Mentoring relationships at work: An investigation of mentoring functions, benefits, and gender

Transcription

1 Mentoring relationships at work: An investigation of mentoring functions, benefits, and gender Author Fowler, Jane Published 2002 Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate) School School of Applied Psychology Downloaded from Griffith Research Online

2 Mentoring relationships at work: An investigation of mentoring functions, benefits, and gender Jane Fowler BBehSc (Hons) A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Applied Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences Griffith University May 2002

3 ABSTRACT The program of research reported here provides a contemporary view of mentoring relationships. In particular, it presents a definition that reflects mentoring experiences in modern organisations, identifies mentoring functions and benefits as perceived by mentees and mentors, and examines the relationships between those constructs and gender. Forty-eight mentees and mentors from a range of organisations, representing all possible gender combinations of mentee-mentor, were interviewed about their mentoring experiences. Content analysis of the interview data identified 42 categories of mentoring functions and 29 categories of benefits perceived by mentees and mentors. The emergent categories of mentoring functions and benefits were used to construct measurement instruments. The instruments were then completed by 500 mentees and mentors, again representing all four gender combinations of mentee-mentor, from a range of organisations. Principal components analyses revealed seven mentoring functions identified by mentees and eight by mentors. Those functions were Personal and Emotional Guidance, Coaching/Learning Facilitation (identified as two separate functions by mentors), Advocacy, Role Modelling, Career Development Facilitation, Strategies and Systems Advice, and Friendship. The study extended empirical research by identifying a range of distinct mentoring functions rather than the broad category approach adopted in previous research. The principal components solutions generated separately for mentees and mentors were similar, indicating convergent views between the providers and recipients of these functions. Several of the mentoring functions that emerged were similar to those

4 iii identified by Kram (1980) and the emergence of new functions was interpreted in light of changes in organisations over the past 20 years and the recruitment of representative samples, in this study, that reflected those changes. Principal components analyses also revealed four mentoring benefits identified by mentees and five by mentors. Benefits for mentees were Professional Enhancement, Interpersonal Relationship, Professional Induction/ Immersion, and Professional Reward. By identifying the benefits that mentees themselves perceive as being attributable to their mentoring relationships, the current study extended empirical research on mentee benefits beyond, objective, traditionally measured outcome variables. Benefits for mentors were Professional Enhancement, Organisational and Peer Recognition, Interpersonal Relationship, Meaningfulness and Fulfillment, and Productivity. The range of benefits that emerged reflects the importance mentees and mentors place on the psychological and interpersonal experiences of their mentoring relationships. The relationships between mentoring functions and benefits and gender were examined for both mentees and mentors. Results indicate that gender effects are limited to only some mentoring functions and benefits. Examination of the relationships between distinct mentoring functions and benefits indicated that specific mentoring functions are related to particular benefits for both mentees and mentors. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed and suggestions for future research are provided.

5 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ix x xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 The Development of Mentoring Research and Theory 3 Kram s Descriptive Theory of Mentoring Relationships 7 Mentoring Functions 8 Mentoring Benefits 11 Gender and Mentoring 11 The Present Research 12 Limitations of Previous Research 13 Design of Present Research 16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 18 Overview 18 Mentoring Functions 18 Measuring Mentoring Functions as Separate Distinct Components 24 Mentoring Benefits 27 Mentees Benefits 28 Mentors Benefits 31 Relationships between Mentoring Functions and Benefits 33 Impact on Gender on Mentoring Functions and Benefits 37 Gender and Mentoring Functions 38 Mentee Gender 38 Mentor Gender 40 Gender Composition of the Relationship 42 Gender and Mentoring Benefits 47 Mentee Gender 47 Mentor Gender 49 Gender Composition of the Relationship 50

6 v Background Variables 51 Methodological Limitations 53 Sampling Limitations 53 Design and Analyses Limitations 55 Summary and Purposes of Present Study 58 Mentoring Functions and Benefits 58 Relationships between Functions and Benefits 61 Gender and Mentoring 62 CHAPTER 3 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 66 Overview 66 The Value of a Qualitative Approach 67 Method 69 Participants 69 Sampling Procedure 69 Sample Characteristics 71 Materials 74 Procedure 76 Analysis and Results 78 Mentoring Functions and Benefits 78 Overview of Analysis Procedure 78 Preparation for Coding 81 Coding of Transcripts Level 1 Analysis 82 Categorisation of Excerpts Level 2 Analysis 83 Definition of a Mentor 96 Discussion 97 Mentoring Functions 99 Mentoring Benefits 104 Comparing Perceptions: Mentors and Mentees 107 Methodological Issues 108 Summary 110 CHAPTER 4 METHOD AND INSTRUMENT DESIGN 112 Overview 112 Item Construction 112

