mechanism rather than as an informal or incidental practice.

At the time of data collection, the internship programme had been in operation for over a decade and was supported through partnerships with three Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs): the Education, Training and Development Practices SETA, Services SETA, and the National Research Foundation. These partnerships introduced variation in funding and reporting requirements within a single organisational context, enabling examination of mentorship practices under differing administrative conditions while holding broader organisational factors constant.

Data sources and triangulation

Data were generated from multiple sources to enhance analytic depth and credibility. The primary data source comprised 34 in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with four participant groups: 15 current interns, 10 former interns, 6 mentors, and 3 line managers who had supervised former interns. These interviews captured diverse perspectives on mentorship practices across different stages of the internship experience.

To complement individual interviews and explore shared meanings, one focus group discussion was conducted with 15 current interns. The focus group data were analysed alongside interview transcripts as part of a single analytic corpus. In addition, documentary data – including internship contracts, work plans, evaluation reports, and formal mentorship agreements – were reviewed to contextualise participant accounts and clarify formal expectations within the programme. Together, these sources enabled methodological triangulation and strengthened the credibility of the findings.

Sampling strategy

Sampling proceeded in multiple stages. Initial participant selection followed a maximum variation strategy to capture diversity across SETA sponsorship, disciplinary backgrounds, internship cohorts, and demographic characteristics. This approach ensured that mentorship experiences were examined across different structural and organisational conditions.

As analysis progressed, theoretical sampling was employed to refine emerging interpretations and explore variation in mentorship experiences. For example, additional participants were sought to examine mentorship under conditions of professional challenge and strain. Sampling continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Saturation is defined as the point at which additional data no longer provided new insights into mentorship processes.

Data collection procedures

Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data. The interviews were guided by a flexible interview protocol. Early interviews focused on participants’ general internship experiences, while later interviews included more targeted questions about mentorship practices, learning processes, and perceived developmental impact. This iterative approach supported alignment between data collection and emerging analysis.

Interviews were conducted at the university in private spaces to ensure confidentiality. The interviews lasted 35 min to 65 min. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to preserve the accuracy of participants’ accounts. Field notes were compiled throughout the data collection process to document contextual observations, emerging patterns, and preliminary analytical reflections that informed subsequent stages of analysis.

Data analysis

Data analysis followed the structured, inductive logic of the Gioia methodology and proceeded through three interrelated phases.

First-order analysis involved open coding of all interviews and focus group transcripts, preserving participants’ own language and meaning-making. This phase generated 243 first-order concepts through iterative comparison across transcripts. Verbatim expressions were retained to ensure analytic grounding in participant experience.

Second-order analysis involved grouping first-order concepts into more abstract themes that reflected emerging theoretical patterns. This phase relied on constant comparative analysis and regular team discussions to interrogate assumptions, challenge category boundaries, and actively seek disconfirming evidence. For instance, multiple first-order concepts relating to emotional support during professional challenges were consolidated into the second-order theme ‘psychosocial scaffolding’.

Aggregate dimensions were identified through further abstraction, resulting in four higher-order dimensions that capture the core mentorship processes operating within the internship programme. These dimensions form the basis of the study’s theoretical contribution and are visually represented in Table 1, which illustrates the progression from first-order concepts to aggregate dimensions. While Table 1 presents two empirically grounded aggregate dimensions, Figure 3 offers a higher-order theoretical synthesis in which second-order themes are analytically differentiated into four interrelated developmental mechanisms. What appear as second-order themes in Table 1 are elevated to aggregate dimensions in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3: Mentorship as a developmental architecture: A process model of transformative employability.

Throughout the analysis, care was taken to ensure that conceptual labels emerged from sustained engagement with the data rather than being imposed a priori. Theoretical sensitivity was informed by the literature, but analytic decisions were grounded in empirical patterns.

Trustworthiness and research quality

Trustworthiness was addressed using Lincoln and Guba’s criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility was ensured through triangulation across data sources, prolonged engagement, and member checking with selected participants, who reviewed preliminary interpretations and provided feedback.

