Perceptions of Mentoring Relationships

Transcription

1 JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR 51, (1997) ARTICLE NO. VB Perceptions of Mentoring Relationships Ellen A. Fagenson-Eland School of Business Administration, George Mason University and Michelle A. Marks and Karen L. Amendola Department of Psychology, George Mason University The influence of mentor protégé relationship structure and experience factors on perceptions of mentoring were examined for a sample of mentors and also for a sample of protégés from the same work environment. Experience with mentor protégé relationships (number of mentors/protégés and relationship length) and the relationship structure (formally arranged vs informally developed and subordinate vs non-subordinate protégé) significantly affected reports of the amount of psychosocial support, career guidance, role modeling, and communication that occurred in the mentoring relationships in which the protégés and mentors engaged Academic Press Much research has investigated the outcomes of mentor protégé relationships. Mentoring has generally been shown to have a positive effect on protégés performance and overall success in organizational settings. Protégés receive more promotions, have higher salaries, exert greater influence, have more opportunities, and are more satisfied with their jobs and careers than nonprotégés (Fagenson, 1988, 1989; Scandura, 1992). Protégés are also highly committed to their organizations, are less likely to leave them, and provide their organizations with leadership talent (Burke, McKenna, & McKeen, 1991; Viator & Scandura, 1991). Many organizations, aware of the positive outcomes of mentoring, have encouraged the formation of mentor protégé relationships (Chao, Waltz, & Gardner, 1992). Researchers have responded accordingly and have investigated the effects of personal and organizational factors such as age, race, sex, gender orientation, organizational level, and Special thanks are offered to Barbara Ott and Jia-Ling Lin for assistance in survey distribution, data analysis, and computer programming for this study. This article was based on a paper that received the Best Paper Award at the Academy of Management, Address correspondence and reprint requests to Ellen A. Fagenson-Eland, George Mason University, Enterprise Hall, Fairfax, VA /97 $25.00 Copyright 1997 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

2 30 FAGENSON-ELAND, MARKS, AND AMENDOLA socioeconomic status on mentoring outcomes experienced and functions provided (Dreher & Cox, 1996; Fagenson, 1992, 1994; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990; Whitely, Dougherty & Dreher, 1992). However, little systematic attention has been paid to mentor protégé relationship factors (i.e., factors that are unique and peculiar to these types of relationships) that can affect the process and quality of mentoring provided (Burke et al., 1991; Kram, 1985; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). Yet, relationship factors have been implicated as exerting a significant and important impact on mentoring quality (Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). As organizations are interested in encouraging effective mentoring, it is important for them to understand how to structure mentoring relationships and to be attentive to the role that mentor protégé experience plays in enhancing or hindering the mentoring process. This is the focus of the current investigation. Several scholars and researchers have suggested that studies of the mentoring process should examine the influence of specific mentor relationship structure and experience factors on the delivery and receipt of mentoring functions (Kram, 1985; Scandura, 1992; Mullen, 1994). Ragins and McFarlin (1990) suggested that the following experiential and structural variables should be included in such a study: total number of protégé/mentor relationships, the length of the current protégé/mentor relationship, and whether the mentor is the protégé s boss. Chao et al. (1992), Noe (1988), and Kram (1985) emphasized the importance of specifying and comparing informally arranged mentor protégé relationships with relationships that have been formally assigned. Burke et al. (1991) suggested that the impact of mentoring experience and structural factors on the mentoring process should be considered simultaneously. The current study followed these recommendations and examined the relationship between these variables and the mentoring functions of career guidance, psychosocial support, role modeling, and communication for a sample of mentors and for a sample of protégés. Kram (1985) suggested that one of the critical influences on mentoring is the interpersonal, communication, and listening skills of both parties in the relationship. Olian, Carroll, Giannantonio, and Feren (1988) found that managers with greater levels of interpersonal competence were more often preferred as mentors than individuals who were less interpersonally skilled. As is generally the case with any skill, proficiency is enhanced with practice and experience. Consistent with this line of reasoning, Burke et al. (1991) found that mentor-supervisors reported providing more psychosocial functions the longer they were acquainted with a protégé-subordinate. Clawson (1980) showed that more effective mentors communicated more frequently with protégé-subordinates than less effective mentors. Protégés, on the other hand, may develop high expectations as a result of having greater experience with mentoring. The more mentoring they receive, the more mentoring they may expect. Protégés with fewer relationships may have a more limited basis for evaluating their mentors (Ragins & McFarlin,

