The Handbook of Mentoring at Work

Theory, Research, and Practice

Belle Rose Ragins, K. E. Kram

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781506319018
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Ethics
• Index: Business

…a comprehensive overview of the current state of research, theory and practice drawn from the leading scholars and practitioners who have advanced our understanding of mentoring in the workplace… The Handbook of Mentoring at Work; Research, Theory, and Practice, provides a definitive guide that not only informs the field, but also extends it in three critical ways: Chronicles the current state of knowledge of mentoring and identifies important new areas of research: The Handbook begins with offering an extensive, cutting-edge and in-depth review of core topics in mentoring research, such as diversity in mentoring relationships, learning processes in mentoring relationships, formal mentoring, peer mentoring, socialization and mentoring, leadership and mentoring, dysfunctional mentoring, personality and mentoring, and electronic mentoring. Extends the theoretical horizon of mentoring: The theoretical section of the Handbook builds and extends mentoring theory by drawing on a diverse and rich literature of related theories, such as network theory, adult development theory, relational theory, communication theory, personal change theory, work-family theory and theories of emotional intelligence. Builds a bridge between the practice and study of mentoring: The Handbook includes chapters that address not only formal mentoring programs, but also mentoring practices that relate to leadership development programs, diversity programs and international perspectives.The Handbook is a "must-have" reference for understanding the key debates and issues facing mentoring scholars and practitioners, and provides a theory-driven road map to guide future research and practice in the field of mentoring.

PART I

Introduction

1

The Roots and Meaning of Mentoring

Belle Rose Ragins

Kathy E. Kram

You must do the things you think you cannot do.

—Eleanor Roosevelt

We don’t accomplish anything in this world alone … and whatever happens is the result of the whole tapestry of one’s life and all the weavings of individual threads from one to another that creates something.

—Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

When asked to contemplate relationships that have made a difference in our lives—relationships that have given us the courage to do the things we think we cannot do, relationships that have guided our professional development or even changed the course of our lives—many of us think of mentoring relationships. At its best, mentoring can be a life-altering relationship that inspires mutual growth, learning, and development. Its effects can be remarkable, profound, and enduring; mentoring relationships have the capacity to transform individuals, groups, organizations, and communities.

While our interest in mentoring is relatively young, mentoring is an ancient archetype originating in Greek mythology. A figure in Homer’s Odyssey, Mentor was a wise and faithful advisor entrusted to protect Odysseus’s son, Telemachus, while Odysseus sailed against Troy. It is interesting to note that the original mentoring archetype embodied both male and female attributes. Mentor was a man, but Athena, the female goddess of wisdom, assumed his form in order to guide, teach, and protect young Telemachus. This archetype offers provocative insights into the meaning of mentoring as a relationship that transcends time, gender, and culture. Moreover, while the roots of mentoring can be traced to mythology, mentoring is no myth; it is a very real relationship that has been an integral part of social life and the world of work for thousands of years.

Intrigued by this enduring and timeless relationship, Daniel Levinson (1978) explored the impact of mentoring on men’s development in his seminal book The Seasons of a Man’s Life. Shortly thereafter, Kathy Kram (1985) published Mentoring at Work, which offered a theoretical foundation for understanding developmental relationships at work for both men and women. This book captured and defined the construct of mentoring, planted a theoretical foundation for the field, and ignited a program of research that moved the concept of mentoring from an abstract academic construct to a household word.

Scholars then spent the next 20 years grappling with the myths and meaning of mentoring. The result is a literal explosion of research that crosses disciplines, professions, and continents (see reviews by Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Clutterbuck & Ragins, 2002; Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, 2002; Ragins, 1999; Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). Interest in mentoring continues to gain momentum, and this groundswell of attention can be traced to the practical application of mentoring in organizational settings, as well as to the general appeal of mentoring as a personal, tangible, and transformational relationship. However, even as mentoring is accessible when framed within our own experience, scholars continue to struggle with understanding the complexity of this pivotal, life-altering relationship. In a nutshell, we know it works; we are still grappling with why, when, and how.

