Formal mentoring programs: The relationship of program design and support to mentors’ perceptions of benefits and costs

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240 www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Formal mentoring programs: The relationship of program design and support to mentors’ perceptions of benefits and costs q Marc R. Parise a, Monica L. Forret

b,*

a

b

Knox College, 2 East South Street, Galesburg, IL 61401, USA St. Ambrose University, 518 West Locust Street, Davenport, IA 52803, USA Received 1 April 2007 Available online 3 December 2007

Abstract This study investigates the relationship of formal mentoring program design elements (i.e., voluntary participation, input to matching, and effectiveness of training) and management support to the benefits and costs perceived by formal mentors. Data were collected from 97 formal mentors from a Midwestern financial institution. Multiple regressions were performed controlling for time as a mentor in the program, hours spent mentoring, and number of prote´ge´s. Voluntary mentor participation was positively related to perceiving rewarding experiences and negatively related to being more trouble than it was worth. Input to the matching process was negatively related to nepotism, and perceptions of training effectiveness were positively related to generativity. Finally, perceived management support for the program was positively related to rewarding experience and recognition, and negatively related to generativity and bad reflection. Three supplemental group interviews were conducted to further explore some of the survey findings. Directions for future research and implications for formal workplace mentoring programs as well as mentoring programs in cross-disciplinary contexts are discussed. Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Formal mentoring programs; Mentors; Management support; Training; Voluntary participation; Matching; Benefits; Costs

1. Introduction Despite the prevalence of formal mentoring programs in organizations (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006b; Allen & Poteet, 1999; Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003) and concern about their value (Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000), relatively little empirical research has been conducted on formal mentoring

q

Note. The authors would like to thank Sherry Sullivan and Tom Dougherty for their helpful comments on this manuscript. An earlier version of the manuscript was presented at the 2006 Academy of Management Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. * Corresponding author. Fax: +1 563 333 6268. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.R. Parise), [email protected] (M.L. Forret). 0001-8791/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.011

226

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

programs and factors that might improve their effectiveness (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006a; Baugh & FagensonEland, 2007; Wanberg et al., 2003). Most of the studies that have examined formal programs have focused primarily on the career outcomes and psychosocial benefits to the prote´ge´s (e.g., Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Ragins et al., 2000). Given that mentors are vital for the success of formal mentoring programs (Allen & Eby, 2003; Allen et al., 2006a, 2006b; Allen & Poteet, 1999), more research on mentors is critical due to the shortage of mentors in organizations (Allen, 2003; Finkelstein & Poteet, 2007; Ragins & Cotton, 1999) and concerns regarding the usefulness of these programs. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship of key factors in the development and support of a formal mentoring program to the perceived benefits and costs to mentors participating in that program. Four aspects of formal mentoring programs are examined: the extent to which mentor participation is voluntary, the amount of input mentors have into the matching process with their prote´ge´, the perceived effectiveness of the training mentors receive, and the perceived level of management support for the program. Examination of these key factors is important in order to enhance the attractiveness of formal mentoring programs to prospective mentors. Not only is the attraction of mentors important to workplace mentoring programs, but also to formal mentoring programs in other contexts, such as youth mentoring (Big Brothers/Big Sisters) and graduate student–faculty mentoring. Designing and supporting mentoring programs to increase perceived benefits (e.g., recognition, improved job performance) and reduce perceived costs (e.g., mentoring is too time-consuming) to mentors should be helpful in both recruiting and retaining formal mentors (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). 1.1. The mentoring process Mentoring has been defined as a relationship whereby a more senior, experienced individual is committed to providing developmental assistance and guidance to a less experienced prote´ge´ (Kram, 1985). Mentors provide prote´ge´s with career functions and psychosocial support (Kram, 1985). Career functions include providing prote´ge´s with challenging work, coaching, exposure, protection, and sponsorship. These functions ensure increased visibility and learning for prote´ge´s. Psychosocial functions include providing acceptance and confirmation, counseling, friendship and role modeling to prote´ge´s. These psychosocial functions serve to increase the self-worth of prote´ge´s by affirming their identity. In contrast to informal mentoring relationships where the pairing evolves naturally based upon mutual identification and interests (Kram, 1985; Ragins et al., 2000), formal mentoring relationships are developed with organizational assistance where prote´ge´s and mentors are matched through some process (Eby & Lockwood, 2005; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Ragins et al., 2000). Formal mentoring relationships are usually designed for a limited duration, such as one year (Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Scandura & Williams, 2002). One of the primary benefits of formal mentoring programs is that they can be structured to achieve a variety of objectives (Gibb, 1994, 1999; Ragins et al., 2000) such as the career development of high-potential individuals, advancement of women and minorities, and enhanced knowledge-sharing inside the organization (Scandura & Williams, 2002). To motivate mentors to actively participate in such programs, it is important to consider the potential benefits and costs that formal mentors may incur (Allen, 2004; Eby & Lockwood, 2005; Wanberg et al., 2003). 1.2. Mentor benefits and costs Although researchers have investigated factors related to a mentor’s willingness to engage in a mentoring relationship and the benefits and costs mentors may experience (e.g., Allen, Poteet, & Burroughs, 1997; Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1996; Ragins & Scandura, 1994, 1999), the majority of this research has been based upon mentors in informal mentoring relationships. However, research by several authors (e.g., Baugh & FagensonEland, 2007; Eby, Durley, Evans, & Ragins, 2006; Eby & Lockwood, 2005; Wanberg et al., 2003) suggests that benefits (e.g., personal satisfaction) and costs (e.g., dysfunctional relationship) would also appear during formal mentoring. There are many benefits that can be derived from mentoring. First, the personal satisfaction mentors receive from observing and participating in the success of their prote´ge´s (Allen et al., 1997; Eby & Lockwood,