3 PERCEPTIONS OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS ). Ragins and McFarlin (1990) found that protégés with fewer and shorter mentoring relationships perceived more mentoring than protégés with longer and a greater number of relationships. In formal mentor protégé programs, mentors and protégés are assigned to one another by the organization (Noe, 1988). According to Kram (1985), mentoring in assigned relationships is more superficial than mentoring in relationships that develop informally because chemistry and personal commitment cannot be legislated. Mullen (1994) suggested that assigned mentor protégé relationships are less comfortable than naturally formed unions and discourage communication. According to Chao et al. (1992), formalized mentoring relationships decrease mentors motivation and protégés openness. Previous research investigating the effects of assigned and nonassigned mentor protégé relationships has found mixed results and has focused on protégé samples exclusively. Chao et al. (1992) found that protégés in informal and formal relationships reported receiving similar levels of psychosocial support. However, protégés in informal relationships reported more careerrelated support than protégés in formal relationships. Noe (1988) found that protégés perceived greater psychosocial benefits than career-related support in formal relationships. These findings and the arguments presented above suggest that mentors in assigned relationships may report providing and protégés may perceive experiencing less mentoring than mentors and protégés in informally arranged mentor protégé alliances. Burke et al. (1991) suggested that a protégé s subordinate vs non-subordinate status will affect the quality of mentoring given and received. Mullen (1994) contended that protégés whose bosses are their mentors feel more comfortable communicating with them than protégés whose mentors are more organizationally distanced. According to Ragins and McFarlin (1990), mentor bosses have personal, first-hand knowledge of their protégés needs and immediate work environments and are required by the organization to be attentive to their performance. This greater accessibility and involvement of mentorbosses should be associated with mentors providing and protégé-subordinates receiving more mentoring functions than protégés who are not their mentor s subordinate. Research by Burke, McKenna, and McKenna (1993) showed that mentors reported providing more career development and psychosocial functions to protégés under their supervision than those who were not. Ragins and McFarlin (1990) found that protégés with supervisory mentors were perceived as providing more career development and counseling than nonsupervisory mentors. Based on the arguments and evidence presented above the following hypotheses were formulated: HYPOTHESIS 1. The more experience a mentor has, the more mentoring functions they will report providing. HYPOTHESIS 2. The more experience a protégé has, the less mentoring functions they will report receiving.

4 32 FAGENSON-ELAND, MARKS, AND AMENDOLA HYPOTHESIS 3. Mentors in formally assigned mentor protégé relationships will report providing less mentoring functions than mentors in informally arranged relationships. HYPOTHESIS 4. Protégés in formally assigned protégé mentor relationships will report receiving less mentoring functions than protégés in informally arranged relationships. HYPOTHESIS 5. Mentors whose protégés are their subordinates will report providing more mentoring functions than mentors whose protégés are not their subordinates. HYPOTHESIS 6. Protégés who are their mentors subordinates will report receiving more mentoring functions than protégés who are not their mentors subordinates. METHOD Organizational Context Data were gathered from two intermediate size technology organizations owned by the same parent company. Personnel in these organizations referred to them as sister companies. Both firms served the same type of customers, provided the same type of services, and were similarly structured. At the time the study was conducted, the companies were in the process of a merger that was successfully completed subsequent to the study. A formal mentoring program had been in existence in one of the organizations for 4 years. Participants were selected for the program in the following manner. The company asked managers to volunteer to serve as mentors and the company s vice presidents asked managers to nominate employees to serve as protégés. Mentor and protégé pairs, located in various units in the company, were assigned by Training and Development after interviews were conducted. Informal mentor relationships, (i.e., relationships that developed without intervention from the organization) were investigated in the sister organization. Individuals in these relationships were located in various units in the company. Sample Mentors. Thirty-five surveys were sent directly to mentors in the formal program by the Training and Development Office; 24 of these surveys were returned, for a 68% response rate. For the informal relationships, 89 surveys were sent to individuals, who were asked to identify whether they were a protégé. These surveys were sent to individuals in the company who had taken advantage of an education tuition reimbursement program offered by the organization to all of its employees. These individuals were instructed to answer a survey and forward a mentor survey to their mentors if they