Transferability was strengthened by providing a comprehensive account of the research setting and participant selection process, allowing readers to determine the extent to which the findings may apply in comparable contexts. Dependability was supported through a clear audit trail documenting data collection and analytic decisions, while confirmability was strengthened through reflexive memo-writing and explicit linkage between empirical data and higher-order interpretations.

Researcher reflexivity

The researcher’s position as a human resource professional within the university required sustained reflexive engagement. This dual role provided access to participants and institutional documentation but also introduced potential power dynamics and interpretive bias. To address these risks, reflexive journaling was used to document assumptions and analytic decisions. Interview protocols were designed to minimise leading questions, and participants were assured of confidentiality and voluntariness. Regular peer debriefing sessions provided opportunities to challenge interpretations and surface taken-for-granted assumptions, supporting analytic transparency.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of South Africa Department of Human Resource Management Research Ethics Review Committee (No.2016-HRM-017). Informed consent was obtained from all participants before the commencement of data collection. Participation was entirely voluntary, measures were implemented to protect confidentiality, and pseudonyms were assigned to participants in all transcripts and reported findings.

Care was taken to mitigate potential power imbalances arising from the researcher’s institutional affiliation by separating administrative roles from the research process and emphasising participants’ right to withdraw without consequence.

Results

This section presents the study’s findings, drawing directly on participants’ accounts to illustrate how mentorship operates as a developmental mechanism within a graduate internship programme. The analysis identified four interrelated mentorship processes through which developmental support was enacted. These processes did not operate uniformly across all mentorship relationships; rather, their presence, intensity, and quality varied considerably, shaping interns’ developmental experiences differently.

The four processes and the aggregated dimensions are presented in Figure 3. Each subsection begins with a descriptive account grounded in participant data, followed by an analytic interpretation that remains closely tied to empirical evidence.

Scaffolded skill translation: Supporting the application of academic knowledge

Participants consistently described challenges in translating academic knowledge into workplace practice. Exposure to organisational settings alone was widely viewed as insufficient for effective learning. Instead, skill development occurred when mentors actively mediated this transition through structured guidance, feedback, and contextual explanation.

Former interns frequently emphasised the role of mentors in explicitly bridging theory and practice:

‘My economics degree taught me perfect market models, but my mentor showed me how to apply them in the messy reality of human decision-making and institutional constraints. She would literally sit with me and say, “This is what the textbook says, and this is how it actually works here, and here’s why they’re different.”’ (Former Intern 4, black person, Aged 22–35 years)

Mentors described engaging in deliberate teaching practices that extended beyond task supervision:

‘I use a deliberate scaffolding technique. First, I model the skill while thinking aloud about my professional reasoning. Then we do it together, with me gradually reducing support. Finally, they perform independently while I observe and provide feedback. It’s about making expert thinking visible and accessible.’ (Mentor 3, black person, Aged 30–60 years)

These accounts indicate that effective skill translation involved intentional sequencing of learning activities, ongoing feedback, and explicit articulation of professional reasoning. Interns who experienced this form of mentorship reported increased confidence in applying academic knowledge within organisational contexts.

However, participants also described mentorship relationships where such scaffolding was absent. In these cases, mentors assumed that interns could independently adapt academic knowledge to workplace demands:

‘He would assign tasks assuming I knew how to adapt my academic knowledge. When I struggled, he seemed frustrated rather than recognising this was a teaching moment.’ (Former Intern 7, black person, Aged 22–35 years)

This contrast highlights that skill translation was not an automatic outcome of internship participation but depended on mentors’ willingness and ability to engage in developmental teaching practices.

Professional identity formation: Becoming a professional

Beyond technical skills, mentorship was a key factor in shaping interns’ professional identity. Participants described identity development as a gradual process through which they began to see themselves – and be recognised by others – as professionals rather than students.

