Mentoring Pairing Survey Template
Use this mentoring pairing intake to collect goals, topics, preferences, and logistics from mentors and mentees in one place. You will get cleaner inputs for fair matching, clear do-not-match enforcement, and a simple first-meeting plan you can send with each introduction.
Trusted by 5000+ Brands
Who Should Take This Survey (and How to Sample Fairly)
Use this section to get the right people into the intake so you can match fairly without overloading mentors. Do this now: Add a required first question that routes people into the right path (Mentor, Mentee, Both). Default: One survey with role-based branching and a hard cap on mentees per mentor.
Branch by role so people only answer what you will actually use for matching:
- Mentor path: capacity, topics you can support, mentoring style, meeting preferences, and do-not-match constraints.
- Mentee path: goals, top topics, what you want in a mentor, meeting preferences, and do-not-match constraints.
- Both path: show two short modules (Mentor capacity/offers + Mentee goals/needs) and add an extra availability check to prevent overload.
Sample deliberately so your cohort does not skew toward one function or level. Use sample size guidance to set participation targets, then enforce simple rules that protect capacity and access:
- Set capacity before you invite: decide your default (for example, 1 mentee per mentor) and only open additional mentee slots if you have mentor coverage.
- Use eligibility rules: define who can join this cycle (tenure bands, role levels, or a program theme) so matching stays realistic.
- Collect time zone and language early: screen for overlap before people invest time completing long topic lists.
- Avoid over-representing one group: if one function floods the intake, pause invites or hold a waitlist until the mentor/mentee mix rebalances.
Do-not-match rules prevent awkward pairings and protect confidentiality. Block matches within the same manager chain (manager/direct report and skip-level), known conflicts of interest (promotion or compensation influence), close day-to-day working relationships (same small project team), and any pairing a participant flags as a conflict. If you enforce these rules, collect the minimum needed fields (for example, manager name and department) and restrict who can view them.
Customize for your program: If you run cross-functional mentoring, then prioritize sampling across departments and locations; if you run leadership mentoring, then add a minimum role-level rule for mentors and a tighter capacity cap.
Mentor-Mentee Intake Questions to Power Better Matches
Use this section to collect inputs you can score and turn into pairings without manual cleanup. Do this now: Build your survey around four match inputs — Goals (why), Skills/Topics (what), Logistics (when/how), and Constraints (must-not). Default: 10-18 scored items plus 1-2 short text fields for nuance.
Add pick-lists and ratings wherever you want repeatable matching, and reserve short text for context you will actually read. Keep question wording neutral and consistent; the UK Government's questionnaire design guidance is a solid checklist for tightening wording before you launch.
Next: Set your field types and branching using survey design best practices so mentors and mentees only see the modules you will score.
Shared module (ask everyone)
"What time zone are you in?"
Why it matters: Time zone overlap is a hard constraint. You will create impossible matches if you collect it late or leave it optional.
When to use: Ask first, before long topic lists.
"What language do you prefer for mentoring meetings?"
Why it matters: Language fit drives meeting quality and reduces early drop-off.
When to use: Include if your program spans multiple countries or multilingual offices.
"How often can you meet?"
Why it matters: Cadence mismatch (monthly vs. weekly) is a common avoidable failure point.
When to use: Include in every run; score it as part of logistics fit.
"What meeting format do you prefer?"
Why it matters: Remote vs. in-person constraints can eliminate otherwise good topic matches.
When to use: Ask if location or travel limits matter (hybrid orgs, multi-site companies).
Mentee module (needs and goals)
"What are your top 3 mentoring goals for this cycle?"
Why it matters: Goals anchor the match and give you a ready-made success statement for the first meeting.
When to use: Use a fixed list aligned to your program outcomes (for example, career growth, leadership, technical depth, networking).
"Rate your interest in these topics for mentoring."
Why it matters: Ratings give you a clean score you can match against what mentors offer.
When to use: Use a 1-5 scale (Not a priority to Top priority) for 8-12 topics max.
"What do you want in a mentor? (Select up to 3)"
Why it matters: This captures style fit (coach vs. sponsor vs. technical guide) without forcing long text you cannot score.
When to use: Include if you have a diverse mentor pool and want to reduce mismatched expectations.
"What would make this match successful for you?"
Why it matters: One short text answer adds context you can paste into the intro email or first-meeting agenda.
When to use: Keep to a single short text field (1-2 sentences). Do not use this as your main scoring input.
Mentor module (offers and capacity)
"How many mentees can you take this cycle?"
Why it matters: Capacity is a hard constraint. You will create drop-off if you match mentors beyond what they can sustain.
