The best way to approach mentoring is by making programs multi-faceted.

'I need a mentor." ... "My problem is I didn't have a mentor." ... "My success in large part is due to my mentor." ... "Mentoring programs are just window dressing."

These comments permeate the workplace as all kinds of employees seek guidance climbing a corporate, governmental or non-profit ladder.

The term mentor is seductive. To many, it is assumed that having a mentor is the key to career success.

The word mentor conveys the image of a teacher, an advisor, a confidant, a sponsor or a coach. However, rarely is the ability to perform all these functions found in any one person.

A teacher could be anyone with specific knowledge or skill--a friend, a gym partner or a subordinate.

An advisor is one who helps with a well-defined or short-term problem. This could be a colleague or peer who has been successful meeting identified challenges or adept at staying calm during crises.

A confidant is one who can be trusted with comments about people or issues that require confidence. Often well-connected and/or powerful people in one's company may not be the best ones in whom to confide about fellow employees.

A sponsor is usually an upper-level person with the power, interest and authority to help promote. Those fortunate to find a sponsor are an elite group, for true sponsors are scarce.

A coach is someone (perhaps a hired outsider) who has both a personal and professional relationship with the person being mentored--in a sense, a "career shrink." Chief executives and other top-level executives increasingly hire coaches who have doctorates in psychology or have been successful executives themselves.

Because mentoring is a two-way street, it's important to understand what's involved. The costs are the time commitment and often-excessive expectations of the person being mentored. But there are benefits, too: mentors learn of concerns that can provide an early warning about potential problems within an organization. There's also the inherent pleasure that comes with helping others.

The question may be asked, "What can a company do to improve effective mentoring opportunities for its employees?"

The best answer is to replace formal or informal mentoring programs (based on a one to-one match) with multifaceted mentoring opportunities (to all employees) that are function-specific. After all, different kinds of mentors are needed at different times to perform different functions.

So, for example, instead of hitching individuals to a "star," or matching people by job title, years of service or "potential," Intel employees are asked to identify functions they wish to perform or want performed to help them advance their careers. Employees then link up via e-mail.

Most important, this model eliminates the structural demands associated with many company programs (required regular meetings, mentor training and assessment reports). This model is relatively easy to institute and maintain.

When looking at mentoring, it's important to change the perception that one mentor, or a formalized mentoring program, will necessarily guarantee career success, although clearly, either might. Think of it as a guidance system with a multiplicity of personal and professional signposts.

Judith Rosener is a professor in University of California, Irvine's Paul Merage School of Business.