7 vi Method 113 Participants 113 Sampling Procedure 113 Sample Characteristics 114 Materials 118 Procedure 123 Summary 123 CHAPTER 5 EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF MENTORING FUNCTIONS AND BENEFITS 125 Overview 125 Data Screening 125 Extraction Technique 127 Sample Size 128 Method of Rotation 128 Criteria for Selection of Components 129 Interpretation of Components 130 Stability of PCA Solutions 132 PCAs: Mentoring Functions 133 Description of Components 133 PCA: Benefits for Mentors 142 Description of Components 142 PCA: Benefits for Mentees 146 Description of Components 146 Discussion 150 Mentoring Functions 150 Comparing Perceptions: Mentees and Mentors 157 Mentoring Benefits 160 Mentors Benefits 160 Mentees Benefits 163 Reliability and Validity of Mentoring Components 165 Summary 167

8 vii CHAPTER 6 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GENDER, FUNCTIONS, AND BENEFITS 170 Overview 170 Overview of Analyses 170 Gender and Mentoring Functions 170 Gender, Mentoring Functions, and Benefits 171 Data Screening 174 Background Variables 175 Hierarchical Regression Analyses 176 Relationships between Gender and Mentoring Functions Reported by Mentees 176 Relationships between Gender and Mentoring Functions Reported by Mentors 178 Relationships between Gender, Functions, and Benefits Reported by Mentees 180 Relationships between Gender, Functions, and Benefits Reported by Mentors 187 Discussion 194 Relationships between Gender and Mentoring 196 Relationships between Mentoring Functions and Benefits 199 Summary 206 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 208 Overview 208 Conceptualising and Defining Mentoring 208 Mentoring Functions and Benefits 212 Mentoring Functions 212 Mentoring Benefits 218 Relationships between Functions and Benefits 220 Impact of Gender on Functions and Benefits 222 Instrument Development 223 Future Research 224 Practical Implications 227 Implications for Mentees and Mentors 228 Education and Training 231

9 viii APPENDIX A Qualitative Research Interview Guide 235 APPENDIX B Recruitment Letter 238 APPENDIX C Questionnaire 239 APPENDIX D Data File: Mentors 246 APPENDIX E Data File: Mentees 266 APPENDIX F Regression Tables 292 REFERENCES 310

10 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Category Labels, Numbers of Excerpts, and Example Excerpts for the Functions Provided by Mentors 84 Category Labels, Numbers of Excerpts, and Example Excerpts for the Benefits that Result from a Mentoring Relationship 90 Sample Questionnaire Items and Excerpts from Qualitative Data 120 Item Loadings, Communalities (h 2 ), Eigenvalues, Cronbach s Alphas, and Percentages of Variance for Principal Components Extraction with Varimax Rotation on Mentoring Functions as Reported by Mentors 134 Item Loadings, Communalities (h 2 ), Eigenvalues, Cronbach s Alphas, and Percentages of Variance for Principal Components Extraction with Varimax Rotation on Mentoring Functions as Reported by Mentees 137 Item Loadings, Communalities (h 2 ), Eigenvalues, Cronbach s Alphas, and Percentages of Variance for Principal Components Extraction with Varimax Rotation on Benefits for Mentors 143 Item Loadings, Communalities (h 2 ), Eigenvalues, Cronbach s Alphas, and Percentages of Variance for Principal Components Extraction with Varimax Rotation on Benefits for Mentees 147 A Comparison of Components of Mentoring Functions Reported by Mentees and Mentors 159 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Gender Predicting Mentoring Functions Reported by Mentees 177 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Gender Predicting Mentoring Functions Reported by Mentors 179 Correlations between Mentoring Functions and Benefits for Mentees 181 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Mentoring Benefits for Mentees 182

11 x Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Correlations between Mentoring Functions and Benefits for Mentors 188 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Mentoring Benefits for Mentors 189 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Relationships between mentoring functions and benefits for mentees 213 Relationships between mentoring functions and benefits for mentors 214

12 xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people whom I would like to thank for their guidance, advice, assistance, encouragement, and support during my candidature. From the conceptualisation and design of the research, through data collection and analysis, to providing feedback on written drafts of my work, their contributions have been invaluable. In particular, the following people bear special mention: Dr. Keithia Wilson, Professor John O Gorman, Associate Professor Elizabeth Kendall, Ms. Leanne Whicker, Ms. Amanda Gudmundsson, and Mr. Paul Grieve. Each of them knows the value of their contributions, and to them I express my heartfelt appreciation and thanks. I have many more colleagues, friends and family who have provided ongoing support and encouragement over the course of this research. To those who have asked after the thesis and to those who have known when not to, thank you. Beyond the realm of this thesis, I am indebted to Professor John O Gorman who has taught me so much about research and the academic process. I will always appreciate his integrity, strength of character, profound wisdom and wit. He continues to be an inspirational mentor. To Greg, Danielle, and Kaitlyn, my thanks for their continuing love and understanding, encouragement and support. If patience is a virtue, they are indeed the virtuous. Without them, this thesis and many other achievements would not hold the same meaning.