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

227

2005; Kram, 1985) can result in rewarding experiences for them and reinforce their sense of competence and feelings of accomplishment (Kram & Hall, 1989). Second, prote´ge´s can improve the job performance of their mentors by providing them with new perspectives and knowledge (Eby & Lockwood, 2005; Kram & Hall, 1989; Mullen & Noe, 1999). In particular, mentors may benefit by learning new skills, such as those related to emerging technologies, from their prote´ge´s (Kram & Hall, 1996; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Mullen & Noe, 1999). Third, prote´ge´s can become trusted allies (Kram, 1985; Ragins & Scandura, 1999) and form a loyal base of support for their mentors, particularly as the prote´ge´s advance in the organization. Fourth, mentors may gain recognition among peers and superiors for helping to develop high-potential individuals within the organization (Allen et al., 1997; Kram, 1985; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Finally, mentors may experience feelings of generativity or immortality from watching their prote´ge´s succeed (Kram, 1985; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Mentors may see something of themselves in their prote´ge´s (Kram, 1985), and can live vicariously through them by reveling in their successes and coaching them through their failures. Although there are numerous benefits that mentors may experience, there can be significant costs that may deter individuals from accepting a mentoring role. First, mentoring a prote´ge´ who does not perform well can cause a negative reflection on the judgment and competency of the mentor (Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1997; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). An unsuccessful prote´ge´ might put the mentor in the uncomfortable position of having to defend his or her own status and credibility (Allen, 2004; Ragins, 1997; Ragins & Scandura, 1994). Second, dysfunctional relationships occur when the association has deteriorated and becomes unhealthy (Ragins & Scandura, 1994, 1997; Scandura, 1998). For example, mentors may worry that they will be backstabbed or exploited by their prote´ge´s (Allen et al., 1997; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Third, individuals may perceive that being a mentor is not worth the time and effort involved (Allen, 2003; Allen & Eby, 2003; Allen et al., 1997; Ragins & Scandura, 1994, 1997, 1999). The time individuals devote to mentoring has opportunity costs; potential mentors may decide this time could be better spent on other initiatives that would have more instrumental effects on their careers. In addition, scheduling problems and geographic distance can exacerbate time commitment concerns (Eby & Lockwood, 2005). Finally, mentors may face allegations of nepotism if they are viewed by non-mentored individuals as showing favoritism to their prote´ge´s (Ragins & Scandura, 1994, 1999). Jealousy over mentor–prote´ge´ relationships may cause morale issues in a department, and consequently deter individuals from accepting mentoring roles (Allen et al., 1997). 1.3. Relationship of program design and support to perceived benefits and costs The design of a formal mentoring program and the support of management are important to consider from the standpoint of mentor motivation and participation in the program (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2007; de Janasz & Sullivan, 2004; Forret, Turban, & Dougherty, 1996; Kuyper-Rushing, 2001; Scandura & Williams, 2002; Wanberg et al., 2003). Critical factors that are expected to influence the likelihood mentors will perceive their participation in a formal mentoring program as beneficial or costly include: the degree to which mentor participation is voluntary, the amount of input mentors have in the matching process with the prote´ge´, the perceived effectiveness of the training mentors receive, and the perceived level of management support for the program (Ragins et al., 2000; Scandura & Williams, 2002). 1.4. Voluntary participation Although many organizations report voluntary mentor participation in their formal mentoring programs (Forret et al., 1996; Kuyper-Rushing, 2001), the recruitment of mentors is an issue for several (Allen, 2003; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Given the shortage of individuals interested in participating as a mentor, it may be necessary to recruit or draft some potential mentors in order to fill the program’s needs. How the mentor feels about participating may impact the perception of benefits to be received. Those who volunteer for the opportunity may see mentoring as a vehicle for personal development, satisfaction, and challenge (Kram & Hall, 1989). Mentors may direct more attention and effort to the relationship with their prote´ge´s if they are participating voluntarily (Lee, Dougherty, & Turban, 2000). Mandatory participation as a mentor can cause resistance to the formal program (Gibb, 1999) and negatively impact the quality of mentoring (Allen & Poteet, 1999; Finkelstein & Poteet, 2007; Megginson, 2000). In sum, we expect that mentors who voluntarily

228

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

participate in a formal mentoring program are more likely to be receptive to the benefits that might accrue through their involvement. Hypothesis 1a. There will be a positive relationship between voluntary participation and benefits perceived by mentors in a formal mentoring program. In contrast, those who feel coerced into serving as mentors will likely perceive higher costs than those who volunteer. Research has found that individuals vary in their motivation to mentor (Allen, 2003; Aryee et al., 1996). Individuals drafted into the program may be unwilling to give up their time for a responsibility that was unwanted (Allen, 2003; Ragins & Scandura, 1994). They may feel burdened by the process (Scandura & Williams, 2002) and believe their participation will interfere with other responsibilities causing a decrease in productivity and performance-based rewards (Allen & Eby, 2003). Those who are forced to mentor may become resentful about their involvement (Kram & Hall, 1996), resulting in increased stress or indifference (Boyatzis, Smith, & Blaize, 2006) that may ultimately defeat the purpose of the program (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2007). Hypothesis 1b. There will be a negative relationship between voluntary participation and costs perceived by mentors in a formal mentoring program. 1.5. Input to matching The perception of mentor benefits may be related to the method used to match the pairs. Mentoring programs vary in the amount and form of participation in the matching process (Finkelstein & Poteet, 2007). Allowing the mentor to have a say in the selection process, rather than simply having a third party make the mentor–prote´ge´ assignments, provides the mentor with more control over the relationship (Allen et al., 2006b) and may increase the probability that more benefits will be derived from the program (Lee et al., 2000). According to the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), individuals are attracted to those they perceive as more similar to themselves. The ability to be able to choose a prote´ge´ who is perceived to be compatible, and who shares similar interests, goals or background with the mentor should make communication easier and the relationship more enjoyable (Lee et al., 2000; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1979). Research has found greater mentor–prote´ge´ similarity to be related to mentors’ reports of higher quality relationships and learning (Allen & Eby, 2003). Furthermore, recent research has shown mentor input to the matching process to be related to greater commitment of the mentor and enhanced understanding of the mentoring program; both of which positively influenced the perceived effectiveness of the program (Allen et al., 2006b). Also, mentors who had a voice in the matching process perceived the mentoring relationship to be of higher quality and provided greater career mentoring (Allen et al., 2006a). Overall, having input to the matching process should increase the likelihood that mentors should derive more benefits from the experience. Hypothesis 2a. There will be a positive relationship between input to the matching process and benefits perceived by mentors in a formal mentoring program. A mentor who did not have voice in the matching process may perceive higher costs from being involved in the program. There is a better chance to form a relationship when personalities mesh (Kram & Hall, 1996) and when two people see their own similarities and reasons why they may get along. Mentors who do not have input to the matching process may perceive the match as incompatible, lessening the probability that the pair can achieve a relationship that will endure (Ragins, 1997). A poor match can cause the mentor to resent his or her involvement (Kram & Hall, 1996) and ultimately provide fewer mentoring functions for the prote´ge´ (Allen et al., 2006a). With an opportunity to get to know the prote´ge´ before the match, a mentor may be able to screen out a prote´ge´ who is perceived as incompatible resulting in fewer perceived costs to the relationship (Lee et al., 2000; Ragins & Scandura, 1994, 1999). However, it should be noted that a lack of input from the mentor does not necessarily result in a bad match. There are many alternative ways that matching can be done (e.g., Forret et al., 1996). For instance, if the match is made by a program coordinator based on information that is germane, a bad match may not result even though the mentor did not have input. But overall, we believe that mentors will perceive fewer costs if they are able to express their preferences for the match.