Symbolic practices emerged as particularly influential. Interns recalled moments when mentors publicly affirmed their professional status:

‘The day my mentor invited me to lead a client meeting and introduced me as “our specialist” rather than “our intern,” something shifted fundamentally. I started carrying myself differently, speaking differently – I had internalised being seen as a professional.’ (Current Intern 8, black person, Aged 22–35 years)

Mentors acknowledged engaging in such practices intentionally:

‘I pay meticulous attention to language and representation. I ensure they’re included in professional communications, listed in organisational charts, and introduced with professional titles. These aren’t incidental courtesies – they’re identity-affirming practices.’ (Mentor 2, black person, Aged 30–60 years)

These actions contributed to interns’ sense of legitimacy and belonging within organisational settings. Interns reported that consistent recognition from mentors reinforced their confidence and professional self-concept:

‘My mentor’s belief in my capabilities became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because she treated me as a competent professional, I began to see myself that way.’ (Former Intern 6, black person, Aged 22–35 years)

Conversely, identity development was constrained when mentors failed to recognise interns as developing professionals:

‘When my mentor consistently excluded me from important meetings or introduced me as “just an intern,” it reinforced my outsider status. I never fully made the psychological transition to seeing myself as a professional in that context.’ (Former Intern 9, black person, Aged 22–35 years)

These accounts demonstrate that professional identity formation was highly sensitive to everyday mentorship practices and workplace symbolic cues.

Network brokerage: Facilitating access to professional communities

A third mentorship process involved mentors enabling interns’ access to organisational and professional networks. Participants described this as a critical but unevenly distributed form of support that shaped both immediate learning opportunities and longer-term career trajectories.

Some mentors described brokerage as a deliberate developmental activity:

‘I maintain what I call a “connection roadmap” for each intern. It identifies key relationships they need to develop, the value proposition for each connection, and specific introduction strategies.’ (Mentor 4, black person, Aged 30–60 years)

Interns emphasised the importance of mentors’ endorsement when entering new professional spaces:

‘I don’t just make introductions; I provide what I call “credibility transfers.” When I introduce an intern to senior leadership, I explicitly endorse their capabilities and highlight specific contributions.’ (Mentor 1, black person, Aged 30–60 years)

Former interns highlighted the enduring value of these early connections:

‘The professional network my mentor helped me build didn’t just help me get my first job – it has continued to yield opportunities years later.’ (Former Intern 3, black person, Aged 22–35 years)

In contrast, several interns reported limited or absent brokerage support:

‘My mentor kept me siloed in our department. I performed well but remained organizationally invisible.’ (Former Intern 11, black person, Aged 22–35 years)

These differences suggest that network brokerage functioned as a critical differentiator in internship experiences, with implications for visibility, opportunity, and longer-term employability.

Emotional scaffolding: Creating conditions for learning and resilience

The fourth process involved mentors’ support for interns’ emotional and psychological adjustment to professional environments. Participants described internships as emotionally demanding, involving uncertainty, performance pressure, and fear of failure.

Interns who experienced emotionally supportive mentorship reported greater willingness to take learning-oriented risks:

‘My mentor established early that this was a learning environment where vulnerability was strength. She would share her own professional failures and what she learned from them.’ (Current Intern 5, black person, Aged 22–35 years)

Mentors described intentional strategies to help interns manage stress and build resilience:

‘I use what I call ‘graduated challenge exposure’ – deliberately creating manageable stressful situations with strong support, then processing the emotional experience afterwards.’ (Mentor 6, black person, Aged 30–60 years)

Former interns reflected on the impact of this support during moments of difficulty:

‘When I was ready to quit after a project failure, my mentor shared stories of his own early-career setbacks.’ (Former Intern 10, black person, Aged 22–35 years)

However, emotional scaffolding emerged as the least consistently enacted mentorship process. Several mentors expressed discomfort with this dimension:

‘I’m equipped to teach technical skills, but I feel out of my depth when interns experience anxiety, imposter syndrome, or other emotional challenges.’ (Mentor 3, black person, Aged 30–60 years)

Where emotional support was absent, interns reported heightened anxiety and disengagement, which constrained learning and confidence development.