13 xii Originality of Thesis I hereby certify that this work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself. Jane Fowler

14 PUBLICATIONS ARISING FROM OR RELATED TO THE THESIS Fowler, J., Gudmundsson, A.J., Whicker, L., & Branch, S. (2001). Mentoring functions: An instrument designed to measure the perceptions of mentees and mentors. In Proceedings of the British Academy of Management Conference, September, Cardiff, Wales: BAM. Fowler, J., Gudmundsson, A.J., Whicker, L., & Branch, S. (2001). Benefits from mentoring: Mentors and mentees. In Proceedings of the British Academy of Management Conference, September, Cardiff, Wales: BAM.

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Research has established that mentoring enhances the personal and professional development of individuals throughout their careers (e.g., Burke, 1984; Dalton, Thompson, & Price 1977; Kanter, 1977; Kram, 1980, 1983, 1985; Levinson, 1978; Schein, 1978). Levinson (1978), in one of the earliest studies of professional development, defined mentoring as: one of the most complex, and developmentally important [relationships], a man can have in early adulthood. The mentor is ordinarily several years older, a person of greater experience and seniority in the world the young man is entering. Mentoring is defined not in terms of formal roles but in terms of the character of the relationship and the functions it serves. [The mentor] may act as a teacher to enhance the young man s skills and intellectual development. Serving as sponsor, he may use his influence to facilitate the young man s entry and advancement. He may be a host and guide, welcoming the initiate into a new occupational and social world and acquainting him with its values, customs, resources and cast of characters. Through his own virtues, achievements and way of living, the mentor may be an exemplar that the protégé can admire and seek to emulate. He may provide counsel and moral support in time of stress. (p ) Since Levinson s (1978) all-encompassing description, researchers have attempted to encapsulate the description of a mentor in a more concise manner. For example, while interviewing participants about their career history, Kram (1980) asked the following question to identify mentors, Is there anyone among

16 2 those that you have mentioned today that you feel has taken a personal interest in you and your development? (p. 46). Bowen (1986) provided a more specific focus, stating that mentoring occurs when a senior person (the mentor) in terms of age and experience undertakes to provide information, advice, and emotional support for a junior person (the protegee) in a relationship lasting over an extended period of time and marked by substantial emotional commitment by both parties. If opportunity presents itself, the mentor also uses both formal and informal forms of influence to further the career of the protegee (p. 65). Although a variety of definitions appear in the literature on mentoring, there are several commonalities among those definitions. First, most definitions of mentoring imply that mentoring is a relationship between senior (mentor) and junior (mentee 1 ) persons. This is an important component of the concept as it distinguishes research on one-on-one mentoring relationships from that involving other forms of mentoring, such as peer (Kram & Isabella, 1985) and group mentoring (Dansky, 1996). Second, most definitions refer to the career of the mentee, clearly indicating that one of the main foci of mentoring relationships is to assist or enhance the career development of the mentee. Third, most definitions use terminology that implies some benefit to the mentee as a result of a mentor performing some function. 1 The word mentee will be used throughout this dissertation to describe the junior person in the mentoring relationship. Although one commentator observed that made-up words such as mentee do not belong in a scientific discipline and should be avoided (Chao, 1998, p. 337), mentee is becoming increasingly used and accepted in academic and popular literature (e.g., Kaye & Jacobson, 1996; McColl, 1999; Mullen, 1998; Rice & Brown, 1990; Shea, 1995; Wilde & Schau, 1991). Of particular note, is its use in well-known developmental theorist Daniel Levinson s work. After using the noun protégé in The Seasons of a Man s Life (1978), Levinson adopted mentee for use in his more recent text The Seasons of a Woman s Life (1996). Acceptance of mentee may be in part due to the negative connotations of the more commonly used protégé such as protection, patronage, and dependant (Bernard, 1986).

17 3 These three common attributes are encapsulated in what Ragins and Cotton (1999) refer to as the established definition: A mentor is generally defined as a higher ranking, influential individual in your work environment who has advanced experience and knowledge and is committed to providing upward mobility and support to your career (p. 535). This definition, or slight variations of it, has been used by several researchers (e.g., Baugh, Lankau, & Scandura, 1996; Ragins & Cotton, 1991; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990; Ragins & Scandura, 1994, 1999; Tepper, Shaffer, & Tepper, 1996) and is the working definition adopted in this thesis. The Development of Mentoring Research and Theory In his foundational research, Levinson (1978) conducted in-depth biographical interviews to elicit the life stories of 40 men, aged from years, from four occupational groups. The primary aim of his research was to create a developmental perspective on adulthood in men. Through analysis of the interview data, the mentor relationship emerged as being one of the most developmentally important a man can have in early adulthood. Levinson described the mentor as a person who is several years older, and of greater experience and seniority, than the young man he is mentoring. He recognised that although the mentoring relationship is often situated in a work setting, it may also evolve informally with a friend, neighbour, or relative. The mentor is a transitional figure who facilitates the young man s entry into the adult world through the various functions he serves, such as teacher, sponsor, host and guide, exemplar, counsellor, and facilitator of the young man s dream. Levinson also