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

229

Hypothesis 2b. There will be a negative relationship between input to the matching process and costs perceived by mentors in a formal mentoring program. 1.6. Training effectiveness Training is considered a key component of formal mentoring success (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2007; Kuyper-Rushing, 2001; Lee et al., 2000; Megginson, 2000; Ragins et al., 2000), especially because first time formal mentors may have no experience to draw upon. The relatively short duration of a formal program (often one year or less) requires that participants are able to work toward their objectives immediately. Training can play an important role in getting started (Scandura & Williams, 2002), and should help prepare mentors for their responsibilities, manage their expectations (Finkelstein & Poteet, 2007), and increase their personal competency and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1995). Using training to communicate the benefits of mentoring may be useful for recruiting mentors to the program and for setting realistic expectations (Eby et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2000). Allen et al. (2006b) recently found that mentors who received training had greater understanding of the formal mentoring program, higher commitment to the relationship, and perceived the program to be more effective. Also, their results showed that perceptions of the quality of training were positively related to program understanding and perceived program effectiveness. Furthermore, mentors who evaluate the training as more effective also tend to report providing more psychosocial mentoring (Allen et al., 2006a). Overall, effective training is likely to help improve the perception of benefits that mentors can derive because they should have an increased awareness of benefits, a more rewarding and fulfilling experience, and improved performance and commitment as a mentor (Allen et al., 2006a, 2006b; Finkelstein & Poteet, 2007). Hypothesis 3a. There will be a positive relationship between perceptions of training effectiveness and benefits perceived by mentors in a formal mentoring program. Inadequate training of the participants can cause frustration and may keep the mentoring relationship at a superficial level (Kram & Hall, 1996). Training should include an explanation of the objectives of the program, a discussion of the career and psychosocial functions, tactical suggestions on individual goal setting, and guidance on how often to meet and other items to facilitate communication and the development of a personal relationship (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2007; Finkelstein & Poteet, 2007). Inadequate training increases the likelihood goals of the program will not be achieved. This can be due in part to the greater ambiguity that mentors experience owing to a lack of understanding of their roles and responsibilities (Eby & Lockwood, 2005; Gibb, 1999) and inability to handle difficult problems that might arise. Thus, we expect that mentors who believe they received insufficient training will be more likely to perceive greater costs associated with the formal mentoring experience. Hypothesis 3b. There will be a negative relationship between perceptions of training effectiveness and costs perceived by mentors in a formal mentoring program. 1.7. Management support The level of management support is also expected to impact the benefits perceived by mentors (Scandura & Williams, 2002; Wanberg et al., 2003). However, very little research has examined this issue. One recent study by Eby, Lockwood, and Butts (2006) found that mentors who perceived management support for mentoring were more likely to view mentoring as beneficial to both mentors and prote´ge´s. Visible and sincere support by management serves as a message to the entire organization of the importance of the program and that mentoring serves a valuable role within the organization (Gibb, 1994). The commitment of the CEO in the Sontag, Vappie, and Wanberg (2007) case study was cited as an important factor to the success of that program. The support of management helps ensure that resources are available to facilitate the success of the program. Therefore, mentors should have higher expectancies that the efforts they expend will result in achievement of the desired outcomes (Nadler & Lawler, 2001). In general, mentors are more likely to perceive benefits (e.g., recognition) from participating in the program when they believe it is valued by management.

230

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

Hypothesis 4a. There will be a positive relationship between perceptions of management support and benefits perceived by mentors in a formal mentoring program. In their study of two formal mentoring programs, management support was cited as a major challenge (Raabe & Beehr, 2003). Without strong support by management, it is possible that a formal mentoring program may be considered a passing fad (Sontag et al., 2007), undeserving of serious involvement by the mentors. Being a mentor is usually not part of the job description (Ragins & Scandura, 1994). A mentor may be perceived as wasting time on an unimportant initiative if the mentor’s superior does not value the mentoring program. In fact, the mentor’s participation may actually come under scrutiny (Allen, 2004) and the mentor’s rapport and reputation with his or her superior may suffer. On the other hand, when management shows strong support for the mentoring program, mentors are likely to perceive lower costs for their participation. Hypothesis 4b. There will be a negative relationship between perceptions of management support and costs perceived by mentors in a formal mentoring program. 2. Method 2.1. Setting and sample This study investigates the relationship of formal mentoring program design and support to the benefits and costs perceived by formal mentors in a high-performing Midwestern financial institution. The formal mentoring program had been in existence for three years during a period that could be described as quiet with no mergers, layoffs, or other major events affecting personnel. The mentoring program was designed with a goal to improve the diversity at all levels of management; specifically to increase the number of female managers throughout the company, although it was open to all employees. The program was advertised via company intranet communications, lunchroom postings, paycheck announcements and word-of-mouth from managers. An extra effort was made to communicate the establishment of the program to females as well as to encourage them to participate as prote´ge´s. In addition, all management trainees were required to participate as prote´ge´s, and those who were designated as high-potential individuals were strongly encouraged to participate. The program was not intended to improve results from underperforming individuals, resulting in a pool of prote´ge´s attractive to mentors. The mentors held a wide variety of positions in every department of the organization. The mentoring program had generally been short several mentors to satisfy all of the prote´ge´s’ requests to be matched. The first mentors volunteered, but it became evident that not enough mentors were participating. Top management then specifically asked individuals who represented the best role models in the company to be mentors. These included the more senior managers, the more successful middle managers, and the high-performing non-managers in the organization. As such, there was a mix of volunteers and draftees in the program. The level of input to the matching process has varied throughout the program. The matching process was more social in the first year of the program, with face-to-face gatherings where mentors were able to meet in an informal setting with prote´ge´s prior to pairing. Mentors and prote´ge´s each made a list of three prote´ge´s or mentors that they would like to be paired. To the extent possible, these requests were granted. As the program grew, this method became unwieldy and the coordinators of the program made the assignments, except in cases where a specific request to be matched was received. The program coordinators had to re-match three pairs because of problems experienced in the relationship, and another four pairs due to employee turnover. Training for the program had been designed so the expectations of both mentors and prote´ge´s were discussed at the onset of the relationship. The training program had been improved since the inception of the program when it was basically non-existent (e.g., mentors received information over the telephone providing specific details). The program coordinators revised the training based on concerns expressed by mentors desiring more role clarity as to what they should be doing. However, internal surveys of the mentors and prote´ge´s on the value of the improved training have been mixed. The revised training consisted of a powerpoint presentation that described a definition of mentoring, why the program was established, roles, relationships, benefits, outcomes, and a suggested process to follow. Prote´ge´s and mentors were trained separately, but received