After 20 years of research, it is time for us to step back and assess where we have been, where we are, and where we need to go in the field of mentoring. So much has changed since Mentoring at Work was published over 20 years ago. In the 1980s, organizations were stable and hierarchical; workforces were homogeneous and primarily male; employees looked forward to their “30-year gold watches”; and “web” referred to spiders rather than the Internet. Seismic changes in technology, globalization, organizational structures, career paths, and diversity require a critical analysis and reassessment of the field. In addition to these massive structural changes, new hybrid forms of mentoring were being offered by organizations without guidance or connection to empirical research. Clearly, the time is right for a volume that allows us to reflect on our past and plan our future. Accordingly, the purpose of the Handbook of Mentoring at Work is to consolidate what we have learned, bring new theoretical lenses to the discourse on mentoring, and forge important new bridges between the research and practice of mentoring.

In this introductory chapter, we first give the reader a brief overview of the roots and evolution of mentoring relationships. Next, we offer an introduction to the new perspectives on mentoring that will be addressed in this book. Following this, we provide the reader with the purpose, vision, and objectives of the handbook. We conclude with an overview of how the volume is organized.

Understanding the Lay of the Land: The Roots and Evolution of Mentoring

---

Early Perspectives of Mentoring

Traditionally, mentoring has been defined as a relationship between an older, more experienced mentor and a younger, less experienced protégé for the purpose of helping and developing the protégé’s career (Kram, 1985; Levinson, 1978; see also reviews by Noe et al., 2002; Ragins, 1999; Wanberg et al., 2003). The mentor may or may not be employed in the same organization as the protégé or be in the protégé’s chain of command or profession.

Although the definition of mentoring has been refined over the years, a core feature that defines mentoring relationships and distinguishes it from other types of personal relationships is that mentoring is a developmental relationship that is embedded within the career context. While learning, growth, and development may occur in many different types of work and close personal relationships, mentoring relationships are unique in that the primary focus of the relationship is on career development and growth. Let us now turn to a brief overview of the types of behaviors or functions offered in mentoring relationships.

Mentoring Functions

Mentors are generally viewed as providing two types of functions to their protégés (Kram, 1985). First, mentors may offer career functions. Career functions involve a range of behaviors that help protégés “learn the ropes” and prepare them for hierarchical advancement within their organizations. These behaviors include coaching protégés, sponsoring their advancement, increasing their positive exposure and visibility, and offering them protection and challenging assignments. Second, mentors may provide psychosocial functions. Psychosocial functions build on trust, intimacy, and interpersonal bonds in the relationship and include behaviors that enhance the protégé’s professional and personal growth, identity, self-worth, and self-efficacy. They include mentoring behaviors such as offering acceptance and confirmation and providing counseling, friendship, and role-modeling.

As research in the field has progressed, four key insights about mentoring functions have emerged. First, career and psychosocial functions have different roots and outcomes. In her early work, Kram (1985) observed that career functions depend on the mentor’s position and influence in the organization, while psychosocial functions rely on the quality of emotional bonds and psychological attachments in the relationship. Subsequent research has indeed found that career and psychosocial functions constitute two relatively independent dimensions of mentoring behaviors (Noe, 1988; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990), although some studies have found that rolemodeling may represent a third dimension of mentoring (Scandura, 1992; Scandura & Ragins, 1993). Mentoring scholars have also discovered that different mentoring functions predict different protégé outcomes: Career functions are a stronger predictor of protégés’ compensation and advancement, while psychosocial functions have a stronger relationship with protégés’ satisfaction with the relationship (Allen et al., 2004; Wanberg et al., 2003). However, both career and psychosocial functions predict protégés’ job and career satisfaction (Allen et al., 2004).

Second, there is significant variation in the range and degree of mentoring functions within and across relationships. Like other relationships, no two mentoring relationships are alike. Some relationships provide either career or psychosocial functions, while other relationships offer a broad range of behaviors that incorporate both types of mentoring functions (Noe, 1988; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990; Scandura, 1992). In addition, mentoring relationships vary in the degree to which a given mentoring function is provided. For example, mentors may offer high, medium, or low levels of a specific function in a given relationship. The range and degree of functions provided by a mentor may be driven by the needs of the protégé, the mentor’s ability to meet those needs (i.e., their interpersonal skills, resources, and power), the mentor’s needs, the “chemistry” in the relationship, and the organizational context (Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1997). Finally, because mentoring relationships may represent a “fit” between the needs of the protégé and the mentor’s ability and interest in meeting those needs, the same mentor may offer different functions and degrees of functions to different protégés.

