Antecedents of Diversified Mentoring Relationships

JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR ARTICLE NO.

51, 90–109 (1997)

VB971590

Antecedents of Diversified Mentoring Relationships Belle Rose Ragins College of Business Administration, Marquette University This article uses a multilevel framework to explain the development of diversified mentoring relationships. The framework incorporates organizational, interpersonal, and individual levels of analyses. Antecedents of informal diversified mentoring relationships are examined using a dyadic approach. Research propositions are offered and organizational implications are discussed. q 1997 Academic Press

With the advent of Workforce 2000, organizations in America are experiencing unprecedented diversity. Although Caucasian males remain entrenched in positions of corporate leadership, women and people of color are the majority of new entrants into the workforce, and will constitute a full 62% of the workforce by the year 2005 (Department of Labor, 1995). This fundamental change in workforce demographics will have a profound effect on the nature and composition of mentoring relationships. Mentoring relationships will become increasingly diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, and gender (Cox, 1993; Ragins, 1997). Moreover, recent immigration trends, welfare/ workfare legislation, and legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and sexual orientation will lead to mentoring relationships that are more diverse with respect to religion, socioeconomic class, disability, and disclosed sexual orientation. Given this emergence of diversified mentoring relationships, it is important to understand the factors that aid and impede the development of these critical relationships. This is particularly important for women and minorities in maledominated organizations, who are more likely to be in cross-race and crossgender mentoring relationships than their majority counterparts (Ragins, 1989; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990; Thomas, 1990; Thomas & Alderfer, 1989). This situation represents a definite schism in the development and composition of mentoring relationships for minority and majority groups in organizations. Emerging theory on mentoring falls short of adequately addressing the impact of diversity on mentoring relationships. Early theories of mentoring Address correspondence and reprint requests to Belle Rose Ragins, College of Business Administration, Straz Hall, P.O. Box 1881, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881. 90 0001-8791/97 $25.00 Copyright q 1997 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$61

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

91

DIVERSIFIED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

were based on White male samples (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978) and have limited generalizability to groups that are minorities1 in organizations (cf. Gallos, 1989; Osipow & Littlejohn, 1995). While subsequent theory has attempted to address gender (Noe, 1988; Ragins, 1989) and race issues in mentoring relationships (Thomas & Alderfer, 1989; Thomas, 1993), other marginalized groups (e.g., disability, class, sexual orientation) have been largely ignored (Croteau, 1996; Stone & Colella, 1996). It is important to avoid micro theories for each group, as this not only would take a limited, piece-meal perspective, but would also ignore the implications of multiple group membership. A common bond among marginalized groups is restricted power in organizations, and a power perspective provides a useful framework for understanding diversity and linking marginalized groups in organizations. In a recent article, I used this power perspective to define and operationalize diversified mentoring relationships, and to predict the outcomes associated with these relationships (Ragins, 1997). In the present article, I extend this line of thought by exploring factors that lead to the development of diversified mentoring relationships. The purpose of this article, then, is to explore the antecedents of diversified mentoring relationships. A bridge between the diversity and mentoring literatures is developed by addressing the following questions: How do diversified mentoring relationships develop? What are the specific factors that influence the initiation of diversified mentoring relationships? In what ways are these processes similar to and different from homogeneous relationships? What are the barriers to the development of diversified mentoring relationships? A definition of diversified mentoring relationships that is based on earlier work (Ragins, 1997) is first presented. Following this, a multilevel analytic framework is used for conceptualizing and exploring the development of diversified and homogeneous mentoring relationships. The framework employed here incorporates organizational, interpersonal, and individual levels of analyses (cf. Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). Finally, in recognition of the fact that the development of the mentoring relationship involves mutual collaboration and interaction between the mentor and prote´ge´ (Mullen, 1994), a dyadic perspective is employed across all levels of analysis. CONSTRUCT DEFINITIONS AND BOUNDARIES

Diversified mentoring relationships are composed of mentors and prote´ge´s who differ on one or more group memberships associated with power in organizations (Ragins, 1995, 1997). For example, diversified mentoring relationships in male-dominated organizations may involve the pairing of a majority mentor (a White male) with a minority prote´ge´ (a woman or member of another minority group). While less common, diversified mentoring relation1

The term ‘‘minority’’ refers to group power rather than numerical status, and may include race, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities, age, class, religion, and sexual orientation.