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

231

identical training materials. They were sent away from the training session with a set of guidelines and forms to fill out as a pair. These consisted primarily of setting goals and objectives, determining how they would be achieved, and in what time frame. The mentors and prote´ge´s set their own expectations of outcomes within their dyads. The objectives were personal to each dyad and were not required to be shared with anyone else. Furthermore, although management support was visible at the onset of the program (e.g., the CEO served as a mentor), there was some concern that management support for the program had become less noticeable. There was more publicity for the mentoring program when it started; however, the program had not been a topic of recent management discussions in quite some time. 2.2. Procedures A survey instrument was developed and sent by interoffice mail with a return envelope to all 116 mentors in the formal mentoring program. The mentors were informed that their survey responses would be anonymous, and that if they had multiple mentoring experiences, to refer to their overall mentoring experience in the program when completing the survey instrument. Mentors were instructed to respond about their attitudes with regards to participation in the formal mentoring program at their organization. An incentive to return the survey was offered. For every survey returned, $2.00 would be donated to the local chapter of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, a charitable organization that provides mentors for children. If a response rate of 90% was achieved, the donation would be doubled. Reminder e-mails were sent after one week and two weeks. A total of 97 mentors responded for a response rate of 84%. Although slightly short of the goal, the donation was doubled and the mentors received a third e-mail thanking them and informing them that a charitable donation of $400 would be made. The 97 respondents were composed of 71% managers and 29% non-managers. Just over one-half (54%) were female. Of the 97 mentors, 40 were in their first year of the program, 29 were in their second year, and 28 were in their third year. Most of the respondents (56%) spent an hour or less per month mentoring; 38% spent two to three hours; and 6% spent four or more hours. Although the time spent mentoring appears small, the mentors and prote´ge´s were instructed to contact each other on a monthly basis. Of the respondents, 67 mentors currently had one prote´ge´; 9 had two prote´ge´s; and 21 did not currently have a prote´ge´ in the program. 2.3. Independent variables Scales assessing voluntary participation, input to matching, training effectiveness, and management support were created for use in this study or adapted from Ragins et al. (2000). The four independent variables were each measured on a five-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. To examine whether the four constructs were distinct, utilizing recommendations by Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan (1999), a principal axis factor analysis with a promax rotation was performed. Results of the factor analysis and scale items are shown in Table 1. With the exception of item 11 which was dropped due to its low factor loading, results loaded cleanly on the four independent variables providing evidence for discriminant validity. Consequently, voluntary participation was measured with five items (a = .76), input to matching with two items (a = .67), training effectiveness with three items (a = .83), and management support with five items (a = .81). 2.4. Dependent variables The perceptions of mentor benefits and costs were measured using the scale developed by Ragins and Scandura (1994, 1999). All items were measured using a five-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. A higher value on the scale represents the perception of greater benefits and costs. The scale is composed of five benefit and four cost subscales. The psychometric validity of the scale has been demonstrated in Ragins and Scandura (1994, 1999). In addition, we conducted a factor analysis on the benefits and costs scale. The results provided evidence for the subscales in our sample.

232

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

Table 1 Rotated factor analysis of program design and support variables Item 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Management support Participation in the program is voluntary for mentors I agreed to become a mentor because I was told to (reversed scored) I was drafted to be a mentor for this program (reversed scored) I volunteered to be a mentor in this program Participating in the program as a mentor is mandatory (reversed scored) I chose my prote´ge´ I had input to the selection of my prote´ge´ I was adequately trained to be a mentor The training for mentors in the program is effective Mentors in the program need additional training (reversed scored) I received training for the mentoring program My supervisor supports my involvement in the mentoring program Senior management supports the mentoring program The organization recognizes the importance of the mentoring program My prote´ge´’s manager supports the mentoring program Support for the mentoring program has been communicated throughout the organization

0.18 0.08 0.23 0.26 0.29 0.06 0.24 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.72 0.89 0.49 0.71 0.44

Training effectiveness 0.05 0.19 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.86 0.87 0.75 0.32 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.28 0.33

Voluntary participation 0.56 0.78 0.61 0.88 0.51 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.06 0.08

Input to matching 0.29 0.06 0.15 0.18 0.27 0.67 0.75 0.15 0.18 0.23 0.14 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.16

Note. The numbers in bold represent items used to create the scale for that factor.

The five benefit subscales include: rewarding experience (seven items, e.g., ‘‘Mentoring makes one feel better about oneself,’’ a = .77), loyal base of support (two items, e.g., ‘‘Prote´ge´s are trusted allies for their mentors,’’ a = .75), recognition (three items, e.g., ‘‘Mentors achieve recognition from their superiors for developing the talent of their prote´ge´s,’’ a = .80), improved job performance (six items, e.g., ‘‘One’s job performance is likely to improve when one becomes a mentor,’’ a = .85), and generativity (three items, e.g., ‘‘Mentors are able to relive their lives through their prote´ge´s,’’ a = .77). The four cost subscales are: bad reflection (three items, e.g., ‘‘A poor prote´ge´ can ruin a mentor’s reputation,’’ a = .84), more trouble than it’s worth (four items, e.g., ‘‘Mentoring takes more time than it’s worth,’’ a = .86), dysfunctional relationship (five items, e.g., ‘‘Mentors can be backstabbed by opportunistic prote´ge´s,’’ a = .73), and nepotism (three items, e.g., ‘‘Mentors are often viewed by others as giving unfair advantages to their prote´ge´s,’’ a = .80). 2.5. Control variables Those who have served as a mentor longer, who spend more hours mentoring, and who have a greater number of prote´ge´s may be more likely to experience benefits through their greater mentoring activity, but also more likely to experience costs. For example, if a mentor has more prote´ge´s then the mentor might perceive a larger base of support in the organization. On the other hand, having a lot of prote´ge´s might also lead a mentor to feel that mentoring is taking up too much time and effort. As such, these three variables were included as controls in this study. How long as a mentor was measured by asking mentors how long they have been in the formal mentoring program. Responses were coded as 1 = one year, 2 = two years, and 3 = three years. Hours spent mentoring was assessed by asking mentors how many hours per month they spend mentoring. Responses were coded as 1 = one hour or less, 2 = two to three hours, 3 = four to six hours, 4 = seven to 10 hours, and 5 = 11 or more hours per month. Finally, mentors were asked the number of prote´ge´s they currently have in the program. Responses were coded as 0 = none, 1 = one, 2 = two, 3 = three, and 4 = four or more. 3. Results Correlations, means, and standard deviations are shown in Table 2. An examination of the means of the variables showed that respondents reported rewarding experience (M = 3.97) as the highest perceived benefit, followed by improved job performance (M = 3.52), recognition (M = 3.18), loyal base of support (M = 2.91),