5 PERCEPTIONS OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS 33 identified themselves as a protégé. Those who were not a protégé were requested to answer a survey and forward a supervisor survey to their supervisor (the information gathered in the latter two groups were used in another study). In total, 87 of the 89 individuals (i.e., 97.8%) in the informal group returned the survey. Thirteen of these individuals identified themselves as mentors. It is impossible to determine accurately what percentage the 13 mentors who responded to the survey represented of all mentors that were given surveys by their protégés, since the number of mentors and protégés in the population was unknown. All mentors were white, their average age was (SD Å 9.39), over 85% were in top or high- or middle-level management positions, and 97.3% had a college education. Almost 90% of the mentors were men (89.2%) and 10.8% of the mentors were women. On average, mentors had been in the organization for 8.57 years (SD Å 5.57). Mentors had been in the relationship with their protégé for 1.35 years (SD Å.97). On average, mentors had 4.64 (SD Å 6.22) mentor protégé relationships. Approximately 32% of the mentors reported that their protégés were also their subordinates. Of the mentor protégé relationships that were formed naturally, 33% of the mentors were also their protégés bosses. Their current relationship with their protégé was 1.63 years (SD Å 1.23) and had, on average, 7 (SD Å 7.69) relationships with a protégé. Of the formally arranged mentor protégé relationships, 39.1% of the mentors were also their protégé s bosses. Their current relationship with their protégé was 1.21 years (SD Å.81) and they had had, on average, 3.7 (SD Å 4.36), relationships with a protégé. Protégés. Thirty-five surveys were distributed by Training and Development to the protégés in the formal program and 30 were returned, for an 86% response rate. Eighty-nine surveys were sent to individuals in the informal mentor protégé relationship sample and 87 were returned (i.e., 97.8%). Of the 87 individuals who returned the survey, 16 identified themselves as protégés. It is impossible to determine accurately what percentage the 16 protégés who responded to the survey represented of all the protégés in the population, since the number of protégés in the population was unknown. The average age of protégés was (SD Å 7.49), 87% were white, and the majority were in supervisory or low- or nonmanagement-level positions (81.8%) and had a college education (89.1%). Fifty-seven percent of the protégés were men and 43% were women. Protégés had been in a relationship with a mentor for an average of 1.89 years (SD Å 2.88). On average, protégés had been in the organization for 4.14 years (SD Å 3.28). Protégés had had, on average, 2.24 (SD Å 1.41) mentor protégé relationships. Approximately 33% of the protégés reported that their mentors were also their bosses. Of the mentor protégé relationships that were formed naturally, 50% of the protégés were also their mentors subordinates. Their current relationship was 1.27 years, on average (SD Å.64), and they had formed 2.06, on average (SD Å 1.18), relationships with a mentor. Of the formally arranged mentor

6 34 FAGENSON-ELAND, MARKS, AND AMENDOLA protégé relationships, 23.2% of the protégés were also their mentors subordinates. Their current relationship was 2.26 years (SD Å 3.57), on average, and they reported that they had formed 2.35 (SD Å 1.65) relationships with a mentor, on average. Measures The 18-item Mentoring Functions Questionnaire (MFQ) (Scandura & Katerberg, 1988) was used to measure the three traditional mentoring functions. The functions, number of items measuring each, a sample item for each, and the Cronbach alpha reliability for the present sample follow: career guidance (8 items, I have devoted time and consideration to my protégé s career,.85); psychosocial support (3 items, My protégé has exchanged confidences with me,.64); and role modeling (7 items, My protégé has tried to model my behavior,.80). Sample items from each scale depict only the mentor version. Scandura (1992) supported this three-factor treatment of the MNQ using a factor analysis with a varimax rotation, and Scandura and Schreisheim (1991) supported the validity of the three scales using confirmatory factor analysis. Cronbach alpha reliability estimates for the three scales ranged from.72 to.90 in previous research (Scandura & Katerberg, 1988; Scandura, 1992). Research questionnaire. The amount of time devoted to the relationship was measured by a single item, which asked mentors and protégés to indicate how often they communicated with one another on an 11-point scale ranging from several times a week to never. Respondents also were asked to provide the following additional information: their gender, ethnic/racial background, organizational level, organizational tenure, age, education, number of years in the mentoring relationship, the total number of mentoring relationships, and whether their mentor (protégé) was also their boss (subordinate). All surveys were initially reviewed by the Training and Development Offices of the organizations studied to ensure that the wording used on the survey and the information presented and requested from the respondents would be appropriate for this sample. Procedure All survey participants were told that the survey was designed to study individuals who work in organizations, the organizations that employ them, and workplace relationships (Fagenson, 1992, 1994). Protégés and mentors were instructed to identify neither themselves nor one another. All surveys were number coded and were kept confidential by the university instructor in charge of the study. Respondents were provided with an envelope addressed to the professor for survey return. Protégés and mentors in the formal program were instructed to complete questions on the survey related to mentoring with respect to the mentor/ protégé to whom they had been assigned. Mentors in relationships that had developed informally were told to complete these questions with respect to