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$62

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

92

BELLE ROSE RAGINS

ships may also involve a minority mentor and a majority prote´ge´. Similarly, homogeneous mentoring relationships are composed of two minority members or two majority members. While mentoring relationships may be dichotomized as diversified or homogeneous for classification and descriptive purposes, it is important to recognize that the construct of diversity in mentoring relationships should be viewed as a continuous, rather than a dichotomous, variable. Individuals are members of multiple groups, and it is not adequate, for example, to equate a mentoring relationship in which the pair differs on race with a relationship that differs on race, gender, and sexual orientation. The degree of diversity in mentoring relationships may also be influenced by the differences in power between the groups, and the significance or value placed on those differences by the mentor and the prote´ge´. For example, a mentoring relationship in which neither member recognizes or attaches much significance to group membership is not the same as a relationship in which the differences are salient and important. Finally, it is important to recognize that mentoring relationships do not occur in a vacuum; the organizational context affects both the development and the outcomes of the relationship. Mentoring relationships are unique from other work relationships in that mentors often use their power to promote the advancement of their prote´ge´s within and between organizations. Therefore, it is important to consider the perceptions of organizational members; even if intergroup power differences are not viewed as important by the members of the relationship, the differences may still be important to individuals outside the relationship who can influence the development and outcomes of the mentoring relationship. From a theoretical perspective, therefore, it is important to consider the degree of diversity in the mentoring relationship. Space limitations preclude an extensive discussion of the degree of diversity construct, and readers may want to refer to an earlier publication (Ragins, 1997) for the mathematical equation that measures the degree of diversity in mentoring relationships, the operationalization of the construct, and the identification of specific measurement and methodological issues. In brief, the degree of diversity in mentoring relationships is a continuous variable that is a function of the number of power-related groups in which the mentor and prote´ge´ differ, the differences in power between the groups, and the significance or valence attached to the differences by the mentor, the prote´ge´, and others in the organization who can influence the relationship. High scores on the degree of diversity index indicate diverse mentoring relationships, whereas scores that approach zero indicate homogeneous relationships. Median splits may be used to dichotomize relationships artificially as ‘‘homogeneous’’ or ‘‘diversified’’ for assessment and classification purposes, but it should be emphasized that these terms reflect an artificial dichotomization of a continuous variable. This article addresses the development of informal but not formal mentoring relationships. The processes involved in the initiation and development of

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$62

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

93

DIVERSIFIED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS TABLE 1 Antecedents of Diversified and Homogeneous Relationships Individual

Interpersonal

Organizational

Cognitive differentiation and stereotyping Attitudes toward diversity Prior experience in diversified relationships

Identification Perceived competence Interpersonal comfort and risk Work group support

Structural integration Management systems Organizational culture

formal and informal mentoring relationships differ sharply; informal mentoring relationships develop naturally and spontaneously, whereas formal relationships involve voluntary assignment over a limited period of time (Chao, Walz & Gardner, 1992). A discussion of the developmental processes associated with formal mentoring relationships is therefore beyond the scope of the present article. ANTECEDENTS OF DIVERSIFIED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

Three levels of analyses are used to explore the development of diversified mentoring relationships: organizational, interpersonal, and individual. The factors associated with these levels are displayed in Table 1. The organizational level focuses on structural and cultural factors in the organization that influence access to diversified mentoring relationships. The interpersonal level deals with factors inherent in the relationship, such as interpersonal attraction and perceived similarity, and the impact of other interpersonal work relationships on the development of diversified mentoring relationships. The individual level of analysis addresses the skills, attitudes, and background of the mentor and prote´ge´ that influence the development of the relationship. While there are many factors that may affect the development of mentoring relationships in general, this article focuses only on those factors that are pertinent to diversified mentoring relationships. Organizational Factors Three organizational factors may influence the development of diversified mentoring relationships: structural integration, management systems, and organizational culture. These factors influence the prevalence of diversified mentoring relationships, and to the extent that they affect power relationships among groups in organizations, they may also influence the degree of diversity in mentoring relationships. Structural segregation. From a diversity perspective, organizational structure refers to the vertical and horizontal segregation of women and other minorities in organizations (Cox, 1991, 1993). Structural integration refers to the achievement of proportional heterogeneity in employment positions across

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$62

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

94

BELLE ROSE RAGINS

rank, department, and specialization (Cox, 1991; 1993). Structural segregation involves the segregation of minorities into specific jobs, departments, career tracks, and networks that involve restricted resources for power. Structural segregation results in minorities holding lower ranks than their majority counterparts, and facing glass ceilings and walls that prevent them from gaining access to high-ranking positions, powerful departments, and ‘‘fast-track’’ career paths (Department of Labor, 1995; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). Structural segregation may affect the composition of mentoring relationships. By definition, segregated organizations exclude minorities from higher ranks, which has the effect of limiting the number of relationships involving minority mentors. With a limited pool of available minority mentors, minority prote´ge´s may turn to majority mentors. Majority prote´ge´s, on the other hand, have a relatively large selection pool of high-ranking, majority mentors. As a result of this scenario, minority prote´ge´s should be more likely to be in diversified mentoring relationships than majority prote´ge´s. In support of this idea, existing research indicates that women are more likely than men to be in cross-sex mentoring relationships (Burke, McKeen, & McKenna, 1990; Ragins & Cotton, 1991), and Blacks are more likely than Whites to be in cross-race mentoring relationships (Atkinson, Neville, & Casas, 1991; Thomas, 1990). While structural segregation influences the composition of the mentoring relationship, it does not appear to influence the actual presence of a mentor. For example, women are as likely as men to have a mentor (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Dreher & Cox, 1996; Fagenson, 1989; Scandura & Ragins, 1993; Viator & Scandura, 1991). Although the research on race is more limited, existing research indicates that Blacks are as likely to have mentors as Whites (Ford & Wells, 1985; Dreher & Cox, 1996; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990; Thomas, 1990), and Hispanics are as likely to have mentors as Whites (Dreher & Cox, 1996). Structural segregation may influence access to mentoring relationships. Ragins and Cotton (1991) found that barriers to getting a mentor were greater at lower than higher ranks for both men and women. Even when controlling for rank and other organizational variables, they found that women reported less access to developing a mentoring relationship than did men. Despite this, women were as likely as men to actually obtain a mentor, suggesting that they overcame real or perceived barriers to getting a mentor. Thomas and Higgins (1996) observe that social isolation and discrimination led minorities to seek networks and developmental relationships that span their organization’s boundaries. Existing research supports the idea that minorities exert extra effort in establishing mentoring relationships. Thomas (1990) found that Blacks were more likely than Whites to go outside their departments and formal lines of authority to develop homogeneous mentoring relationships with higher-ranking mentors of the same race. Ibarra (1995) found that highpotential minorities were more likely than their majority counterparts to build