18 4 found that a good mentoring relationship benefits the mentor as much as his younger colleague, by enhancing growth and development in early adulthood for the young adult and in middle adulthood for the more experienced senior adult. Although Levinson studied only men, he acknowledged special concerns for women, particularly the scarcity of female mentors and the inherent difficulties associated with cross-gender relationships because of the gulf between genders that existed at the time of his research. Levinson viewed mentoring relationships as influenced by life stages and developmental concerns of each individual and not necessarily influenced by the organisational context. That is, his developmental perspective on mentoring emphasised the psychosocial development of the individuals involved in the relationship. Other work has described the mentoring relationship as one that occurs in, and is greatly influenced by, the organisational context. For example, Kanter (1977), using a career perspective, focussed on the ways in which an individual s career concerns are influenced by the organisation in which he or she works. Kanter collected and analysed data from men and women in a single organisation using a range of methods including survey, interview, group discussion, and participant-observation. As a result, she provided a comprehensive description of the experiences and reactions of men and women in that organisation, which she suggested was typical of many large organizations. One of the important organisational experiences of the participants in her research was the presence of a sponsor who Kanter described as a mentor or advocate upward in the organization. Kanter identified four important functions that a sponsor provides: advice, advocacy or promotion of the junior person for promising opportunities,

19 5 assistance to bypass the hierarchy, and a form of reflected power. Kanter suggested that although sponsors are important for the success of men in organisations, they are absolutely essential for women. Consistent with Levinson (1978), she found that mentoring relationships were not as easily accessible for women due to the fact that men had difficulty identifying with women and that too few women held high positions in the workplace. Kanter s career perspective looked beyond the individual and recognised the influence an organisation has on the course of a mentoring relationship. That is, her perspective emphasised mentoring as an instrumental relationship that is engaged in for the purpose of facilitating career advancement, rather than psychosocial development. Combining both the developmental and career perspectives, Dalton and his colleagues (1977) offered an integrated perspective of mentoring relationships. Dalton et al. interviewed 550 professionally trained employees from four different occupational groups in an endeavour to develop a career stage model that would explain the difference in performance levels between high and low performers. Over 500 high- and low-rated performers (gender distribution not specified) described their careers and the careers of their fellow professionals. Analysis of the data revealed four distinct career stages through which high-performers progressed: apprentice (learning from one or more mentors), colleague, mentor, and sponsor. Each stage differed from the others in the tasks performed, the types of relationships, and the psychological adjustments that were necessary. Dalton and his colleagues acknowledged that their labelling of two of the stages in the model apprentice and mentor was strongly influenced by Levinson s (1978)

20 6 concept of the mentor. Their research, in finding that involvement in a mentoring relationship is the predominant focus in two of the four stages of career development for high performers, emphasised the importance of both having, and being, a mentor in an organisation. Consistent with both Levinson (1978) and Kanter (1977), Dalton and his colleagues focussed on the mentoring functions that are provided (e.g., influencing, guiding, directing, and developing) and the benefits that are received for mentees (e.g., learning the ropes ) and mentors (e.g., recognition from peers and tapping into the skills of mentees) in their description of mentoring relationships. In describing the psychological issues and the organisational activities and relationships that occur at each career stage, Dalton et al. integrated the developmental and organisational perspectives. Specifically, they recognised that mentoring relationships are affected by both individual needs and organisational requirements. The research conducted by Levinson (1978), Kanter (1977), and Dalton et al. (1977), on individuals and their careers, has several common elements. First, all three research projects had begun with broad aims: Levinson aimed to create a developmental perspective on adulthood in men, Kanter set out to explore the experiences of men and women in organisations, and Dalton and his fellow researchers aimed to develop a career stage model that would explain high performance. However, regardless of the research aim or the perspective taken (developmental, career, or an integration of the two), a common finding was that mentoring is a crucial component of personal and professional development. That is, although mentoring had not been the initial focus of these studies, its importance to individuals and their careers emerged through the research.