7 PERCEPTIONS OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS 35 the protégé who had forwarded the survey to them. Protégés in these relationships were told to complete these questions with respect to the mentor to whom they had given the survey. The following steps were taken to verify the status of mentors and protégés. Survey respondents were asked to indicate if they were a mentor or if they had a mentor. The following definition based on the work of Kram (1985), Noe (1988), and Fagenson (1989) was included on the survey form: A mentor is an experienced employee who serves as a role model and provides support, direction, and feedback regarding career plans and interpersonal development. A mentor is a person who is in a position of power who looks out for you, gives advice, and/or brings your accomplishments to the attention of other people who have power in the company. A protégé is the person receiving this attention. The Training and Development officers identification of individuals in the formal mentor program was also used to corroborate mentors and protégés self-identification. Additionally, the Mentoring Functions Questionnaire was completed. RESULTS The means and standard deviations of each of the study s variables and the correlations among variables are presented in Table 1. Age (see Table 1) was the only mentor and/or protégé background factor (e.g., organizational tenure, level, education, and gender) examined that correlated significantly with the mentor functions. Four two-step hierarchical regression analyses were performed for the mentors and protégés sample. The dependent variables in these analyses were career guidance, psychosocial support, role modeling, and communication frequency. In each analysis, age was entered as a covariate on the first step and mentor protégé relationship experience (number of mentor/protégé relationships, years in the present relationship) and structural variables (supervisory status of the mentor, relationship formality) were entered simultaneously as a block on the second step (Noe, 1988; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990) (see Table 2). Hypotheses 1, 3, and 5 refer to the mentors. Three findings supported Hypothesis 1. More experienced mentors (i.e., those reporting a greater number of mentor protégé relationships) reported providing greater levels of career guidance, and those reporting a longer lasting current mentor protégé relationship reported greater levels of career guidance and role modeling. Contrary to Hypothesis 1, they did not report providing more psychosocial support or more frequent communication. One finding supported Hypothesis 3. Formally assigned mentors reported communicating less frequently with protégés than informally assigned mentors. Contrary to Hypothesis 3, they did not provide less career guidance, psychosocial support, or role modeling. Two findings supported Hypothesis 5. Mentors whose protégés were their subordinates reported providing more career guidance and communicating

8 36 FAGENSON-ELAND, MARKS, AND AMENDOLA TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Mentors and Protégés Mentors Protégés M SD M SD Demographic variables 1. Age * *** *.52*** 0.59*** **.57** 2. Organizational tenure * *.72***.36* * Education ** Sex a * Organizational level ** Relationship experience 6. Years in relationship ** Number of relationships Organizational structure 8. Mentor/protégé status ** 0.46** 0.34*.58*** 9. Relationship formality * * 0.35* 0.33*.37* Mentoring functions 10. Career guidance ***.49* 0.37* ***.71*** 0.75*** 11. Psychosocial support * * *.55**.62*** 0.60*** 12. Role modeling ** ***.53** 0.67*** Mentoring process 13. Communication frequency * **.42** 0.62*** 0.47** 0.39* Note. Mentors (N Å 32 37) correlations occupy the lower triangle, and protégés (N Å 40 46) correlations occupy the upper triangle; Mentor/protégé status: 0 Å mentor is protégé s supervisor; 1 Å mentor is not protégé s supervisor; Relationship formality: 0 Å informally developed; 1 Å formally arranged; Career guidance, psychosocial support and role modeling: 1 Å not at all, to 5 Å to a very great extent; Communication frequency: 1 Å 1or more times a week; 2 Å once a week; 3 Å once every two weeks; 4 Å once every three weeks; 5 Å once a month; 6 Å once every two months; 7 Å four times a year; 8 Å two times a year; 9 Å once a year; 10 Å less than once a year; 11 Å almost never. a Due to a restriction range of mentors gender (only 4 of the mentors were women) only protégés gender was examined. * p õ.05. ** p õ.01. *** p õ.001.