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

233

Table 2 Correlations, means, and standard deviations for the study variables (N = 97) Mean SD 1 1. Voluntary participation 2. Input to matching process 3. Training effectiveness 4. Management support 5. Rewarding experience 6. Loyal base of support 7. Recognition 8. Improved job performance 9. Generativity 10. Bad reflection 11. More trouble than it’s worth 12. Dysfunctional relationship 13. Nepotism 14. How long as a mentor 15. Hours spent mentoring 16. Number of prote´ge´s

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 15 16

3.92

.67

(.76)

2.61

.99

.06

(.67)

2.86

.86

.29

.07

(.83)

3.79

.58

.21

.24

.34

(.81)

3.97

.39

.37

.03

.21

.30

(.77)

2.91

.63

.07

.08

.13

.07

.12

(.75)

3.18 3.52

.68 .53

.07 .24

.15 .04

.07 .18

.18 .15

.10 .61

.04 .26

(.80) .23

(.85)

2.20 2.21 1.88

.70 .67 .59

.01 .03 .42

.08 .06 .13

.12 .10 .14

.25 .26 .25

.03 .05 .57

.26 .04 .04

.13 .20 .10

.08 .02 .23

(.77) .19 .03

(.84) .13

(.86)

2.22

.61

.07

.17

.03

.08

.29

.32

.15

.13

.17

.23

.34

(.73)

2.46 1.88

.76 .83

.11 .07

.30 .13

.10 .12

.18 .01

.19 .01

.14 .05

.18 .03

.06 .03

.13 .09

.39 .18

.32 .06

.50 .06

1.54

.72

.08

.31

.02

.22

.21

.05

.20

.15

.04

.12

.17

.04

.02

.15 —

.88

.55

.11

.16

.07

.15

.02

.05

.09

.04

.17

.04

.02

.04

.06

.15 .14 —

(.80) .04 —

Note. The number in the parentheses on the diagonal is the coefficient alpha for that scale. Correlations P.20 are significant at the p 6 .05 level. Correlations P.26 are significant at the p 6 .01 level.

and generativity (M = 2.20). Respondents reported that nepotism (M = 2.46) was the highest perceived cost, followed by dysfunctional relationship (M = 2.22), bad reflection (M = 2.21) and more trouble than it’s worth (M = 1.88). Correlation analysis showed that voluntary participation was significantly related to rewarding experience (r = .37), improved job performance (r = .24), and more trouble than it’s worth (r = .42) in the anticipated direction. Input to the matching process was negatively related to nepotism (r = .30), and perceived training effectiveness was positively related to rewarding experience (r = .21). Finally, perceived management support was associated in the expected direction with rewarding experience (r = .30), bad reflection (r = .26), and more trouble than it’s worth (r = .25), but was unexpectedly negatively related with generativity (r = .25). To test our hypotheses, multiple regressions were performed with the control variables included. Regression results are shown in Table 3. Hypothesis 1a proposed a positive relationship between voluntary participation and benefits perceived by mentors. Voluntary participation was significantly related to rewarding experience (b = .32), providing some support for Hypothesis 1a. In Hypothesis 1b, we expected a negative relationship between voluntary participation and costs perceived by mentors. Voluntary participation was negatively related with more trouble than it’s worth (b = .40), providing partial support for this hypothesis. Hypothesis 2a was not supported. Contrary to our expectations, there were no significant relationships between input to the matching process and benefits perceived by mentors. However, input to matching was negatively related with nepotism (b = .33), providing partial support for Hypothesis 2b. That is, a lack of input to the matching process was associated with higher perceptions of nepotism. In Hypothesis 3a, we anticipated a positive relationship between the effectiveness of training and benefits perceived by mentors. Regression analysis showed a significant relationship between training effectiveness and generativity (b = .27),

234

Benefits Rewarding experience

Costs Loyal base of support

Recognition

Improved job performance

Generativity

Bad reflection

More trouble than it’s worth

Dysfunctional relationship

Nepotism

Control variables How long as a mentor Hours spent mentoring Number of prote´ge´s

.04 .19 .05

.07 .08 .03

.07 .23* .09

.01 .15 .08

.02 .10 .24*

.19 .06 .12

.03 .10 .08

.07 .11 .09

.07 .08 .11

Independent variables Voluntary participation Input to matching Training effectiveness Management support

.32** .15 .03 .22*

.12 .13 .17 .02

.04 .17 .04 .26*

.20 .11 .08 .08

.04 .04 .27* .38**

.02 .04 .03 .29*

.40** .05 .04 .16

.08 .18 .08 .09

.07 .33** .08 .09

R2 Adjusted R2

.24** .18

.05 .03

.13 .06

.11 .03

.18* .11

.12 .05

.22** .16

.06 .02

.14 .07

Note. The regression coefficients shown are standardized. * p 6 .05. ** p 6 .01.