21 7 Second, there was a common feature in the description of mentoring relationships across perspectives. Although differing in their focus on psychosocial or career development, researchers referred to the functions that mentors provide and the benefits that are received by both mentors and mentees, and thus began to clarify the nature of mentoring relationships. Third, there was recognition of gender issues in mentoring relationships. Although predominantly male samples were used, due to the gender imbalance in the workforce at the time the research was conducted, both Levinson and Kanter acknowledged special concerns for women. In particular, both researchers identified the lack of female mentors accessible to other women and the problems associated with cross-gender relationships. Kram s Descriptive Theory of Mentoring Relationships These early perspectives guided Kram (1980) who, in recognition of the common finding that mentoring was important to individuals and their careers, considered that an in-depth, systematic examination of mentoring relationships was required. The primary purpose of Kram s (1980, 1985) research was to understand relationships between younger and older managers that enhance individual development at successive life and career stages. Expanding on previous research, Kram combined the psychological and organisational perspectives in exploring the nature of mentoring relationships. Specifically, she focussed on examining the essential characteristics of mentoring relationships, exploring in depth the range of functions provided by mentors and the benefits received by mentees and mentors. Of particular interest, due to the differing

22 8 views of early researchers, was the extent to which a developmental relationship enhances psychosocial development and/or career advancement. Kram s (1980) methodology differed from that used previously in that she conducted an in-depth study of pairs of managers about relationships that were currently affecting their development. Previous studies of mentor and sponsor relationships (e.g., Dalton et al., 1977; Kanter, 1977; Levinson, 1978) had focussed on only one member of the relationship, who generally offered a retrospective account of a relationship that had occurred earlier in his or her career. Kram considered that obtaining both the mentor s and mentee s perspective on a current relationship would enhance understanding of the dynamic nature of mentoring relationships. Eighteen relationship pairs, composed of 15 junior managers (8 males and 7 females) ranging in age from 26 to 34, and 16 more experienced senior managers (15 males and 1 female) ranging in age from 39 to 63, from a single organisation were interviewed. Mentees and mentors were interviewed separately. Transcripts were analysed at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organisational levels, leading to a descriptive theory of mentoring that has been instrumental in shaping research conducted on mentoring relationships over the past 20 years. Recently, Crosby (1999) commented that Kram s (1985) publication on mentoring began contemporary scholarship on developmental relations (p. 7). Mentoring Functions Kram (1980, 1985) identified nine separate functions that are provided by mentors in the course of a mentoring relationship. She grouped these functions into two broad categories: career functions and psychosocial functions. Kram

23 9 (1980) concluded that the provision of career functions (sponsorship, exposureand-visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging work assignments) was made possible because of the senior person s position, experience, and organisational influence. Through these functions the junior person was assisted in gaining exposure, learning the ropes of organisational life, and obtaining promotions. By developing young talent, the senior person built respect among peers and superiors and developed support among juniors who were likely to be able to reciprocate support in later years (Kram, 1980). The provision of psychosocial functions (role modelling, acceptance-andconfirmation, counselling, and friendship) depended on the quality of the interpersonal relationship rather than the senior person s position and influence in the organisation (Kram, 1980). Kram found that psychosocial functions affected each manager on a more personal level than career functions and the benefits tended to extend beyond career advancement to other areas of the mentee s life. Thus, while career functions impacted most strongly on the relationship between the individual and the organisation, psychosocial functions impacted on the individual s relationships with self and with significant others both within and outside the organisation (Kram, 1980). When psychosocial functions were present in the relationship both the junior and senior persons experienced an increased sense of competence, effectiveness, and self-worth. While the junior person found support for his or her development as an organisational member, the senior person had the opportunity to fulfil generative needs at midlife (Kram, 1980). Interestingly, the emergence of these two categories of career and psychosocial functions reflect the perspectives of both Kanter (1977) and

24 10 Levinson (1978). Kram (1980) suggested that career functions are the instrumental aspects of the relationship that enhance career advancement, thus supporting Kanter s assertion that career advancement is the focus of mentoring relationships. Kram found that psychosocial functions are those aspects of a personal nature that enhance a sense of competence, clarity of identity, and selfworth both inside and outside the organisation, thus supporting Levinson s view that mentoring relationships enhance psychosocial development. Kram (1980) concluded that it was the simultaneous presence of career and psychosocial functions that differentiated mentoring relationships from other work relationships. In 15 of the 18 relationships she studied, both career and psychosocial functions were evident. The remaining three relationships, where only career functions were present, were considered helpful but no more important than other hierarchical relationships in the workplace. Kram also found that mentoring relationships that provided both categories of functions were more intimate and interpersonally stronger than those that provided only one category of functions. Such relationships were viewed by mentees and mentors as more indispensable and critical to development than other relationships at work. According to Kram (1980), career and psychosocial functions are not entirely distinct, but may be interrelated. For example, a mentor who endeavours to support his or her mentee s career advancement (provide career functions) may at the same time enhance that mentee s sense of competence and effectiveness as a member of the organisation (provide psychosocial functions). At a more specific level, a mentor who provides counselling (a psychosocial function) about a personal problem in the workplace may also provide coaching (a career