9 PERCEPTIONS OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS 37 more frequently with their protégés than mentors whose protégés were not their subordinates. Contrary to Hypothesis 5, they did not provide more psychosocial support or role modeling. Hypotheses 2, 4, and 6 refer to the protégés. Two findings were in the opposite direction predicted by Hypothesis 2. More experienced protégés (i.e., those reporting a greater number of mentor protégé relationships) reported receiving greater levels of career guidance and those reporting a longer lasting current mentor protégé relationship reported greater levels of psychosocial support. Contrary to Hypothesis 2 role modeling and communication frequency were not affected by protégés relationship experience. One finding supported Hypothesis 4. Protégés in formal mentoring relationships reported receiving less psychosocial support than protégés in informal mentor relationships. Contrary to Hypothesis 4 protégés in formal mentoring relationships did not report receiving less career guidance, role modeling, or psychosocial support than protégés in informal mentor relationships. Three findings supported Hypothesis 6. Protégés who were their mentors subordinates reported receiving more career guidance, psychosocial support, and communication from their mentors than non-subordinate protégés. Contrary to Hypothesis 6, they did not report receiving more role modeling. DISCUSSION The results of this study revealed that perceptions of mentoring are affected by both mentor protégé relationship structure and experience factors and that few of the relationship factors that affect mentors perceptions of the mentoring process affected the protégés perceptions. This suggests that protégés and mentors perceptions cannot be generalized to one another and each require attention. The results of this study confirmed Ragins and McFarlin s (1990) finding that supervisory mentors were perceived as providing more mentoring than non-supervisory mentors. However, Ragins and McFarlin found that the greater the number of mentoring relationships the less mentoring protégés perceived, while the opposite was shown in this study. These discrepant results may be due to differences in the number of years protégés had been in their relationships. In the current study, protégés were engaged in their relationships for a much shorter period of time than in the Ragins and McFarlin (1990) study, and may have resulted in raised expectations. The results of the present research are inconsistent with Chao et al. s (1992) findings. Chao and colleagues found that career mentoring was perceived by protégés to be greater in informally arranged relationships than in formal ones and psychosocial mentoring was not found to vary according to the formality of the relationship. In the present study, protégés perceived greater psychosocial mentoring in informally arranged mentor relationships compared to formal relationships and their perceptions of career mentoring were not influenced by relationship formality. Differences in these two studies may be

10 38 FAGENSON-ELAND, MARKS, AND AMENDOLA TABLE 2 Prediction of Mentoring Functions for Mentors and for Protégés Mentors (N Å 37) Proteges (N Å 44) Change Change Predictors B R 2 Adj R 2 R 2 F B R 2 Adj R 2 R 2 F Career guidance Step 1 Age *** Step 1 total Step 2 Number of relationships.37**.27* Relationship years.57***.11 Status 0.24* 0.26* Formality Step 2 total *** ** Psycho-social support Step 1 Age 0.32* 0.27 Step 1 total Step 2 Number of relationships Relationship years.27.43** Status * Formality Step 2 total ***

11 PERCEPTIONS OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS 39 Role modeling Step 1 Age ** Step 1 total Step 2 Number of relationships Relationship years.47**.27 Status Formality Step 2 total ** Frequency of communication Step 1 Age.31.55*** Step 1 total Step 2 Number of relationships Relationship years Status.37*.35** Formality.34*.09 Step 2 total ** ** Note. Status of mentor: 0 Å mentor is protege s supervisor; 1 Å mentor is not protege s supervisor. Formality of relationship: 0 Å informally developed; 1 Å formally arranged. Status of protege: 0 Å protege is mentor s subordinate; 1 Å protege is not mentor s subordinate. * p õ.05. ** p õ.01. *** p õ.001.