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$62

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

95

DIVERSIFIED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

social networks outside their primary work units. This research suggests that while minority prote´ge´s may be as likely as their majority counterparts to obtain a mentor, structural segregation increases the barriers minority prote´ge´s face in entering both homogeneous and diversified mentoring relationships. By definition, structural segregation means that minority prote´ge´s need to go outside their departments to develop relationships with higher-ranking minority mentors. PROPOSITION 1a. Structural segregation increases the prevalence of diversified mentoring relationships for minority prote´ ge´ s and the barriers faced by minority prote´ ge´ s in developing both diversified and homogeneous relationships. The degree of diversity in the mentoring relationships may also be affected by structural segregation. Structural segregation increases and polarizes power differences among groups in organizations (e.g., Ely, 1995). It limits the development of power among minority groups in organizations and perpetuates between-group differences in organizational power (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). As discussed earlier, increases in between-group differences in power in organizations increases the degree of diversity in mentoring relationships. Therefore, organizations that are segregated should promote mentoring relationships that are more diversified with respect to power than organizations that are integrated. PROPOSITION 1b. Structural segregation will increase the degree of diversity in mentoring relationships. Management systems. The establishment and nature of diversified mentoring relationships may also be influenced by the management system of the organization. Mechanistic management systems are characterized by a hierarchic structure in which power is centralized and communication is limited to vertical interactions between supervisors and subordinates (Burns & Stalker, 1961). In contrast, organic or ‘‘new paradigm’’ management systems are characterized by decentralized control and lateral communication that spans departmental lines, and consists of information and advice rather than instructions and decisions (Bailyn, 1993; Burack, 1993). These organizations emphasize cooperative work relationships and broaden managerial roles to include coaching behaviors. Existing theory suggest that the centralization of power in mechanistic or bureaucratic organizations perpetuates status-quo power relationships among groups and prevents political activity designed to equalize power relationships among groups (Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981). Between-group differences in power should therefore be greater in mechanistic than organic or ‘‘new paradigm’’ organizations. Since the degree of diversity in mentoring relationships is influenced, in part, by power differences between groups in organizations, it is reasonable to expect that mentoring relationships in mechanistic

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$62

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

96

BELLE ROSE RAGINS

organizations should have greater degrees of diversity than relationships in organic organizations. PROPOSITION 1c. The degree of diversity in mentoring relationships will be greater in mechanistic than organic organizations. While the degree of diversity in mentoring relationships should be heightened in mechanistic organizations, organic or ‘‘new paradigm’’ management systems should be more likely than mechanistic systems to foster the development of all types of mentoring relationships. Organizations that use collaborative work teams that span departmental and hierarchical lines create an environment that fosters the development of mentoring relationships across organizational departments and ranks. This is particularly important for women and minorities who are segregated from higher-ranking mentors in organizations. Access to mentors in other departments and ranks should increase the opportunity for homogeneous mentoring relationships among minorities, and diversified mentoring relationships for both majority and minority prote´ge´s. PROPOSITION 1d. Organizations with organic management systems will have a greater proportion of diversified relationships and homogeneous relationships involving minority members than organizations with mechanistic systems. Organizational culture. The culture of the organization may influence the development of diversified mentoring relationships (Ragins, 1995). Organizations that do not value diversity impose an assimilationist approach in which members are expected to conform to existing organizational values and norms, whereas organizations that value diversity use a pluralistic approach that supports mutual accommodation, and the preservation of group differences and identities (Cox, 1991; Harquail & Cox, 1993). ‘‘Multicultural organizations’’ are characterized by pluralistic acculturation, heterogeneous membership, structural integration, and integration of informal networks that promote mentoring relationships (Cox, 1991). ‘‘Monolithic organizations,’’ in contrast, are characterized as having acculturation based on assimilation, homogeneous membership, structural segregation, and the segregation of informal networks. It is reasonable to expect that multicultural organizations would be more likely to promote mentoring relationships than monolithic organizations. Multicultural organizations would also be more likely to promote mentoring relationships involving minorities; one would expect more mentoring relationships involving minority members in a culture that values their input than one that does not. However, since minorities are more likely to hold positions of power and be integrated into the power structure in multicultural organizations (Cox, 1993), power relationships among groups are also more likely to be balanced in multicultural than monolithic organizations. Therefore, while there may be more diversified mentoring relationships in multicultural organi-

