	In light of the well-documented benefits of mentoring, many organizations have implemented formal mentoring programs, often with the explicit aim of supporting minority group members. I will first review general evidence-based recommendations for formal mentoring programs, then offer more specific recommendations in light of the research on diverse mentoring and gender. In their review of 100 years of mentoring literature, Allen and colleagues synthesize numerous findings regarding best practices, suggests that the best formal mentoring programs establish clear objectives for both the mentor and protégé, have clear support from top management, carefully match mentors and protégés, select and train high-quality mentors, establish mechanisms for interaction between mentor and protégé, and regularly evaluate program success. As I do not have the space to unpack all of these recommendations, I will focus on the matching process as well as offer a suggestion drawn from the social psychological literature. 
	In their chapter focused on best practices for mentoring programs, Finkelstein and Poteet offer numerous suggestions regarding how mentors and protégés may be matched. They suggest that objective characteristics, such as location, department, and rank, should be considered. Pairing based on proximity may be warranted given recent evidence of the positive relationship between interaction frequency and perceived relationship quality, psychosocial support, and career support. However, the directionality of these relationship should be considered. That is, it may not be that frequent communication leads to high relationship quality, but those with high relationship quality are likely to interact more frequently, so other matching factors in addition to location should be used. 
As deep similarity is the strongest predictor of relationship quality, and informal relationships are likely to form on the basis of similarity and liking, programs that allow participants to have input and voice into the matching process have been found to be more successful. This may be accomplished by allowing participants to interact before being paired. Casually interacting would allow mentors and protégés to determine whether they share interests and values, important deep-level attributes that could contribute to a successful relationship. However, doing so may increase the likelihood of formation of homogenous pairs, as individuals will be attracted to similar others, which may be based on superficial attributes. Without interacting, participants could be matched based on attributes indicative of deep similarity, such career or personal values. This may be especially beneficial to individuals who are navigating new life stages, personal and career developmental challenges, and attempting to balance multiple roles and values. A mentor with similar values and experience could be an important source of insights and guidance for navigating these challenges. 
Other scholars have suggested that, since white males are most likely to occupy the highest-status roles, and women and racial minorities will be less likely to have access to these individuals, alternates to mentoring may be useful. One such proposed alternative is to establish a career management and assessment system, which would provide more equitable opportunities for all employees and seek to accomplish the key functions of mentoring relationships. Such a program would involve various workshops, advisers, and activities specifically geared toward the development of visibility and competencies. While I think this approach is promising and a good step towards evening the playing field, I am not convinced that majority members would not still benefit to a greater extent. Additionally, these programs would not prevent informal mentorships from forming between higher-powered individuals.  