Third, mentoring functions may vary across the phases of the relationship (Kram, 1983, 1985). Mentoring relationships are not static, but evolve through phases that reflect different functions, experiences, and patterns of interactions. Kram’s (1983) study of 18 mentoring relationships revealed that functions vary across four distinct phases in the relationship: initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition. Some career functions may be offered in the initiation phase, but career and psychosocial functions usually peak during the cultivation phase. The cultivation phase is marked by strengthened interpersonal bonds and a shift from a one-way, helping relationship to a relationship entailing more mutual exchange and reciprocity (Kram, 1985). The cultivation phase ends when changes in individual needs or the organizational environment disrupt the equilibrium of the relationship. The relationship may shift into this separation phase because of psychological or physical reasons. For example, the protégé may psychologically outgrow the relationship, or the relationship may terminate because one or both members physically leave the organization. Although mentoring relationships may terminate for functional or dysfunctional psychological reasons, existing research indicates that most relationships terminate because of physical separation (Ragins & Scandura, 1997). Some mentoring relationships disband at the separation phase, but relationships that offer strong psychosocial functions may continue to a redefinition phase. In this phase, the relationship becomes redefined as a peer relationship or friendship. Career functions are less evident in this phase, but friendship, some counseling, and occasional coaching may continue in the redefinition phase.

The final insight about mentoring functions is that individuals may provide these functions without necessarily being mentors. There are a number of examples that illustrate this point. A manager may offer career functions to his or her employee without either individual viewing the relationship as a mentoring relationship. Similarly, psychosocial functions of friendship and counseling often occur in many work relationships that are not perceived as mentoring relationships by either member of the relationship. Individuals may serve as role models without being mentors. The distinction between mentoring behaviors and mentoring relationships is important from both a methodological and practical perspective (see Dougherty & Dreher, Chapter 3, this volume; Ragins, 1999). As we will see later in this volume, the idea of mentoring episodes, which are short-term developmental interactions, offers a useful lens for distinguishing between mentoring behaviors and mentoring relationships (see Fletcher & Ragins, Chapter 15, this volume).

Now that we have reviewed some of the complexities involved with understanding the behaviors in mentoring relationships, let us turn to a brief review of the outcomes of these relationships.

Outcomes for Protégés

Most mentoring research has focused on career outcomes for protégés and has found a positive relationship between the presence of a mentor and career outcomes (see qualitative reviews by Noe et al., 2002; Ragins, 1999; Wanberg et al., 2003). Concurring with qualitative reviews, a meta-analysis conducted by Allen and her colleagues (Allen et al., 2004) found that mentored individuals receive more promotions and earn higher salaries than their nonmentored counterparts. In addition to these instrumental outcomes, protégés report more career satisfaction, career commitment, and job satisfaction and greater expectations for advancement than those without mentors.

While these results have led mentoring scholars to conclude that mentoring relationships offer a significant career advantage for protégés, recent critiques point out that because most mentoring research is cross-sectional, we are unable to draw clear causal links between mentoring and protégé career outcomes (see Wanberg et al., 2003). The relationship between the presence of a mentor and protégé career outcomes may be a function of the “rising-star effect” (Ragins, 1999; Ragins & Cotton, 1993). This refers to the potential scenario in which high-performing, “rising-star” employees may be more likely than other employees to enter mentoring relationships. This selection artifact obscures whether the outcomes associated with mentoring are due to the relationship, the protégé’s independent abilities, or some combination of these two factors. A recent longitudinal test of the rising-star effect revealed that rising stars are more likely than other employees to obtain mentors (Singh, Tharenou, & Ragins, 2007). These results complement other research that has found that mentors select protégés on the basis of their competency and potential (Allen, Poteet, & Burroughs, 1997; Olian, Carroll, & Giannantonio, 1993). However, while rising stars are more likely to obtain mentors, Singh and her colleagues (Singh et al., 2007) found that they also experience a sharp increase in salary, career satisfaction, and advancement expectations after entering the mentoring relationship. These results suggest that the significant relationship typically found between mentoring and protégé outcomes may be due to both preexisting protégé attributes as well as the independent effects of mentoring relationships. In addition, the organization may also play a significant role in protégé outcomes. Although there has been a lack of research on this topic, high-performing protégés may seek organizations that offer developmental cultures and stretch assignments that support their career trajectories. This represents a provocative area for new research.

Outcomes for Mentors

Although quite a bit of research has explored the effects of mentoring on protégé ...