Avneet,
You're right..both are quite useful.
I use the term Mentor to indicate anyone who coaches, counsels, or suggests a new, improved, or alternative action to another. Mentors may even be experienced employees at levels below the incumbent employee; they don't need to be at a higher level.
Example: I took on a position which required knowledge of supply chain management; although I was a Director-level employee, I was mentored by a lower-level supervisor that had enjoyed over 20 years of warehousing experience.
In this case, the mentoring which I received was reversed to the role you explained.
There's no reason, however, to be "hung up" on semantics.
In my mind, the requisite for a mentor is simply someone who has advanced knowledge of a product, service, or process, and is willing to share that knowledge with another; if it's in a buddy-scheme, and both employees are at equivalent levels in a hierarchy, so be it.
As my friend Leo Lingham states,
Rita A Peterson, quoted here on CiteHR several times, in her Guide for Mentoring, lists several attributes:
A mentor is a loyal friend, confidant and advisor
A mentor is a teacher, guide, coach and role model
A mentor is entrusted with the care and education of another
A mentor has knowledge and advanced or expert status
A mentor is attracted to and nurtures a person of talent and ability
A mentor is willing to give away what he or she knows in a non-competitive way
© Guide for Mentoring by Rita A. Petersen
Here are some of the items I identify as requirements for Mentors in my Seminar on Leadership and Mentoring:
1. They are considered by peers to be experts in the field.
2. They set high standards for themselves.
3. They enjoy and are enthusiastic about their field.
4. They continue to update their background in the field.
So, if we accept that Buddies are mentors, and we accept that mentors help employees, then--I'd say, yes, the Buddy system works.
Hope that's helpful.
All the best.
Alan Guinn, Managing Director
The Guinn Consultancy Group, Inc.