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$62

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

97

DIVERSIFIED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

zations, the degree of diversity in these mentoring relationships may be less in multicultural than monolithic organizations. PROPOSITION 1e. Compared to monolithic organizations, multicultural organizations will have a greater proportion of mentoring relationships involving minorities. PROPOSITION 1f. The degree of diversity in mentoring relationships will be less in multicultural organizations than monolithic organizations. In sum, there is a convergence of organizational factors that influence the development of diversified mentoring relationships, and the degree of diversity in these relationships. These factors, while presented separately, interact in creating organizational environments that foster or exclude diversified mentoring relationships. For example, multicultural organizations may be reciprocally related to structural integration and may be more likely to occur in organizations with organic or ‘‘new paradigm’’ management systems. Multicultural, structurally integrated, organic organizations provide the most fertile environment for the development of mentoring relationships involving minorities. Interpersonal Factors Existing mentorship theory and research suggests that the selection process in the development of mentoring relationships is guided by three primary factors: identification, perceived competence, and the level of interpersonal comfort among the members of the relationship (Erikson, 1963; Kram, 1985; Levinson et al., 1978). Another factor that has not been considered, but would certainly fall under the realm of interpersonal relationships, is the reaction of co-workers, managers, and subordinates to the development of mentoring relationships. Perceptions of power and group relationships may influence each of these factors. While most prior discussions in the mentoring literature have centered on how mentors choose prote´ge´s, the mutual processes involved in the initiation of the relationship are considered in this section. Identification. Identification is a reciprocal process guiding the mentor’s selection of the prote´ge´, and the prote´ge´’s selection of the mentor (Erikson, 1963; Kram, 1985; Levinson et al., 1978). Mentors identify with their prote´ge´s; they view their prote´ge´s as a younger version of themselves and a representative of their past. The relationship provides the mentor with generativity, which is the sense of contribution to future generations (Erikson, 1963). The prote´ge´’s selection of a mentor is often based on identification with the mentor and the perception of the mentor as a role model. In this sense, the mentor identifies the prote´ge´ as representative of his or her past, whereas the prote´ge´ identifies the mentor as a representative of his or her future. Identification in mentoring relationships can be linked to network theory

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$63

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

98

BELLE ROSE RAGINS

and social identity theory. Identification incorporates perceived similarity, which is referenced in the network literature as homophily (Rogers & Bhowmik, 1971). Homophily may influence the establishment of interpersonal work networks, informal social relationships, and assigned work relationships (cf. review by Ibarra, 1993). The individual’s identification with a social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1985), and the power associated with the group (Deschamp, 1982) may influence perceived similarity and identification between potential mentors and prote´ge´s. As an extension of social identity theory, Deschamp (1982) theorizes that individuals who are members of similar power-related groups are more likely to identify with each other because of shared experiences and resulting social identities. Other theorists have observed that attraction between group members is influenced by shared social identity and relational demography (Jackson, Stone, & Alvarez, 1992). As discussed earlier, identification is an important precursor to the development of mentoring relationships. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that individuals who share similar group memberships with respect to power may be more likely to identify with each other, and therefore form a mentoring relationship, than individuals who do not share similar group membership. Using this power perspective, identification should be a stronger predictor of the development of homogeneous relationships than the development of diversified mentoring relationships. Along those same lines, since the degree of diversity is defined in terms of differences in group power, there should be a negative relationship between identification and the degree of diversity in the mentoring relationship. PROPOSITION 2a. Identification will be a stronger predictor in the development of homogeneous than diversified mentoring relationships. PROPOSITION 2b. Identification will be negatively related to the degree of diversity in the mentoring relationship. Perceived competence. While laboratory studies suggest that perceived competence is an important factor influencing the selection of the mentor and the prote´ge´ (Olian, Carroll, & Giannantonio, 1993; Olian, Carroll, Giannontonio & Feren, 1988), it is important to recognize that perceptions of minority members’ competence and performance have been found to be negatively influenced by stereotypes and attributions (Ilgen & Youtz, 1986; Pettigrew, 1979; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987). Attributions may distort perceptions of competence and potential. Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1993), for example, found that among highly successful managers, the performance of Black managers was attributed to help from others, rather than ability and effort. One implication of this research is that minority prote´ge´s may have to prove themselves to be independent ‘‘superachievers’’ in order to get recognized and selected by majority, and perhaps even minority, mentors. Attributions and stereotypes may also impede the selection of minority

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$63

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

99

DIVERSIFIED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

mentors. Stereotypes may distort and limit perceptions of a potential mentor’s power and attributions about sources of influence (Pettigrew & Martin, 1987; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). Both minority and majority prote´ge´s may view minority mentors as having less power than majority mentors, and therefore less able to provide for their prote´ge´’s career needs. In a study of 89 female psychologists, Brefach (1986) found that women rated male mentors as having more power at work than female mentors. Erkut and Mokros (1984) found that male students avoided selecting female faculty members as mentors because they were viewed as having less power than their male counterparts. Indeed, other research consistently reveals that both genders perceive men as having more and different forms of power than women, irrespective of actual power (cf. review by Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). Race and ethnicity have been found to influence attributions regarding organizational success (cf. reviews by Ferdman, 1992; Pettigrew, 1979; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987), and it is reasonable to expect that minorities who are potential mentors may be perceived as having less power and control over resources than their majority counterparts. Thus, like minority prote´ge´s, minority mentors may need to overachieve in order to compensate for distorted perceptions of their competency and influence. PROPOSITION 2c. Minority prote´ge´s and mentors must be more competent than their majority counterparts in order to be selected by majority and minority prote´ge´s and mentors. Interpersonal comfort and risk. The selection of mentors and prote´ge´s may be influenced by the degree of interpersonal comfort involved in initiating the relationship. Interpersonal similarity increases the ease of communication in relationships (Lincoln & Miller, 1979), and interpersonal comfort is a key factor affecting the development of mentoring relationships (Kram, 1985). This situation represents a key barrier to the development of diversified mentoring relationships. Thomas (1989), for example, observes that racial taboos, particularly those involved with cross-gender and cross-race relationships, may result in constrained social interactions and the development of cross-race mentoring relationships. Cross-gender mentoring relationships face barriers relating to the risk of sexual involvement or unfounded rumors of sexual relationships (Ragins, 1989). Ragins and Cotton (1991), for example, found that women were more likely than men to report that potential mentors were unwilling to mentor them, and were reluctant to initiate a relationship with a potential mentor for fear that the action would be misconstrued as a sexual advance by the mentor or others in the organization. Additionally, since women and minorities have more limited informal interactions with majority members in organizations (Ibarra, 1993), the opportunity for developing comfortable, nonsexual, and nonthreatening informal interactions with majority members may be constrained. The level of comfort in initiating a mentoring relationship may also be