12 40 FAGENSON-ELAND, MARKS, AND AMENDOLA due to differences in the number of years protégés had been in mentoring relationships. In the Chao et al. study, protégés were in informally and formally arranged relationships longer than the current sample. Career-related benefits may take more time to achieve than psychosocial benefits and may not have revealed themselves yet for the current sample. Additionally, differences between the Chao et al. (1992) and the current investigation may be due to differences in the formal mentor program investigated. In the Chao et al. study, the design of the formal mentor program was allowed to vary among respondents (who were recruited from a wide range of organizations) and program differences were not analyzed. In the present study, the type of formal mentor program investigated was held constant for all respondents and was specified. As expected, mentors reported less frequent communication with assigned than nonassigned protégés. This suggests that organizations may want to provide guidelines on the amount of time formal mentors spend with their protégés to help ensure that the same quantity time is expended in formal and informal unions. Formally arranged mentor protégé relationships appear to be less optimal than relationships that develop naturally (Kram, 1985). The limited effect of the experience and structure factors on protégés and mentors perceptions of role modeling was not expected. One possible explanation is that while a protégé can receive career mentoring or psychosocial support simply by asking their mentor for information or advice, this is not as easily accomplished with the more amorphous function of role modeling. Contrary to predictions, more experienced protégés reported receiving greater levels of psychosocial support and career guidance than less experienced protégés. This unpredicted finding may be due to experienced protégés having greater know-how about how to extract the benefits that mentors can provide. This suggests that organizations should encourage individuals to be involved in mentor protégé relationships on a continuing basis. The absence of an effect for the experiential and structural variables for psychosocial mentoring from the perspective of mentors was also unexpected. Kram (1985) reported that psychosocial support is enacted less often by mentors than any other mentoring function; this was also found to be the case here (see Table 1). Hence, to Kram s observation we add the following: mentors perceived level of psychosocial support does not appear to be responsive to the experiential and structural factors examined in this study. Organizations should encourage bosses to serve as mentors to their subordinates. The current study found that mentor-bosses were perceived to provide more mentor functions to their protégés than nonmentor bosses (Burke et al., 1993; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). If supervisors are encouraged and/or trained to serve as mentors, then the insecurity they often experience when their subordinates are mentored by more senior individuals (Kram, 1985) should be eliminated.

13 PERCEPTIONS OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS 41 This study represents the first attempt to examine systematically perceptions of mentoring as a function of several structural and experiential factors for protégés and for mentors. However, the sample size in this investigation was moderate. Additionally, the individuals surveyed in this study were recruited from two merging organizations owned by the same parent company in the technology field (Burke, McKeen, & McKenna, 1993). The degree to which these findings can be generalized to other business environments needs to be investigated. Future research should examine the unique advantages and disadvantages that different types of mentors provide to protégés. More mentoring functions were perceived to be provided by mentor-bosses than more distant senior organizational members. The advantages and disadvantages of organizationally distant senior mentors should be thoroughly investigated. In conclusion, the results of this research add to the growing body of literature which suggests not only that more research on mentor protégé structure and experience factors is needed but that these factors should be examined, specified, and/or controlled for in studies on mentoring for both protégés and mentors. REFERENCES Burke, R., McKenna, C., & McKeen, C. (1991). How do mentorships differ from typical supervisory relationships? Psychological Reports, 68, Burke, R., McKeen, C., & McKenna, C. (1993). Correlates of mentoring in organizations: The mentor s perspective. Psychological Reports, 72, Chao, G., Walz, P., & Gardner, P. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships. Personnel Psychology, 45, Clawson, J. (1980). Mentoring in managerial careers. In B. Derr (Ed.), Work, family and career: New frontiers in theory and research (pp ). Dreher, G., & Cox, T. (1996). Race, gender and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, Fagenson, E. A. (1988). The power of a mentor: Proteges and non-proteges perceptions of their own power in organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 13, Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantaged; Perceived career/job experiences of proteges vs. non-proteges. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, Fagenson, E. A. (1992). Mentoring Who needs it? A comparison of proteges and non-proteges needs for power, achievement, affiliation and autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, Fagenson, E. A. (1994). Perceptions of proteges vs. nonproteges relationships with their peers, superiors and departments. The Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, Hunt, D., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of Management Review, 8, Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work. Boston: Scott, Foresman and Company. Mullen, E. (1984). Framing the mentoring relationship as an information exchange. Human Resource Management Review, 4, Noe, R. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, Olian, J., Carroll, S., Giannantonio, & Feren, D. (1988). What do proteges look for in a mentor? Results of three experimental studies. Journal of Vocational, 33,

14 42 FAGENSON-ELAND, MARKS, AND AMENDOLA Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, Scandura, T. A., & Katterberg, R. J. (1988). Much ado about mentors and little ado about measurement. Development of an instrument. Academy of Management, Annaheim. Scandura, T. A., & Schreisheim, C. (1991). The effects of structural characteristics of mentoring dyads on protege career outcomes. Proceedings. Southern Management Association, Atlanta, Georgia. Viator, R. E., & Scandura, T. A. (1991, September). A study of mentor-protege relationships in large public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, Whitely, W., Dougherty, T., & Dreher, G. (1991). Relationship of career mentoring and socioeconomic origin to managers and professionals early career progress. Academy of Management Journal, 34, Received: January 14, 1997