25 11 function) on how to overcome the recurrence of a similar problem in the future. Kram concluded that the range of functions provided in a mentoring relationship may vary depending on certain contextual factors such as the developmental stage of the relationship and the gender of mentee and/or mentor. Mentoring Benefits In regard to mentoring benefits, Kram (1980, 1985) supported the views of Levinson (1978), Kanter (1977), and Dalton et al. (1977) that mentoring relationships benefit both individuals. Indeed, the mentees and mentors in Kram s (1980) study reported a range of benefits that resulted from their involvement in a mentoring relationship. In particular, mentees noted that their mentors had helped them to obtain promotions, learn about organisational life, and develop a sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in the managerial role. Mentors reported a sense of personal satisfaction (from passing on skills and wisdom and fostering the development of the mentee), recognition and respect from peers and superiors, and increased technical or psychological support from their mentees as some of the benefits gained from the mentoring relationship. Kram (1980, 1985) also found that mentees and mentors gained an enhanced sense of self as a result of the positive regard shown by the other. The mentor provided support and encouragement as the mentee worked to develop competence and the mentee provided support and encouragement for the wisdom and experience that the mentor had to offer. Gender and Mentoring Acknowledging the concerns of early researchers regarding gender issues in mentoring relationships (e.g., Kanter, 1977; Levinson, 1978), Kram (1980)

26 12 explored the impact of gender on particular mentoring functions. Kram noted that cross-gender relationships tended to be limited in the functions they provided. For example, she suggested that an appropriate balance between over- and underprotection is difficult to achieve in cross-gender relationships. Female mentees reported feeling deprived of important developmental opportunities when they were over-protected by their male mentors, and on other occasions felt underprotected when intervention and support was needed from their male mentors but was not available. Friendship and other important functions that involve one-onone contact (e.g., coaching and counselling) may also be limited in cross-gender relationships due to anxiety about informal interactions and scrutiny by other members of the organisation (Kram, 1980). However, in Kram s study, the limitations of cross-gender mentoring relationships were most apparent in the area of role modelling. Female mentees reported experiencing ambivalence and confusion about whether to, and how to, emulate male mentors whose styles were inconsistent with their own. As Kram s sample included only one female mentor, it can be assumed that her conclusions about cross-gender relationships are based on male-mentor/female-mentee dyads. The Present Research Kram s (1980) research was the first systematic exploration of mentoring relationships. She extended the qualitative research of Levinson (1978), Kanter (1977), and Dalton et al. (1977) by exploring what they had described as the essential characteristics of mentoring relationships: the functions provided by mentors and the benefits that occur for mentees and mentors. In doing so, she

27 13 shared their concerns about women in mentoring relationships and identified the difficulties associated with cross-gender relationships. Kram s exploratory work provided the foundation on which a considerable amount of empirical research, over the past 20 years, has been built. That research has attempted to empirically identify and measure mentoring functions, has explored the benefits of mentoring for mentors and mentees, and more recently has focussed on the relationships between gender and mentoring. However, a review of the mentoring literature shows that despite a substantial amount of research being conducted, questions surrounding these issues remain unanswered: What are the functions that mentors provide?; What are the benefits for mentees and mentors?; What are the relationships between particular functions and benefits?; and What impact does gender have on mentoring functions and benefits? A systematic review of extant mentoring literature is provided in Chapter 2 prior to the reporting of three studies that were designed to answer those questions. Limitations of Previous Research The literature review shows that previous attempts to answer these questions have been fundamentally flawed. For example, the mentoring literature has given considerable attention to the development and testing of instruments to identify and measure mentoring functions. Predominantly, this research has conceptualised and measured two or three broad categories of mentoring functions (e.g., Dreher & Ash, 1990; Noe, 1988; Scandura & Katerberg, 1988; Tepper et al., 1996) and has not identified the nine distinct functions recognised by Kram (1980). A major limitation of focussing on broad categories of functions is that valuable information is lost by not recognising or allowing separate scoring of

28 14 individual mentoring functions. Failure to identify distinct mentoring functions may have resulted from issues of sampling inadequacy, insufficient measurement, and misinterpretation of factor solutions. An ongoing problem in relation to instrument development is that the majority of researchers have designed items on the basis of Kram s sample, which was not representative in terms of gender or organisation. To date, although considerable research has been conducted, there remains a lack of clarity about the functions that mentors provide. In regard to mentoring benefits, research has focussed on mentees by comparing mentees with non-mentees, or measuring the extent of mentoring received by mentees on a range of objective and/or perceived outcomes (e.g., Burke & McKeen, 1997; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). This research has been limited by the sole measurement of outcome variables that are typically used in organisational research that may or may not be attributable to the mentoring relationship. As such, research may have failed to identify and measure many valuable benefits as experienced by mentees. Indeed, the changing nature of work in modern organisations may reveal new benefits of mentoring. Research on benefits for mentors has been mainly descriptive and has not extended to the development of measurement scales. To date, research has not adequately identified mentoring benefits for mentees or mentors. Thus, the first purpose of the present research was to identify distinct mentoring functions and benefits as perceived by both mentees and mentors and to develop appropriate tools for their measurement. The flaws in the research on mentoring functions and benefits were perpetuated in research conducted on the relationships between those variables. In

