Mentorship Program Satisfaction Survey

Use it for both mentors and mentees participating in a formal mentorship program. It works best when you want feedback on match quality, meeting cadence, psychological safety, and whether the relationship is actually helping people grow. Program owners, HR, People Ops, or L&D teams usually run it. If your program is informal or one-off, a shorter check-in may be a better fit.

For active mentorship programs, quarterly is usually a good cadence because it gives pairs enough time to build a relationship and make progress without creating survey fatigue. Monthly can work for new cohorts or highly structured programs, but keep it short. If the program is light-touch, send it at mid-point and at the end. Avoid weekly surveying unless you are testing a specific issue in a pilot.

This template turns informal feedback into a repeatable signal across all pairs. It captures the same core dimensions each time: satisfaction, match quality, meeting structure, support level, belonging, and growth. That makes it easier to compare cohorts, spot patterns, and decide whether to rematch pairs or adjust program design. Ad-hoc conversations are useful, but they are harder to aggregate and track over time.

Yes, anonymity should be the default unless you have a clear reason to collect names. Mentorship feedback can be sensitive, especially when a participant feels the match is not working or the mentor is not meeting expectations. Anonymity usually improves response rate and candor. If you need follow-up on a specific issue, explain exactly who can see the responses and how the data will be used.

The highest-value questions are the ones about match fit, psychological safety, meeting cadence, and the primary reason for the satisfaction score. Those answers tell you whether the issue is the pairing itself, the structure of the meetings, or the program design. The open-ended follow-ups are especially important for low ratings because they explain what needs to change. The final improvement question helps prioritize program-level fixes.

Yes. You can adapt it for peer mentoring, reverse mentoring, leadership mentoring, or career-development programs. Keep the core structure intact if you want comparable results, but adjust wording to match the relationship type and goals. For example, a reverse mentoring program may emphasize learning exchange and cross-functional insight more than career guidance.

Use the results to decide whether to keep, coach, or rematch pairs, and to identify program-wide changes such as better onboarding, clearer meeting expectations, or stronger mentor training. Look for patterns by cohort, department, or tenure in the program rather than focusing only on individual comments. If multiple respondents mention the same issue, that is usually a program design problem, not just a single bad match. Close the loop with participants so they know their feedback led to action.

Do not use leading questions, raw numeric scales without anchors, or too many demographic questions at the top. Avoid asking about survey satisfaction inside the survey itself, and do not skip open-ended follow-ups for low ratings. Another common mistake is sending it too often, which can reduce response rate and make the data less trustworthy. Keep the survey focused on the relationship and the program decisions it should inform.