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

Table 3 Regression analyses (N = 97)

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

235

providing some support for Hypothesis 3a. Training effectiveness showed no significant relationships with any of the cost variables, thus Hypothesis 3b was not supported. Hypothesis 4a proposed a positive relationship between management support and benefits perceived by mentors. Regression results showed a significant positive relationship with rewarding experience (b = .22) and recognition (b = .26). Surprisingly, management support was negatively related with generativity (b = .38). Overall, these results provide mixed support for Hypothesis 4a. Finally, management support was negatively related with bad reflection (b = .29), providing some support for Hypothesis 4b. Mentors who perceive management support is lacking for the mentoring program are more likely to believe prote´ge´ failure may cast a bad reflection on them. Of the control variables, hours spent mentoring was negatively related with recognition (b = .23). The more time spent mentoring, the less recognition mentors perceived for their efforts. In addition, the number of prote´ge´s was positively associated with generativity (b = .24). Mentors with more prote´ge´s tended to feel they were influencing the future generation and leaving their mark on the organization. In addition to the above analyses, we also tested for mediation using the procedures described by Baron and Kenny (1986). Although not hypothesized, it may be that the control variables are serving as mediators between the formal mentoring program design and support variables and the benefit and cost dependent variables. For instance, if mentors perceive management support, they may devote more time to mentoring and subsequently have a more rewarding experience. Furthermore, it may be that the benefit and cost variables are serving as mediators between the mentoring program design and support variables and the control variables. For example, if mentors perceive management support, they may then perceive more benefits and fewer costs to mentoring, and subsequently spend more time with their prote´ge´s. We tested both types of mediation models; however, we found no evidence of mediation in our data. 3.1. Supplemental group interviews In light of our surprise at some of the findings (e.g., the lack of results for input to matching and training effectiveness), we conducted group interviews with some of the formal mentors. Three group interviews were held with a total of 10 individuals (five men and five women). At least three individuals participated in each group interview. Each interview lasted 1 12 hours and was conducted by one of the study’s authors. A note taker was present to record the information provided. Participants in the group interviews were informed in advance and at the session that their participation was voluntary and their names would not be recorded. We asked the group participants if it was important to them to have ‘‘input’’ as to who became their prote´ge´. Several respondents said ‘‘no.’’ There seemed to be a feeling this was just part of the job and one should accept who they were given. A couple of the participants indicated that they would like to have veto power as illustrated by the following comment: ‘‘Would hope they would ask. If there was some kind of complication, you could say no.’’ There was some concern expressed by the mentors about having the background the prote´ge´ wanted. One mentor indicated that, ‘‘I was assigned a prote´ge´ from a different area and was concerned as to what I could offer in the mentoring relationship. Once we got talking about what the prote´ge´ wanted to get out of the mentoring relationship, then it became rewarding—benefiting both mentor and prote´ge´.’’ It was clear from the group interviews that the weight of the decision should be given to the prote´ge´: ‘‘We want the prote´ge´ to have more say. The prote´ge´’s request should have 75% of the weight, the mentor 25%.’’ and ‘‘It is important for a prote´ge´ to have input on who will be their mentor. A prote´ge´ might prefer a mentor from a specific area in the bank.’’ It was evident from the group interviews that the training did indeed evolve during the course of the program as illustrated by one participant’s comment that the ‘‘Process has gone through several changes. Depends on when you went through the program.’’ Some respondents received information over the telephone that provided some details (e.g., guidelines on meeting, conversations are confidential) whereas others attended formal training sessions. When asked what the mentors would like to see included in the training program, their responses revolved primarily around needing more information in terms of expectations and direction. Others indicated that they ‘‘Would like to see more goals to work toward. Here are the areas mentors should focus on.’’ One participant mentioned the difficulty in getting the relationship going and how training could help accomplish that task. ‘‘Training needs to help mentors learn how to identify what the prot-

236

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

e´ge´ is looking for. Help the mentors learn how to interact with prote´ge´s.’’ Furthermore, in all three group interviews there was wide agreement that mentors needed sessions to share ideas with other mentors as illustrated by the following comment: ‘‘Mentors could share their own best practices. Have other mentors tell what worked, how to solve a problem. I didn’t know how or who to ask for help. I didn’t ask another mentor.’’ 4. Discussion Formal mentoring programs are sometimes viewed by organizational members as another fad that will soon pass (Sontag et al., 2007), and perhaps that is why relatively little research exists on formal mentoring programs. However, these programs continue to persist in organizations although concerns remain as to their effectiveness in developing prote´ge´s (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2007; Wanberg et al., 2003). In light of this, more research is needed to examine how the design and support of these programs is related to both prote´ge´ and mentor outcomes. This study contributes to our existing knowledge by examining the relationship of important factors in the design and support of formal mentoring programs to mentors’ perceptions of benefits and costs. Previous research on formal programs has tended to focus solely on the prote´ge´, without considering the unique role that the mentor plays in the relationship. This study builds on recent efforts (e.g., Allen et al., 2006a, 2006b; Eby & Lockwood, 2005) to investigate issues pertaining to mentors in formal mentoring relationships. Our results indicate that key elements are related to mentors’ perceptions of benefits and costs. Mentors whose participation in the program was more of a voluntary nature were more likely to perceive it to be a rewarding experience. Sharing their experiences with a prote´ge´ can provide intrinsic satisfaction to the mentors as they help their prote´ge´s navigate the organizational landscape (Kram, 1985). Furthermore, voluntary participation was related to mentors not perceiving the program as more trouble than it was worth. They may believe the program is a worthwhile effort to provide guidance to prote´ge´s who desire their assistance, and is a cost effective method of developing talent in the organization. Because the literature emphasizes the importance of the mentor–prote´ge´ matching process (Allen et al., 2006a, 2006b; de Janasz & Sullivan, 2004; Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000; Scandura & Williams, 2001), we were surprised that having input into the matching process was only negatively related with perceptions of nepotism. Having more input to the matching process was associated with lower perceptions of nepotism. At first glance, this finding seems counterintuitive, in that mentors who have input to the matching process may be viewed as selecting a ‘favorite’ for a prote´ge´, thus enhancing the perceptions of nepotism. It may be that having input to the matching process results in fewer questions as to why a mentor was paired with a particular prote´ge´. That is, a lack of knowledge as to how the pairing occurred may be more likely to result in political behavior (Kacmar & Baron, 1999), and resultant jealousy and concerns about favoritism. Data from the group interviews suggest that the mentors in this program were ambivalent as to how they were paired. Since the mentoring program was developed to benefit the prote´ge´s, the mentors may be primarily concerned with satisfying the prote´ge´s’ needs and are thereby willing to work with whomever they are paired. Future research should examine the importance of the mentor’s preferences to the matching process. Training is considered to be an important piece of formal mentoring success (Allen et al., 2006a, 2006b; Kuyper-Rushing, 2001). However, our results show that perceptions of training effectiveness were positively related to feelings of generativity only. Mentors may be better able to convey their experience and expertise to their prote´ge´s as a result of effective training, which increases the likelihood of influencing their prote´ge´s’ behavior. Leaving a legacy by influencing future generations of employees may be one benefit discussed in training that mentors may not have considered previously. Furthermore, Allen et al. (2006a) found that mentors who perceived training to be of higher quality provided greater psychosocial mentoring. Perhaps offering friendship and affirmation to the prote´ge´ helps the mentor attain generativity. Contrary to our expectations, the effectiveness of the training was not related to any of the other benefit or cost variables. Future research should examine the types of training mentors receive and how the effectiveness of different aspects of mentor training impacts perceptions of benefits and costs. Finally, management support had the most number of statistically significant relationships with benefits and costs. The perceived level of management support was positively related to rewarding experience and recognition and negatively related to generativity and bad reflection. Mentors may feel rewarded and recognized