29 15 particular, because of the conceptualisation of mentoring functions as broad categories, the relationships between distinct mentoring functions and benefits have not been explored. Research in this area has also been limited by the use of outcome measures that were most likely to be related to career, rather than psychosocial functions (Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991). The review will show that there is a need to investigate the relationships between distinct functions and benefits with the use of appropriate measurement instruments. In recent years, a number of researchers have turned their attention to the impact of gender on mentoring (e.g., McGuire, 1999; Ragins, 1994, 1999a). As the number of women in the workforce increase, research in this regard will become increasingly important (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Tharenou, 1997). Research to date, however, has yielded mixed results about the relationships between gender and mentoring functions and benefits and has been limited by samples that do not include all four combinations of gender of mentor-mentee. Again, this research has been limited by the lack of appropriate measurement instruments. Indeed, gender may impact differently with distinct mentoring functions, and benefits that mentees perceive are attributable to the mentoring relationship. Further, the instruments that have been used were designed on data collected from predominantly male samples and may have failed to adequately identify dimensions on which gender may have emerged as an important distinguishing factor. Thus, the second purpose of the current research was to examine the relationships between gender, distinct mentoring functions, and benefits for

30 16 mentees and mentors. The development of appropriate instruments to measure functions and benefits allowed such investigation. Design of Present Research To achieve the two purposes of the current research, and in recognition of the flaws in previous research that has attempted to examine mentoring functions, benefits, and the relationships between those variables and gender, three studies were designed. First, a qualitative study investigated mentees and mentors perceptions of their mentoring relationships, particularly in relation to the functions provided by mentors and the benefits received by mentees and mentors (see Chapter 3). Mentees and mentors were interviewed about their understanding and experiences of their mentoring relationships. Data from a sample comprising all four gender combinations of mentor-mentee from a range of organisations was systematically content analysed. The emergent categories of mentoring functions and benefits were used as the bases for item development in the construction of quantitative scales to measure mentoring functions and benefits (see Chapter 4). The newly developed instruments were used in a second study to investigate empirically mentoring functions and benefits (see Chapter 5). Principal components analyses (PCAs) were performed on data collected from an extensive and representative sample of mentees and mentors. Separate analyses identified mentoring functions as perceived by mentors, mentoring functions as perceived by mentees, benefits perceived by mentors, and benefits perceived by mentees. The components identified as a result of the PCAs were used in a third study to investigate the relationships between gender, mentoring functions, and

31 17 benefits (see Chapter 6). A series of hierarchical regressions analyses were conducted to examine, in turn, the effects of mentee gender, mentor gender, and gender composition of the mentoring dyad on mentoring functions and benefits. In addition, the relationships between mentoring functions and benefits were examined unaffected by gender. The final chapter of this thesis (Chapter 7) provides a summary of the major findings and outcomes, and their theoretical, methodological, and practical implications for individuals and the organisations in which they work.

32 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Overview This chapter reviews the literature in regard to mentoring functions, benefits, and the relationships between those variables and gender. First, it discusses empirical research on mentoring functions, in particular reviewing previous attempts to develop measurement instruments. Next, it reviews research conducted on the benefits of mentoring for both mentees and mentors. Then, it examines extant research on the relationships between mentoring functions and benefits. Finally, it presents a systematic review of research on the effect of gender on mentoring, examining in turn the impact of mentee gender, mentor gender, and gender composition of the relationship on mentoring functions and benefits. Mentoring Functions Since Kram s (1980) comprehensive qualitative study, research on mentoring functions has shifted to a survey approach and the use of quantitative techniques, principally factor analysis. In the main, the focus of this empirical research has been on the development and testing of instruments to empirically identify and measure the functions identified by Kram. Noe (1988) was one of the first researchers to develop a scale in this regard. He constructed a 32-item scale on the basis of career and psychosocial functions identified by Kram (1980). A total of 139 mentees (65 males and 74 females), of whom 50% had male mentors, rated each item on a 5-point scale for

33 19 the extent to which it described their mentoring relationship. Exploratory principal factor analysis revealed two factors (represented by 21 items) that clearly overlapped with Kram s conceptualisation of two categories of mentoring functions. Factor 1 represented psychosocial functions, including coaching, counselling, acceptance and confirmation, and role modelling (14 items accounting for 67% of the variance; α =.92). Factor 2 represented career functions, including protection, exposure and visibility, sponsorship, and challenging assignments (7 items accounting for 15% of the variance; α =.89). Items related to friendship did not load on either factor. Noe (1988) acknowledged one difference between his two-factor solution and Kram s (1980) two-factor conceptualisation. Specifically, the coaching function (a career function in Kram s research) loaded with the psychosocial functions in his study. This difference may have had implications for the broader conclusions Noe sought to draw from his findings, for example, that psychosocial functions are provided to a greater extent than career-related functions and that females receive significantly more psychosocial functions from their mentors than males. Specifically, in including a career-related function in his measure of psychosocial functions, Noe s conclusions about the difference between these categories of functions may be less than accurate. Indeed, several limitations of Noe s (1988) scale raise concerns about its use for measuring mentoring functions and drawing conclusions about the differences between those functions. First, the career development scale included seven items that measure the protection, exposure-and-visibility, sponsorship, and challenging assignments functions, but did not include the coaching function.