Discussion

This study examined mentorship as a developmental mechanism within graduate internship programmes, focusing on how mentorship processes are enacted in organisational contexts. The findings reveal that mentorship operates through four interrelated processes – scaffolded skill translation, professional identity formation, network brokerage, and emotional scaffolding – which collectively shape interns’ developmental experiences.

Mentorship as a multidimensional developmental mechanism

The findings contribute to human resource development scholarship by demonstrating that mentorship within internship programmes operates as a multidimensional developmental mechanism rather than a single relational function. The identification of four distinct but interconnected processes extends existing mentorship research that has often conceptualised mentoring in terms of broad career and psychosocial functions (Kram, 1985). While these foundational categories remain analytically useful, the present study illustrates how they are enacted in practice through specific developmental processes that are particularly salient in early-career internship contexts.

The process of scaffolded skill translation highlights that technical skill development during internships is not an automatic consequence of workplace exposure. Instead, effective learning depends on mentors’ ability to mediate the application of academic knowledge within organisational contexts. This finding refines existing assumptions in the internship literature that experiential learning naturally occurs through participation alone (Galloway et al., 2014). It also complements work on graduate employability that identifies skills deficits without fully accounting for how skills are developed in practice (Abbas & Sagsan, 2020; Clarke, 2018). By foregrounding mentors’ pedagogical role, the study underscores the importance of developmental competence among mentors, a dimension often overlooked in organisational internship design.

Professional identity formation emerged as a second critical mentorship process, extending employability research that focuses predominantly on skills and attributes. The findings demonstrate that becoming employable involves not only acquiring competencies but also developing a professional self-concept that enables graduates to participate confidently in organisational life. This insight aligns with broader conceptualisations of graduations while providing empirical evidence of how identity is actively constructed through everyday mentorship practices (Harry et al., 2018). From an HRD perspective, this underscores the role of mentorship in supporting organisational socialisation and early-career identity work.

Network brokerage represents a third developmental process through which mentorship operates. The findings illustrate that access to organisational and professional networks is not equally available to all interns and is often mediated through mentors’ deliberate actions. This extends existing mentorship literature that acknowledges sponsorship and exposure as career functions (Balthazar et al., 2021) by showing how these functions are enacted as structured, strategic practices within internship contexts. Importantly, the uneven distribution of brokerage practices highlights how mentorship can either mitigate or reproduce existing inequalities in access to opportunity, particularly for graduates with limited prior social capital.

Emotional scaffolding emerged as a foundational, yet inconsistently enacted, mentorship process. While psychosocial support has long been recognised as a component of effective mentoring, the findings suggest that emotional support plays a particularly salient role during early-career transitions characterised by uncertainty and vulnerability. The absence of emotional scaffolding constrained interns’ willingness to take learning-oriented risks, thereby limiting the developmental potential of internships. This finding extends organisational research on psychological safety by situating it within mentorship relationships and highlighting its relevance for graduate development.

Integrating the mentorship processes

Taken together, the findings suggest that the four mentorship processes operate in an integrated manner rather than in isolation. Interns who experienced consistent support across multiple dimensions reported more coherent developmental trajectories, while fragmented mentorship limited learning and professional integration.

This process model advances mentorship research by moving beyond descriptive accounts of mentoring activities to specify how different forms of support interact to shape developmental experiences. Importantly, the model does not imply that all mentorship relationships must enact each process to the same degree. Rather, it highlights how variability in mentorship quality and focus produces uneven developmental outcomes within structurally similar internship programmes.

Implications for human resource development practice

The findings carry several implications for human resource development practice. Firstly, they suggest that organisations and institutions should move beyond treating mentorship as an informal or voluntary activity and instead recognise it as a core developmental practice requiring explicit support. This recommendation aligns with developments in the South African context, where mentoring has increasingly been recognised as a professional practice through the work of the Coaches and Mentors of South Africa (COMENSA) and the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), including the development of behavioural standards frameworks for mentors.

Effective mentorship within internship programmes depends not only on mentors’ technical expertise but also on their capacity to provide pedagogical, relational, and emotional support.