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

237

because managers are supporting their involvement in the program. If senior management views the mentoring program as an important initiative for developing employees, the mentors may be recognized as contributing to the effort. Furthermore, it is less likely that a mentor would receive a negative reflection from a poorly performing prote´ge´ when management is supporting the process. Superiors might be expected to look favorably upon all who are participating in an initiative they have endorsed, and realize that while the mentor’s role is to provide assistance to prote´ge´s, not all of these prote´ge´s are likely to overcome the difficulties they are encountering. The negative relationship between management support and generativity was unexpected. One explanation may be that mentors are participating because of the visible support of top management, and not for other more intrinsic reasons. Mentors might be less apt to feel they are leaving their mark on future generations because their participation in the mentoring program helps fulfill the desires of management rather than their own. Alternatively, individual differences such as a mentor’s level of altruism or motivation to mentor may provide further insight into this negative relationship and should be explored in future research. 4.1. Limitations of study There are several limitations of this research that need to be addressed. The study was completed within one financial institution and in a relatively young program (3 years). It is possible that organizations in different industries or with more mature programs may show a different pattern of relationships between key elements of the formal mentoring program examined here and mentors’ perceptions of benefits and costs. In addition, as the program went through several changes (e.g., how individuals were matched, type of training received) across the three year period, this raises concerns of history threats to internal validity. However, we note that there were no major changes affecting personnel during this time period in the organization. Furthermore, although the program was open to everyone and included all management trainees and other high-potential prote´ge´s, its primary goal was to improve the gender diversity at all levels of management. As such, caution needs to be taken as the findings may not be generalizable to other formal mentoring programs with different objectives. Although the sample size was small (N = 97) and may have limited our ability to obtain results, the response rate to the mail survey was very high at 84%, and the demographic composition of the survey respondents did mirror the demographics in terms of gender and position in the company. Common method variance is a concern given that a self-report survey was utilized to collect the data. To test for common method variance, we conducted Harman’s one-factor test by including the study variables in an unrotated factor analysis (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The results broke into several factors, providing some evidence against serious method variance problems in the data. Furthermore, statements about causality cannot be made. Although in most instances it seems likely that the program design variables (e.g., input to matching) would precede the perceived costs and benefits, this may not always be the case. For example, it may be that individuals who believe that the mentoring experience will be rewarding are be more likely to volunteer for the mentoring program. 4.2. Implications and directions for future research The results of this study have identified program design and support elements that may be useful in improving the outcomes of formal mentoring programs by increasing the perceptions of benefits and reducing the perceptions of costs for mentors. Although our findings were mixed, the results illustrate the importance of voluntary participation and management support for mentors in a formal program. It is critical to have voluntary participation by mentors if a program is to flourish. Future research should investigate the utility of different methods to encourage voluntary participation. For instance, asking those who have volunteered in the past to recruit new mentors for the program may be one fruitful method since they will be able to articulate the benefits they have received and relieve concerns prospective mentors may have as to the amount of time and effort involved. Also, given research findings that former prote´ge´s express greater willingness to mentor (e.g., Bozionelos, 2004; Ragins & Cotton, 1993), asking individuals known to be beneficiaries of mentoring to serve as a mentor may be another useful recruiting technique.

238

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

This study also shows that visible support from management may be effective in helping to attract and retain mentors. Those who felt the program was supported perceived the mentoring experience as rewarding, felt they received recognition for their efforts, and were less likely to believe their careers were threatened by poorly performing prote´ge´s. To gain mentor involvement, management needs to show strong, consistent, and visible support for the program. If potential mentors believe the mentoring program is an important organizational initiative, they should be much more likely to participate. There was concern expressed that visible management support for this program had declined since its inception, which may have resulted in perceptions of lower benefits and higher costs as well as fewer individuals participating as mentors in the program. Future research should examine what management behaviors demonstrate support to program participants. For example, having top executives serve as mentors, publicizing the successes of the formal mentoring program, providing financial support for the program (e.g., dinners or outings for the participants), and providing rewards or recognition for the mentors are different methods for showing support that may be more or less effective. In addition, our management support variable measured different types of support (e.g., support from the mentor’s supervisor, senior management, the organization, and the prote´ge´’s manager). Future research using more established scales should examine whether the various types of support impact costs and benefits differently. Although the mentoring literature supports the importance of the matching process for prote´ge´ outcomes (Allen et al., 2006a, 2006b; Eby et al., 2000; Scandura & Williams, 2001, see Ragins et al., 2000, for an exception), input to matching was not shown to be related to mentors’ perceptions of benefits or costs, with the exception of nepotism. However, prior research has shown mentor input to the matching process to be important for the overall success of the program (Allen et al., 2006b), perceptions of the quality of the relationship, and the level of career mentoring provided (Allen et al., 2006a). Matching can influence the commitment of the mentor and how well mentors understand the objectives and goals of the mentoring program (Allen et al., 2006b). Future research should examine how input to the matching process relates to other aspects of relationship development for mentors. Similarly, although the perceived adequacy of the training showed a significant relationship with only one of the benefits and none of the costs to mentors, it is still a critical aspect of formal mentoring programs that enhance their effectiveness (Allen et al., 2006a, 2006b; Scandura & Williams, 2002). Future research should examine how mentors’ perceptions of training effectiveness relate to other desired outcomes of formal mentoring programs. Besides their implications for the workplace, our results also have implications for mentoring relationships in other contexts such as faculty–student mentoring relationships and youth mentoring. For instance, in their study of the mentoring of doctoral students, Green and Bauer (1995) found that student potential influenced the amount of mentoring provided by a faculty advisor. One implication of our results is that future research studies on faculty–student relationships should examine the degree of support by management in the form of department chairs and deans to test how their support is related to the level of mentoring provided by faculty and the benefits and costs faculty incur. Faculty who clearly see a high level of support from the administration for mentoring may be more likely to volunteer to mentor students. Also in an academic context, Feldman, Folks, and Turnley (1999) examined the amount of mentoring received by 138 student interns on six-month overseas assignments. Their results showed that interns who were different in nationality and gender from their mentors in the multinational organization to which they were assigned received less mentoring. These results suggest that training may be more critical for mentors when such unique circumstances exist, and that voluntary participation and management support may be especially important for successful international internship assignments. It was very interesting to note the contrast on input to the matching process in the workplace (in our sample at least) compared with the importance of matching for youth mentoring relationships. In Big Brothers Big Sisters there is a careful matching process based on personalities, preferences, and location, but the final decision on who to be paired with is decided by the mentor (Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, 2004). Also, Project SEED, which is administered by the American Chemical Society to help provide youth from disadvantaged backgrounds with opportunities to conduct chemically-related research projects with scientists, leaves the final choice of a student to mentor up to the scientist (American Chemical Society, 2007). This is not surprising in light of concerns regarding youth mentoring and the voluntary context in which it takes place, but it certainly contrasted with the mentors in our financial institution who appeared to take the stance of accepting