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$63

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

100

BELLE ROSE RAGINS

influenced by social identities. Shared social identities result in increased social comfort and connection (Lincoln & Miller, 1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1985). As discussed earlier, individuals who are members of similar power groups may identify with each other more than individuals who are members of different groups (Deschamp, 1982). In short, it is reasonable to expect that individuals who are members of similar power groups share common experiences that serve to increase their level of interpersonal comfort, and their willingness to initiate a mentoring relationship. PROPOSITION 2d. The greater the degree of diversity in a potential mentoring relationship, the less comfort will be reported in initiating the relationship. Mentoring relationships involving minority members may represent more of a risk than relationships involving majority members of organizations. One reason for this is visibility. According to Kanter (1977), minority members have more visibility and performance pressures than majority members. Since visibility magnifies both success and failure, the potential costs of mentoring or being mentored by a minority member are greater than those of a majority member. For mentors, the prote´ge´’s performance is a reflection of the mentor’s competence and judgment in selecting the prote´ge´. A potentially negative outcome of being a mentor is that a poorly performing prote´ge´ reflects faulty judgment on the part of the mentor, and may result in the reduction of the mentor’s interpersonal influence and power among peers (Kram, 1985; Ragins & Scandura, 1994). For prote´ge´s, a poorly performing mentor may cast a negative light on perceived competency and may limit the prote´ge´’s career advancement and development of power. The risk to entering a mentoring relationship with a minority is also amplified by stereotypes and attributions (Pettigrew & Martin, 1987; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). As discussed earlier, minority members’ performance is often viewed as less effective than majority members’. Since the ability to develop power in the mentoring relationship is based, in part, on perceptions of competence (Ragins, 1997), negative attributions and perceptions may impede the development of power for minority members. This situation is aggravated by the fact that minority members may already be perceived as having less power than they actually have, which serves to further erode their power and increase the perceived risk of entering a mentoring relationship. Even if minority mentors have equivalent positional power as their majority counterparts, if they are perceived as having less power, their power will eventually be diminished. From the above discussion, it is clear that the most risky and visible mentoring relationship is the homogeneous relationship involving minority members. Due to their precarious position and limelight status, minority mentors face greater barriers to becoming a mentor than their majority counterparts, and can ill-afford the loss of power by choosing a prote´ge´ who may be misperceived as a ‘‘poor performer.’’ Indeed, existing research reveals that

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$63

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

101

DIVERSIFIED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

women are more likely than men to report that they lack the time to be a mentor, that they want to avoid the visibility associated with mentoring, and that they could not afford the risk of being put in a bad light by their prote´ge´’s failures (Ragins & Cotton, 1993). PROPOSITION 2e. Perceived risks to entering a mentoring relationship will be greater in relationships involving one or more minority members. It is important to note that while these risks to entering a mentoring relationship may make the relationship more difficult to enter, they may not necessarily prevent the relationship from developing. In fact, existing research indicates that while minority mentors experience greater risks and barriers to becoming a mentor than their majority counterparts, they still seek to mentor minority prote´ge´s (cf. Ford & Wells, 1985; Ragins, Townsend, & Mattis, 1997; Ragins & Scandura, 1994). One explanation for this is that the risk to entering a mentoring relationship with another minority may be offset by the potential intrinsic rewards of increased identification, interpersonal comfort, and the gratification involved with helping another minority member. Majority mentors may be less likely than minority mentors to obtain these rewards from mentoring a minority prote´ge´. In recognition of this issue, some organizations may provide incentives for majority managers to mentor minority prote´ge´s. While this may offset some of the risks associated with mentoring minorities, it may not reduce the discomfort in initiating the relationship, nor may it lessen damaging attributions that the minority prote´ge´’s success is due exclusively to the majority mentor’s efforts, thus ignoring the prote´ge´’s competency (e.g., Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993). Work group support. The final interpersonal factor that may influence the development of diversified mentoring relationships is the reaction of work group members: supervisors, co-workers, and subordinates. Common negative reactions to mentoring relationships involve jealousy and charges of favoritism (Myers & Humphreys, 1985). Due to increased visibility, these reactions may be intensified in relationships involving minority prote´ge´s. In a study of 32 cross-gender mentoring relationships, for example, Bowen (1985) found that female prote´ge´s reported being the target of discrediting sexual innuendoes and rumors circulated by jealous co-workers. Along the same lines, Ragins and Cotton (1991) found that women were more likely than men to report that supervisors and co-workers would disapprove of their development of a relationship with a potential mentor. Jones (1986) observed that White managers may be uncomfortable sponsoring Black prote´ge´s for promotion or high-visibility assignments for fear of ostracism from other White co-workers in the organization. In short, minority members may face greater resistance to the development of mentoring relationships than majority members, and this resistance may range from lack of support to active sabotage. The lack of power among minority mentors exacerbates the situation and provides less