Secondly, mentor preparation initiatives should explicitly address the four identified mentorship processes. Training that focuses solely on administrative supervision or performance management is unlikely to equip mentors for the developmental demands of supporting graduate interns. Instead, HRD interventions should incorporate guidance on facilitating learning transfer, supporting professional identity formation, enabling network access, and managing the emotional dimensions of early-career development.

Thirdly, the findings outline the importance of recognising and rewarding mentorship practices that extend beyond immediate task supervision. Network brokerage and emotional scaffolding often remain invisible forms of labour. Without organisational recognition, these practices may be unevenly enacted, contributing to disparities in intern experiences.

Addressing inequality through mentorship

The study also offers insights into how mentorship practices intersect with broader patterns of inequality in graduate employment. Variability in mentorship quality suggests that access to comprehensive developmental support is not evenly distributed across interns. Graduates from historically disadvantaged backgrounds, who may lack prior exposure to professional environments or established networks, stand to benefit most from mentorship that includes deliberate skill translation, identity affirmation, and brokerage.

These findings resonate with concerns regarding racialised and gendered inequalities in the South African labour market (Mseleku, 2024) and differential preparedness among graduates from under-resourced educational backgrounds (Timmis & Muhuro, 2019). By foregrounding mentorship as a relational mechanism, the study highlights how organisational practices can either reproduce or mitigate structural disadvantage. Importantly, the findings caution against assuming that internship participation alone is sufficient to promote equity; rather, the quality and nature of mentorship are critical.

Practical implications

The findings of the study offer several practical implications for organisations, higher education institutions, and policymakers involved in the design and implementation of graduate internship programmes. These implications are grounded in the identification of mentorship as a developmental mechanism comprising multiple, interrelated processes rather than a single supportive relationship.

Implications for organisation’s human resource development practices

For organisations hosting graduate interns, the findings suggest that mentorship should be recognised as a core human resource development function rather than an informal or discretionary activity. Effective mentorship requires deliberate engagement in scaffolded skill translation, professional identity support, network brokerage, and emotional scaffolding. These practices extend beyond task allocation and performance monitoring, underscoring the need for organisations to clarify the developmental expectations of the mentor role.

Mentor preparation initiatives should therefore be prioritised. Rather than generic orientation sessions, mentor development should explicitly address how to support learning transfer from academic contexts, how to legitimise interns’ professional identities through everyday organisational practices, how to facilitate access to professional networks, and how to provide appropriate psychosocial support within professional boundaries. Importantly, the findings indicate that emotional scaffolding is both critical and unevenly enacted, suggesting a specific need for guidance and support in this area.

Organisations should also consider mechanisms to recognise and value mentorship work. Network brokerage and emotional support are often invisible forms of labour and may be inconsistently provided if left to individual discretion. Integrating mentorship quality into performance discussions or recognising effective mentors through formal acknowledgement may contribute to more consistent developmental support across internship programmes.

Implications for higher education institutions

For higher education institutions involved in internship coordination, the findings underscore the importance of engaging with host organisations around mentorship expectations rather than focusing solely on placement logistics. Institutions can play a facilitative role by articulating clear developmental objectives for internships and supporting mentors through shared frameworks, guidelines, or training resources.

The findings also suggest that universities should monitor the quality of mentorship as part of internship oversight. While structural compliance remains important, attention to relational and developmental processes may provide more meaningful insight into interns’ learning experiences. This may involve incorporating reflective feedback mechanisms that capture interns’ experiences of mentorship across the four identified processes.

Implications for policy and skills development systems

At the policy level, particularly within SETA-supported internship programmes, the findings indicate that evaluation frameworks should move beyond quantitative indicators such as placement numbers or programme duration. While such metrics are necessary for accountability, they provide limited insight into developmental effectiveness. Incorporating indicators related to mentorship practices and quality could strengthen the developmental impact of publicly funded internship programmes.

Importantly, the findings caution against assuming that internship participation alone is sufficient to enhance employability. Without deliberate investment in mentorship capabilities, internship programmes may produce uneven developmental outcomes and risk reproducing existing inequalities in access to opportunity.