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

239

prote´ge´s they were assigned as part of their job duties. Furthermore, in their handbook for students, mentors, and coordinators, Project SEED also clearly articulates the potential benefits for scientists to encourage them to volunteer as mentors (American Chemical Society, 2007). Our results on voluntary participation suggest that such information could improve the experience for the mentors. In sum, the study of formal mentoring programs is an important area for future research in view of their pervasiveness and the potential they hold for becoming a significant developmental tool in the workplace as well as in other contexts. However, little is known about the mentors in these programs (Allen et al., 2006a, 2006b), and what might encourage or deter them from providing developmental assistance to their prote´ge´s. As such, more research on how to design and support formal mentoring programs to increase the motivation and ability of mentors is needed. References Allen, T. D. (2003). Mentoring others: A dispositional and motivational approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 134–154. Allen, T. D. (2004). Prote´ge´ selection by mentors: Contributing individual and organizational factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 469–483. Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2003). Relationship effectiveness for mentors: Factors associated with learning and quality. Journal of Management, 29, 469–486. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006a). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: Closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 567–578. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006b). The relationship between formal mentoring program characteristics and perceived program effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 59, 125–153. Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (1999). Developing effective mentoring relationships: Strategies from the mentor’s viewpoint. The Career Development Quarterly, 48, 59–73. Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Burroughs, S. M. (1997). The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 70–89. American Chemical Society (2007). Project SEED: Student, mentor, and coordinator handbook. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from https://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/CTP_005070/pdf/CTP_005070.pdf. Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among managerial employees. Group & Organization Management, 21, 261–277. Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Baugh, S. G., & Fagenson-Eland, E. A. (2007). Formal mentoring programs: A ‘‘poor cousin’’ to informal relationships? In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 249–271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (2004). Big brothers big sisters service delivery model. Retrieved on September 6, 2007, from http:// agencyconnection.bbbs.org/atf/cf/%7B4CA344D5-890B-48AA-A80B-3EE1364E3AB7%7D/SDM_PART_1_Manual_-_Sept_04.doc. Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. (2006). Developing sustainable leaders through coaching and compassion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, 8–24. Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, personality, and mentoring received. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 24–46. Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636. de Janasz, S. C., & Sullivan, S. E. (2004). Multiple mentoring in academe: Developing the professorial network. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 263–283. Eby, L. T., Durley, J. R., Evans, S. C., & Ragins, R. R. (2006). The relationship between short-term mentoring benefits and long-term mentor outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 424–444. Eby, L. T., & Lockwood, A. (2005). Prote´ge´s’ and mentors’ reactions to participating in formal mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 441–458. Eby, L. T., Lockwood, A. L., & Butts, M. (2006). Perceived support for mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 267–291. Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). The prote´ge´’s perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 1–21. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. Feldman, D. C., Folks, W. R., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Mentor–prote´ge´ diversity and its impact on international internship experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 597–611.

240

M.R. Parise, M.L. Forret / Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008) 225–240

Finkelstein, L. M., & Poteet, M. L. (2007). Best practices in formal mentoring programs in organizations. In T. Allen & L. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring (pp. 345–367). Malden, MA: Blackwell Press. Forret, M. L., Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1996). Issues facing organizations when implementing formal mentoring programmes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17, 27–30. Gibb, S. (1994). Inside corporate mentoring schemes: The development of a conceptual framework. Personnel Review, 23, 47–60. Gibb, S. (1999). The usefulness of theory: A case study in evaluating formal mentoring schemes. Human Relations, 52, 1055–1075. Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisers: Relationships with doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel Psychology, 48, 537–561. Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 1–39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Kram, K. E., & Hall, D. T. (1989). Mentoring as an antidote to stress during corporate trauma. Human Resource Management, 28, 493–510. Kram, K. E., & Hall, D. T. (1996). Mentoring in a context of diversity and turbulence. In E. E. Kossek & S. A. Lobel (Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategy for transforming the workplace (pp. 108–136). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Kuyper-Rushing, L. (2001). A formal mentoring program in a university library: Components of a successful experiment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27, 440–446. Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 779–790. Lee, F. K., Dougherty, T. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). The role of personality and work values in mentoring programs. Review of Business, 21, 33–37. Megginson, D. (2000). Current issues in mentoring. Career Development International, 5, 256–260. Mullen, E. J., & Noe, R. A. (1999). The mentoring information exchange: When do mentors seek information from their prote´ge´s? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 233–242. Nadler, D. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2001). Motivation: A diagnostic approach. In J. S. Osland, D. A. Kolb, & I. M. Rubin (Eds.), The organizational behavior reader (pp. 96–103). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationships: Differences in perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 271–293. Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22, 482–521. Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations. Journal of Management, 19, 97–111. Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550. Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1177–1194. Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 957–971. Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1997). The way we were: Gender and the termination of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 945–953. Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 493–509. Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A. III. (1979). Some correlations of communication roles in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 42–57. Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24, 449–467. Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2001). An investigation of the moderating effects of gender on the relationships between mentorship initiation and prote´ge´ perceptions of mentoring functions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 342–363. Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2002). Formal mentoring: The promise and the precipice. In C. L. Cooper & R. J. Burke (Eds.), The new world of work: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 241–257). Oxford: Blackwell. Sontag, L. P., Vappie, K., & Wanberg, C. R. (2007). The practice of mentoring: MENTTIUM Corporation. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 593–616). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 39–124). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.