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$63

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

102

BELLE ROSE RAGINS

of a buffer for backlash effects. This situation would be particularly acute in organizations with cultures that do not value diversity. Negative work group reactions against prote´ge´s in diversified relationships may reinforce existing attributions and group stereotypes, and may lessen minority members’ power (Ilgen & Youtz, 1986; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987). Compared to majority prote´ge´s, minority prote´ge´s may be perceived as needing a mentor for ‘‘remedial’’ purposes, and their career success may be more likely to be attributed to the mentor’s intervention, rather than the prote´ge´’s skills and abilities (e.g., Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993). Majority mentors may also face a ‘‘backlash’’ if they are perceived as helping minority members at the expense of majority members. Finally, minority mentors in homogeneous relationships may be particularly threatening to majority members, who may perceive the relationship as a political coalition that is divisive in nature (Ragins, 1989). Combined, these factors lead to less work group support for the development of mentoring relationships involving minority members. PROPOSITION 2f. Less work group support will be given for the development of mentoring relationships involving minority members than majority members. These interpersonal factors may interact and combine to restrict the development of mentoring relationships involving minority members. Majority mentors may not identify with minority prote´ge´s, may underestimate the prote´ge´’s competency, and may be uncomfortable initiating the relationship and assuming the heightened risks associated with mentoring a visible member of the organization. Similarly, majority prote´ge´s may not readily identify with minority mentors, and both majority and minority prote´ge´s may underestimate minority mentors’ power and abilities. All parties in mentoring relationships involving minority members face increased visibility and possible negative reactions from co-workers, supervisors, and subordinates. Of course some individuals may make a concerted effort to overcome these interpersonal barriers, and may seek a diversified mentoring relationship because of the perceived value of that relationship. Individual factors that affect this decision are discussed in the next section. Individual Factors This section deals with three individual factors that may influence the individual’s decision to enter a diversified mentoring relationship: cognitive differentiation and stereotyping, attitudes toward diversity, and prior experience in diversified relationships. Cognitive differentiation and stereotyping. Stereotypes are used to process information and categorize individuals into in-groups and out-groups (Tajfel, 1981). Cognitive differentiation involves the use of stereotypes in the perception of out-group members. According to Miller and Brewer (1986), individuals respond to out-group members in three ways: (1) category-based re-

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$63

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

103

DIVERSIFIED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

sponding, (2) differentiated responding, and (3) personalized responding. These responses fall along a continuum of cognitive differentiation. Categorybased responding has the lowest level of differentiation in that the individual perceives all outgroup members as very different from ingroup members, but very similar to each other. Differentiated responding involves the perception of outgroup members as distinct from one another, yet the ingroup is still viewed as different from the outgroup. Personalized responding involves the greatest degree of differentiation. In this approach, individuals view each outgroup member as unique and complex, and rely on individual interaction rather than categorization processes in perceptions and reaction. Therefore, the greater the degree of an individual’s cognitive differentiation, the more likely he or she is to perceive outgroup members as having characteristics, skills, and abilities that are independent of group stereotypes (Brewer & Miller, 1984). As discussed earlier, the perception of an individual’s power may be distorted by stereotypes associated with their group membership. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the greater the degree of cognitive differentiation, the more accurate the perception of an individual’s power and competency. As proposed earlier, perceived competency and power may influence the decision to enter a mentoring relationship, and group stereotypes may hinder the selection of minority mentors and prote´ge´s. Thus, individuals who are able to differentiate in their perceptual processes and view minorities as distinct from their groups should hold more accurate perceptions of power and competency, and should therefore be more likely to develop a mentoring relationship with minority members than individuals who have low levels of differentiation. PROPOSITION 3a. Differentiation in categorization processes involved with stereotyping will be positively related to the development of mentoring relationships involving minority members. Attitudes toward diversity. An important predictor in the development of a diversified mentoring relationship may be the conscious decision to confront stereotypes and attributions about other groups and to overcome initial feelings of discomfort in initiating the diversified relationship. It is reasonable to expect that individuals who relish and accept differences, and hold positive attitudes toward those who are different, should be more likely to seek out diversified relationships than individuals who avoid associating with people from different groups. Attitudes toward diversified mentoring relationships may be influenced by work experience and demographics. Existing research indicates that individuals who have direct experience working with minorities tend to have more positive attitudes and attributions regarding minority work performance than individuals who lack direct work experience (Craig & Jacobs, 1985; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993). Positive attitudes toward women managers have been found to be positively associated with age (McKinney, 1987), work