When to use: Always. Use 0/1/2/3+ choices to keep it easy to allocate.
"Rate your strength in these mentoring topics."
Why it matters: Strength ratings pair cleanly with mentee interest ratings and support two-sided matching.
When to use: Use the same topic list you show mentees so scoring stays consistent.
"What mentoring approach do you prefer? (Select up to 2)"
Why it matters: Style mismatch creates frustration even when topics match.
When to use: Include if you want to set expectations (coaching, accountability, introductions/networking, skills practice).
Constraints module (ask everyone, keep it tight)
"Do-not-match: Is there anyone you cannot be matched with?"
Why it matters: This prevents conflicts and uncomfortable pairings that participants will not report until the match fails.
When to use: Include if you can enforce it. Use a searchable directory field or a short text field with clear instructions.
"Do you have any accessibility or scheduling needs for mentoring meetings? (Optional)"
Why it matters: You can prevent avoidable friction (captions, camera-off preference, caregiving windows) without collecting sensitive details.
When to use: Offer multiple choice options plus "Prefer not to say" and one optional short text clarifier.
Default setup: Use the same topic list for mentors and mentees, score with ratings/ranks, and keep free text to 1-2 fields. The Australian Bureau of Statistics' basic questionnaire design guidance is a good reference for limiting burden and keeping response options clear.
Customize for your program: If you run an onboarding mentoring cohort, then add a goal option like "navigate the org" and a logistics option like "preferred office/site"; if you run a leadership cohort, then add a rated topic like "people management" and "influencing."
Comparison: Best Question Formats for Matching (Rank vs Rate vs Free Text)
Use this section to pick question formats you can score quickly and repeat each cohort. Do this now: Decide which inputs will drive matching (rank/rate) and which inputs will only add context (1-2 short text fields). Default: Rate for most topics, rank for top priorities, and minimal free text.
| Format | Best when you need... | Scoring ease | Respondent burden | Two-sided preferences (mentee wants + mentor offers) | Example prompt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank top 3 topics | Clear priorities and a tie-breaker for close matches | High (simple points: 1st=3, 2nd=2, 3rd=1) | Medium (harder if your list is long) | Good for prioritization on both sides; combine with ratings if you need depth | "Select and rank your top 3 mentoring topics." |
| Rate on a 1-5 scale (Likert) | Repeatable scoring across many topics and easy exports | Very high (matrix scoring works well) | Low to medium (keep to 8-12 topics) | Excellent: use the same topic list for mentee interest and mentor strength | "Rate your interest in each topic (1=Not a priority, 5=Top priority)." |
| Open-ended prompt | Nuance, context, and constraints you did not anticipate | Low (hard to score; requires reading) | Medium to high (people write more than you expect) | Weak for systematic matching; use as a note for manual review only | "Share any context that would help your match succeed (1-2 sentences)." |
Rule of thumb: Drive the core match from ranked/rated items, then add 1-2 short text fields for context you can use in the intro email or first-meeting plan.
Deployment Checklist: Timing, Invites, and Reminders to Boost Completion
Use this section to get high completion without bloating the survey or collecting data you cannot protect. Do this now: Write your invite and reminder schedule, then set branching so most people finish in 5-10 minutes. Default: 1 initial invite + 2 reminders, and a visible "time to complete" line.
-
Send inside a clear intake window: Open the survey 2-3 weeks before matching, and close it on a date you can enforce (so you can match on a stable dataset).
-
State the value exchange in the invite: Tell participants how matches will be made, what happens next, and what commitment you expect (for example, 45 minutes/month for 3 months).
-
Put completion time up front: Add "Takes about 5-10 minutes" and keep that promise by limiting topic lists and using role branching.
-
Use two reminders (spaced): Send reminder #1 after 3-4 days and reminder #2 2-3 days before close. Follow-up generally increases response rates; see the BMC review on incentives and follow-up for survey response for direction on what tends to work.
-
Keep wording neutral: Avoid leading examples ("great mentors do X"). Use balanced options and consistent scales to reduce response bias.
-
Minimize sensitive data by default: Only ask for what you will use for matching or accessibility. If you include identity-related preferences, make them optional, include "Prefer not to say," and review demographic questions and safer alternatives before you add anything.
-
Restrict access and exports: Limit who can view raw responses, separate any optional sensitive fields, and avoid exporting fields you do not need to score and enforce constraints.
Customize for your program: If you run multiple cohorts (onboarding + leadership), then send separate invites with the cohort label in the subject line and slightly different topic lists so people self-select correctly.