Limitations and future research

Several limitations associated with this study should be considered. Firstly, the investigation was confined to a single institutional environment, which may restrict the extent to which the findings can be applied to other organisational contexts. While the selected university provided an analytically rich site for examining mentorship processes within a structured graduate internship programme, mentorship practices may differ across corporate, public-sector, and non-governmental organisations. Readers are therefore encouraged to consider the study’s contextual features when applying its findings to other settings.

Secondly, the study focused primarily on mentorship relationships and paid limited attention to broader organisational conditions that may enable or constrain effective mentorship. Factors such as organisational culture, workload pressures, and resource availability were not examined in-depth, yet these conditions are likely to shape how mentorship practices are enacted. Future research could explore how mentorship processes interact with organisational systems and structures, including performance management, workload allocation, and broader human resource development policies.

Thirdly, although the study included both current and former interns, it did not use a longitudinal design to track participants beyond the internship period. As a result, claims regarding longer-term career trajectories and sustained employability outcomes remain tentative. Longitudinal research following graduates over time would provide deeper insight into how mentorship processes influence career development beyond initial labour-market entry.

Future research could also examine whether the mentorship processes identified in this study operate similarly across different organisational sectors and internship models. Comparative studies across corporate, public-sector, and non-governmental contexts would enhance understanding of the boundary conditions under which mentorship functions as an effective human resource development mechanism.

Conclusion

This study examined mentorship as a developmental mechanism within a graduate internship programme in South Africa, focusing on the processes through which mentorship supports interns’ learning and professional formation. The findings demonstrate that mentorship operates through four interrelated processes – scaffolded skill translation, professional identity formation, network brokerage, and emotional scaffolding – which together shape how interns engage with work, organisations, and professional communities during the internship period.

By foregrounding these processes, the study advances understanding of why structurally similar internship programmes produce uneven developmental outcomes. The findings suggest that internship effectiveness cannot be explained by programme design alone but depends critically on the quality and nature of mentorship enacted within organisational contexts. Mentorship should therefore be understood not as an informal supplement to internship participation but as a core human resource development practice that mediates the translation of workplace exposure into meaningful learning and employability development.

The study contributes to human resource development scholarship by offering a process-oriented account of mentorship in a high-unemployment context, extending existing work that has focused predominantly on programme structures or employment outcomes. Importantly, the findings highlight how variability in mentorship practices may reproduce or mitigate inequalities in access to developmental support among graduates, particularly for those with limited prior exposure to professional environments.

While the study does not claim to resolve broader challenges of graduate unemployment, it provides a conceptual foundation for more intentional internship design that centres mentorship as a developmental mechanism. By making mentorship processes more visible, the study identifies where organisational and institutional investment can be most effectively directed to enhance the developmental value of graduate internship programmes in contexts of labour-market constraints.

Acknowledgements

This article includes content that overlaps with research originally conducted as part of Louise Mariba’s master’s dissertation titled ‘The Effectiveness of a Graduate Internship Programme in Enhancing Employment and Career Development Opportunities for South African Youths’, submitted to the College of Economic and Management Sciences at the University of South Africa (UNISA) in 2018. The dissertation was supervised by Mariette Coetzee. Portions of the data, analysis, and/or discussion have been revised, updated, and adapted for journal publication. The original dissertation is publicly available at UNISA’s institutional repository. The author affirms that this submission complies with ethical standards for secondary publication, and appropriate acknowledgement has been made of the original work.

This article is based on data from a larger study. A related article focusing on organisational and managerial responses to skill development regulation and its shaping of management and developmental effectiveness of graduate internship programmes has been published in Acta Commercii 26(1), a1593 (https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v26i1.1593). The present article addresses a distinct research question, focusing on how mentorship processes operate within a graduate internship programme to support graduates’ employability development in South Africa.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Mariette Coetzee: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Joan-Ark M. Agyapong: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Louise M. Mariba: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Mariette Coetzee, upon reasonable request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References