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$63

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

104

BELLE ROSE RAGINS

experience (Owen & Todor, 1993), and formal education (Terborg, Peters, Ilgen, & Smith, 1977). Kossek and Zonia (1993) found that women and minorities have more positive attitudes than White males about the qualifications of minorities, perhaps reflecting personal experience and identification. Other researchers have also found that women express more positive attitudes toward women managers than men (McKinney, 1987; Owen & Todor, 1993; Ware & Cooper-Studebaker, 1989). Research on characteristics of effective expatriates may also provide insight into factors that promote the development of positive attitudes toward diversity. Key traits and attributes for expatriates include tolerance for ambiguity, nonjudgmentalness, open-mindedness, curiosity, tolerance for differences, cultural empathy, and perceptual and evaluative flexibility (Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985; Tung, 1981). Attitudes toward diversified mentoring relationships may also be influenced by societal culture. The culture in which an individual is raised may influence his or her values regarding managerial roles and power relationships among groups (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990). Societal culture may influence the value placed on mentoring relationships, perceptions of intergroup power differences, and attitudes toward the development of diversified mentoring relationships. Positive attitudes toward diversity may be conceptualized as a combination of these attributes and should relate to the establishment of diversified mentoring relationships. PROPOSITION 3b. Individuals with positive attitudes toward diversity should be more likely to seek diversified mentoring relationships than individuals with negative attitudes toward diversity. Prior experience in diversified relationships. A final individual variable that may influence the development of diversified mentoring relationships is the individual’s background and prior experience in diversified relationships in work or nonwork settings. Indeed, prior experience in mentoring relationships is a significant predictor of the development of future relationships (Ragins & Cotton, 1993; Ragins & Scandura, 1994). The nature of the prior experience is an important factor to consider; individuals should be more likely to seek out diversified mentoring relationships if they have had positive, rather than negative, prior experiences. For example, minority prote´ ge´ s with positive experience interacting in work projects with majority members should be more comfortable initiating a diversified relationship than individuals lacking such experience. It is also important to consider the type of role relationships, and whether the relationships reflect traditional role stereotypes. For example, male managers who interact with women in professional work roles should be more likely to consider entering a diversified mentoring relationship than managers who have only interacted with women in traditional gender roles (i.e., secretaries, spouses, and daughters).

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$64

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

105

DIVERSIFIED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

Positive experience in diversified relationships works reciprocally with the other factors reviewed in this article. Specifically, positive attitudes toward diversity may be reciprocally related to experience in diversified mentoring relationships. Compared to individuals lacking experience, individuals with positive experience in diversified relationships should also be more comfortable initiating the relationship and should have more accurate perceptions of the risks of the relationship, and the power and competency of the members. In support of this idea, existing research indicates that positive work experience promotes positive attitudes and attributions regarding minorities in organizations (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993; Owen & Todor, 1993; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987). It is therefore reasonable to expect that individuals who have positive experiences interacting with those from different power-related groups should be more likely to enter a diversified mentoring relationship than individuals who lack such experiences. PROPOSITION 3c. Individuals will be more likely to enter diversified mentoring relationships if they have had prior positive experiences in diversified work and nonwork relationships. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONS

The organizational, interpersonal, and individual factors reviewed here do not operate independently, but interact to create an environment that either fosters or constrains the development of diversified mentoring relationships. On an organizational level, diversified relationships may be fostered in organic, ‘‘new paradigm,’’ ‘‘multicultural’’ organizations that promote structural integration. On an interpersonal level, minority prote´ge´s and mentors may face barriers to entering a mentoring relationship stemming from distorted perceptions of power and competency, heightened perceived risk, less interpersonal comfort, and less support from work group members. On an individual level, minority prote´ge´s and mentors may be more likely to be selected by individuals who employ high degrees of cognitive differentiation in their perceptual processes. Additionally, individuals may be more likely to enter diversified mentoring relationships if they hold positive attitudes toward diversity, and have had positive prior experiences in diversified relationships. Organizations may promote the development of mentoring relationships involving minorities by using short- and long-term strategies. In the shortterm, organizations can reward the development of these relationships through performance appraisal systems that recognize the effort and risk involved with mentoring minority prote´ge´s or being a minority mentor. The development of mentoring relationships should be included as a key component in diversity and career development programs. Skill-based training programs aimed at helping both minority and majority members develop diversified mentoring relationships could be offered to all members of the organization, thus reduc-

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$64

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

106

BELLE ROSE RAGINS

ing the potential for perceptions of preferential treatment and backlash. Along those same lines, work group support may be heightened by rewarding supervisors for helping their subordinates develop relationships with mentors in the organization. Finally, organizations may increase access to mentoring by providing informal opportunities for majority and minority group interaction. In addition to informal activities, interaction among diverse groups may be fostered by developing work teams that are diverse in group membership and organizational level. Diverse work teams may provide an optimal setting for reducing stereotypes, and may also provide more opportunities for potential mentors and prote´ge´s to recognize similarities based on factors other than group membership (i.e., interests, values, background). Long-term strategies that promote the development of diversified mentoring relationships require changes in attitudes, organizational culture, and intergroup power. The most effective long-term strategy involves structural integration of minority members and the reduction of betweengroup differences in power. As minorities gain rank and power, there will be an increase in the availability of minority mentors for both minority and majority prote´ ge´ s. Structural integration increases interaction between minority and majority members, which may reduce stereotypes, increase positive attitudes toward group differences, and promote the development of diversified relationships. These attitudinal and behavioral changes, in turn, may create a corporate culture that values diversity and mentoring among all members of the organization. REFERENCES Atkinson, D. R., Neville, H., & Casas, A. (1991). The mentorship of ethnic minorities in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 336–338. Bailyn, L. (1993). Breaking the mold: Women, men, and time in the new corporate world. New York: The Free Press. Bowen, D. D. (1985). Were men meant to mentor women? Training and Development Journal, 39(2), 31–34. Brefach, S. M. (1986). The mentor experience: The influences of female/male mentors on the personal and professional growth of female psychologists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University. Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). Orlando: Academic Press. Burack, E. H. (1993). Corporate resurgence and the new employment relationships: After the reckoning. Westport, CT: Quorum. Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A., & McKenna, C. (1990). Sex differences and cross-sex effects on mentoring: Some preliminary data. Psychological Reports, 67, 1011–1023. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock. 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. Cox, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 34– 47.