Results Guide: A Simple Matching Workflow (From Responses to Pairings)
Use this section to turn survey responses into pairings you can defend and repeat next cycle. Do this now: Export responses into a matching sheet, then apply hard constraints before you score soft fit. Default: Hard constraints first, then a weighted soft-fit score, then a quick human review.
-
Clean and validate inputs
Export your responses and fix missing blockers before you match (time zone, language, availability, capacity). Flag conflicts like "monthly only" paired with "weekly only" and resolve them with a short follow-up message.
- Drop or pause records with missing hard-constraint fields.
- Standardize text entries you plan to use (for example, department names).
-
Apply hard constraints (must / must-not)
Block do-not-match pairs, same manager chain, capacity limits, and non-overlapping time zones. Treat these as non-negotiable so you do not waste time scoring matches you cannot assign.
- Must-not: reporting line, conflicts of interest, named do-not-match.
- Must: at least 2 hours of time zone overlap (internal starter target; adjust after you review your baseline), shared language (if required), mentor capacity > 0.
-
Score soft fit (goals + topics + logistics)
Compute a simple weighted score so you can match quickly and explain decisions. Two-sided matching works best when you compare what mentees want with what mentors offer; see the Heliyon case study on two-sided mentor-mentee matching for practical direction on scoring and constraints.
- Topic score (0-5): overlap between mentee top topics and mentor strongest topics (use ratings/ranks).
- Goal score (0-3): mentee goals align to mentor experience areas (use a mapped list).
- Logistics score (0-2): cadence and meeting format align.
Default weights: Topic 50%, Goals 30%, Logistics 20%. Adjust weights only if your program has a clear reason (for example, technical mentoring may push topic weight higher).
-
Allocate mentors with capacity limits
Assign each mentee to the highest-scoring available mentor, then decrease mentor capacity as you fill slots. Handle ties with a rule you can apply consistently (for example, prioritize under-served functions, then randomize within tied scores).
-
Run a fast human review (catch edge cases)
Review the top 5-10% of lowest-score matches and any match with a constraint warning (manager chain risk, low overlap, unusual availability). Keep changes minimal and write a one-line reason for any manual override so you can audit later.
-
Send matches with a first-meeting plan + 30/60/90 check-ins
Attach a simple first-meeting agenda so pairs start strong, then pulse them to catch early drop-off.
- First meeting (30-45 min): confirm goals, agree cadence, set boundaries (what mentoring is/is not), and pick the first topic.
- Mentorship agreement prompts: "What does success look like?" "How will we prepare for meetings?" "What should we avoid?"
- Check-ins: 2-minute pulses at day 30/60/90: fit, meeting frequency, progress on the top goal, and any needed rematch.
Customize for your program: If you run an always-on mentoring marketplace, then re-run scoring weekly and set an auto-expire rule for stale profiles (for example, re-confirm availability every 90 days).
Frequently Asked Questions
Should mentors and mentees take the same survey or separate surveys?
Use one survey with a required role question (Mentor, Mentee, Both) and branching, so you keep one consistent dataset while showing each role only the fields you need. That setup makes scoring and exports cleaner, and it cuts completion time because mentors do not see mentee-only questions (and vice versa).
How do I turn survey responses into mentor-mentee pairings quickly?
Match in two passes: apply hard constraints first (do-not-match rules, reporting line blocks, language, time zone overlap, and mentor capacity), then compute a simple weighted score for goals/topics/logistics. Finish with a short manual review for edge cases, and document any overrides so you can repeat the process next cohort.
What questions are risky or inappropriate for a mentoring intake survey?
Avoid questions that look like performance evaluation (ratings of managers or coworkers) or anything you would not want shown to a manager. Only ask sensitive or demographic items if you will use them for matching or accessibility; make them optional, add "Prefer not to say," and restrict who can view/export those fields.
How many questions should a mentoring intake survey have?
Aim for 10-18 scored items (rank/rate/multiple choice) plus 1-2 short text fields for context. Use branching so most people finish in under 10 minutes, and keep long open-ended prompts out of the core match so scoring stays fast.
How do we handle participants who want to be both a mentor and a mentee?
Add a "Both" path that shows two short modules: mentor capacity/offers and mentee goals/needs. Then enforce a matching rule that prevents overload (for example, reduce mentor capacity by 1 if the person is also a mentee) and keep do-not-match rules active in both directions.
What should we do immediately after we send matches?
Send a short follow-through package with each introduction: a first-meeting agenda, a few mentorship agreement prompts (goals, cadence, boundaries), and the date of your first check-in. Then run a 2-minute pulse at 30 days to catch non-starts early and offer fast rematches when needed.
Related Survey Templates
FREE TO START -- NO CREDIT CARD REQUIRED