34 20 Second, the psychosocial functions scale included 14 items that omitted the friendship function and included the coaching function. Third, eight items failed to load significantly on either factor (including friendship items). Fourth, although designed to measure the career and psychosocial functions identified by Kram (1980), some of those functions were not represented in the scale and others were measured by only one or two items, rendering it difficult to measure reliably individual mentoring functions. To test further the two-factor structure found by Noe (1988), Tepper and her colleagues (1996) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on Noe s scale. Recognising some of the inadequacies of the measure, Tepper et al. selected 16 items from Noe s scale and included an item that measured the coaching function in the career-related mentoring functions scale. A total of 568 mentees (289 males and 279 females) rated, on a 5-point scale, the extent to which their mentor provided the activities described. Analysis confirmed the two-factor conceptualisation of Kram (1980, 1985) and Noe, but cast further doubt on the clarity of Noe s scale with the successful loading of coaching with the career functions. A number of other researchers have supported Kram s (1980, 1985) and Noe s (1988) findings that mentoring functions can be categorised as career and psychosocial functions. For example, Schockett and Haring-Hidore (1985) developed vignettes to measure psychosocial and vocational mentoring functions, and asked 144 undergraduate students (72 males and 72 females) to rate, on a 7- point scale, the desirability of the function depicted in each vignette. Principal axis factor analysis revealed two factors: psychosocial (accounting for 33.4% of

35 21 the variance) and vocational (5.9% of the variance), supporting the two-factor conceptualisation of prior research. Psychosocial functions included role modelling, encouraging, counselling, and acting as a transitional figure, and vocational functions included educating, consulting/coaching, sponsoring, and protecting. Notably, the vignette depicting coaching was included in the vocational functions, not the psychosocial functions. A second mentoring functions scale was developed by Dreher and Ash (1990). Their global measure of mentoring functions, designed to be representative of the nine dimensions described by Kram (1980, 1985), drew items from Noe s (1988) and Whitely, Dougherty, and Dreher s (as cited in Whitely et al., 1991) scales. Dreher and Ash asked 320 mentees (173 males and 147 females) to rate 18 items, on a 5-point scale, for the extent to which a mentor had provided the function described in each item. Exploratory principal components analysis revealed one general mentoring factor. However, examination of the output of Dreher and Ash s (1990) analysis (kindly provided by the first author) suggests that a solution of three independent components would be an equally reasonable interpretation. In a revised threecomponent solution, Component 1 would account for 35% of the variance and contain 11 items that relate mainly to Kram s (1980) psychosocial functions (acceptance and confirmation, counselling, and role modelling) and, as occurred in Noe s (1988) study, coaching would be included in this factor. Component 2 would account for 22% of the variance and contain four items related to career functions (challenging assignments and exposure and visibility). Finally, Component 3 would account for 11% of the variance and contain two items

36 22 related to protection. A single item relating to sponsorship would load meaningfully across all three components and, as in the Noe scale, friendship would not be included. Indeed, Turban and Dougherty (1994) showed this three-factor structure when they conducted a principal components analysis on Dreher and Ash s (1990) scale. A total of 147 mentees (75 males and 72 females) completed the scale. Factor 1 was labelled psychosocial (9 items); Factor 2 was labelled career-related (4 items); and Factor 3 was labelled protection and assistance (2 items) accounting for a total variance of 66%. In both the development and testing of this scale, Dreher and Ash (1990) and Turban and Dougherty (1994) suggested that mentoring functions should be examined as separate dimensions rather than as two categories and that continued development of measurement scales was needed. Similar to Noe (1988), Dreher and Ash had aimed to develop a measure that was representative of Kram s nine mentoring functions. However, as with Noe s scale, friendship was not included, and most functions were represented by only one or two items (i.e., acceptance-and-confirmation, role modelling, challenging assignments, protection, sponsorship, and coaching). Other researchers have found a three-factor conceptualisation of mentoring functions, with role modelling emerging as the third factor. Burke (1984) asked 80 mentees (63 males and 17 females), 78% of whom had male mentors, to complete a 15-item questionnaire that contained a mixture of open ended (qualitative) and fixed response (quantitative) items (p. 356). Factor analysis of the quantitative items revealed three factors: career development (7 items), psychosocial (5 items), and role model (3 items) accounting for 63% of the