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$64

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

107

DIVERSIFIED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Berret–Koehler. Craig, J. M., & Jacobs, R. R. (1985). The effect of working with women on male attitudes toward female firefighters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 61–74. Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: An integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 195–209. Department of Labor (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation’s human capital. A fact-finding report of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Washington, DC: Dept. of Labor. Deschamps, J. C. (1982). Social identity and the relations of power between groups. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 85–98). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539–546. Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297–308. Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women’s social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589–634. Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Erkut, S., & Mokros, J. R. (1984). Professors as models and mentors for college students. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 399–417. Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of prote´ge´s vs. non-prote´ge´s. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309–320. Ferdman, B. M. (1992). The dynamics of ethnic diversity in organizations: Toward integrative models. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology, (pp. 339–384). Amsterdam: North Holland. Ford, D. L., & Wells, L. (1985). Upward mobility factors among black public administrators: The role of mentors. Centerboard, 3(1), 38–48. Gallos, J. V. (1989). Exploring women’s development: Implications for career theory, practice, and research. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 110–132). Boston: Cambridge Univ. Press. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1993). Job performance attributions and career advancement prospects: An examination of gender and race effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 273–297. Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64–86. Harquail, C. V., & Cox, T. (1993). Organizational culture and acculturation. In T. Cox (Ed.), Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice (pp: 161–176). San Francisco: Berret–Koehler. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286–316. Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18, 56–87. Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 673–703. Ilgen, D. R., & Youtz, M. A. (1986). Factors affecting the evaluation, and development of minorities in organizations. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$64

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

108

BELLE ROSE RAGINS

and human resources management: A research annual (Vol. 4, pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Jackson, S. E., Stone, V. K., & Alvarez, E. B. (1992). Socialization amidst diversity: The impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 45–109). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Jones, E. W. (1986). Black managers: The dream deferred. Harvard Business Review, 64, 84– 93. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 61–81. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf. Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. (1979). Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 181–198. McKinney, K. (1987). Age and gender differences in college students’ attitudes toward women: A replication and extension. Sex Roles, 17, 353–358. Marsden, P. V. (1988). Hemogeneity in confiding relations. Social Networks, 10, 57–76. Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A review. Academy of Management Review, 10, 39–47. Miller, N., & Brewer, M. B. (1986). Categorization effects on ingroup and outgroup perception. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 209– 229). Orlando: Academic Press. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice– Hall. Mullen, E. J. (1994). Framing the mentoring relationship as an information exchange. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 257–281. Myers, D. W., & Humphreys, N. J. (1985). The caveats in mentorship. Business Horizons, 28(4), 9–14. Noe, R. A. (1988). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 13, 65–78. Olian, J. D., Carroll, S. J., Giannantonio, C. M., & Feren, D. B. (1993). Mentor reactions to Prote´ge´s: An experiment with managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 266–278. Olian, J. D., Carroll, S. J., Giannantonio, C. M., & Feren, D. B. (1988). What do prote´ge´s look for in a mentor? Results of three experimental studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 15–37. Osipow, S. H., & Littlejohn, E. M. (1995). Toward a multicultural theory of career development: Prospects and dilemmas. In F. T. L. Leong (Ed.), Career development and vocational behavior of racial and ethnic minorities (pp. 251–262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Owen, C. L., & Todor, W. D. (1993). Attitudes toward women as managers: Still the same. Business Horizons, 36(2), 12–16. Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–476. Pettigrew, T. F., & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context for Black American inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41–78. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Ragins, B. R. (1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager’s dilemma. Human Relations, 42, 1–22. Ragins, B. R. (1995). Diversity, power and mentorship in organizations: A cultural, structural and behavioral perspective. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 91–132). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$64

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB

109

DIVERSIFIED MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS

Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22, 482–521. Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. (1991). Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 939–951. Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations. Journal of Management, 19, 97–111. Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. (1990). Perception of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321–339. Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 957–971. Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51–88. Ragins, B. R., Townsend, B., & Mattis, M. (1997). Do CEO’s ‘‘get it’’? CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. Manuscript submitted for publication. Rogers, E. M., & Bhowmik, D. K. (1971). Homophily–heterophily: Relational concepts for communication research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 523–538. Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 251–265. Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21, 352–401. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Terborg, J. R., Peters, L. H., Ilgen, D. R., & Smith, F. (1977). Organizational and personal correlates of attitudes toward women as managers. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 89–100. Thomas, D. A. (1989). Mentoring and irrationality: The role of racial taboos. Human Resource Management, 28, 279–290. Thomas, D. A. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relationships (mentoring and sponsorship): An intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 479–492. Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 169–194. Thomas, D. A., & Alderfer, C. P. (1989). The influence of race on career dynamics: Theory and research on minority career experiences. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 133–158). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press. Thomas, D., & Higgins, M. (1996). Mentoring and the boundaryless career: Lessons from the minority experience. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 268–281) New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Tung, R. L. (1981). Selection and training of personnel for overseas assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16(1), 68–78. Viator, R. E., & Scandura, T. A. (1991). A study of mentor–prote´ge´ relationships in large public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 5(3), 20–30. Ware, R., & Cooper-Studebaker, J. J. (1989). Attitudes toward women as managers with regard to sex, education, work, and marital status. Psychological Reports, 65, 347–350. Received: January 7, 1997

AID

JVB 1590

/

630e$$$$64

07-05-97 14:32:40

jvba

AP: JVB