1 mentoring of scientists and engineers: dyadic and formality effects on career development and...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Mentoring of Scientists and Engineers: Dyadic and Formality Effects
onCareer Development
andPsychosocial Interactions
Mike Lyon
2
Outline
Background Objectives Literature Review Research Statement Methodology Analysis Conclusions
3
Background
Many companies have instituted formal mentoring programs which pair promising young employees with experienced senior members.
HOWEVER------Formal, structured programs have been
found to be less effective than informal, spontaneous mentor-protégé pairings.
Not getting glowing scores for success Zey (1984); Chao, Walz and Gardner (1992)
Spontaneous, informal mentoring relationships usually fare better Noe (1988); Chao, Walz and Gardner(1992); Allen and Russell (1997); Hegstad (1999); Douglas and MacCauley (1999)
4
Why Mentor?
Mentoring has long been recognized as a means to pass along business “rules of thumb”, provide introductions to “the right people”, and provide a buffer layer to the new employee as he or she learns the basics of the business.
The goal of mentoring is to facilitate job success for the protégé and for the protégé to become a satisfied, productive employee.
Comparisons made by Zey (1984) and Ragins (1997) of mentored versus unmentored individuals indicate that mentoring can benefit three distinct entities: the protégé, the mentor, and the organization.
5
Mentoring
“The mentor is usually a senior, experienced employee who serves as a role model, provides support, direction, and feedback to the younger employee regarding career plans and interpersonal development, and increases the visibility of the protégé to decision-makers in the organization who may influence career opportunities.” Noe (1988)
6
Effective Mentor Characteristics
1. They are higher up in the organization
2. They are an authority in their field3. They are influential with a “voice” in
the profession4. They are close to the lines of
authority and power5. They are interested in the protégé’s
growth and development6. They are willing to commit time and
emotion to the relationship Collins (1983); Noe (1988); Chao, et al
(1992)
7
Program Structure
Informal mentorships not constructed by the organization arise spontaneously not managed, structured, or formally
recognized by the organization. Formal mentorships
organizationally managed generally created by assignment or
mentor selection designed to pair up employees with
peers, seniors, or outside consultants
8
Mentoring Program Structure
Elements of structure Is the mentoring program developed or implemented
by the organization? (Initiation) Is the mentoring program coordinated or directed by
the organization? (Direction) Are mentoring relationships encouraged by the
organization? (Sustainment) Is the mentoring program reviewed by the
organization? (Monitoring)
Is progress of the mentoring relationship evaluated by the organization? (Improvement)
How do the mentor and protégé meet? (Facilitization)
9
Prior Researchers
Career Development
Bas
ic C
aree
r D
evel
opm
ent
Fun
ctio
n Id
enti
fica
tion
Coa
chin
g -
Act
ivit
ies
Spo
nsor
ing
Adv
ance
men
t - A
ctiv
itie
s
Pro
vidi
ng C
hall
engi
ng A
ssig
nmen
ts -
Act
ivit
ies
Pro
tect
ion
- A
ctiv
itie
s
Fos
teri
ng P
osit
ive
Vis
ibil
ity
- A
ctiv
itie
s
Acc
ess
to R
esou
rces
- A
ctiv
itie
s Burke, 1996 X Chao, Walz and Gardner, 1992 X Coley, 1996 X Collins, 1983 X Hegstad, 1999 X X Kram, 1980, 1988 X X X X X X Lindbo and Schultz, 1998 X X X Misserian, 1982 X X X X X X Munhall and Fitzsimons, 1995 X X Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992 X Ragins, 1997 X X Schweibert et al., 1999 X Zey, 1984 X X X
Psychosocial
Bas
ic P
sych
osoc
ial F
unct
ion
Iden
tifi
cati
on
Per
sona
l Sup
port
- A
ctiv
ities
Fri
ends
hip
- A
ctiv
itie
s
Acc
epta
nce
- A
ctiv
itie
s
Cou
nsel
ing
- A
ctiv
itie
s
Rol
e M
odel
ing
- A
ctiv
itie
s
Allen and Russell, 1997 X Baron and Greenberg, 1989 X X Clemmons, 1995 X Coley, 1996 X Collins, 1983 X X Crampton and Mishra, 1999 X Douglas and McCauley, 1999 X Goh, 1998 X Kaye and Jacobson, 1996 X Kram, 1980, 1988 X X X X X X Lindbo and Schultz, 1998 X X Misserian, 1982 X X X Moore, 1999 X Parker and Kram, 1993 X Ragins, 1997 X Ragins, Townsend and Mattis, 1998 X X X Schweibert et al., 1999 X X Szymborski, 1996 X Zey, 1984 X X X X
10
Career Development Mentoring
(Kram, 1988)(Ragins, 1997)
(Missirian, 1982Zey, 1984Lindbo, 1998)
Mentoring FunctionsCareer Development
CoachingSponsoring
advancement
Providingchallengingassignments
Protection fromadverse forces
Fosteringpositive visibility
Providing accessto resources
Money, supplylines,communicationlines
Publicizesprotege'sachievements
Free to makemistakes
High standardsof perf ormance
Providesopportunities to learn
Demands seen asopportunities
Thinking more clearly/ creatively
Speaks well ofprotege withsuperiors
Manipulatespolitical f orces
Gains admissionto programs
Gives vision
Teaches the job
Provides insideinf ormation
Provides advice &support
I ntroducescorporatestructure, politics
11
Mentoring FunctionsCareer Development
CoachingSponsoring
advancement
Providingchallengingassignments
Protection fromadverse forces
Fosteringpositive visibility
Providing accessto resources
Money, supplylines,communicationlines
Publicizesprotege'sachievements
Free to makemistakes
High standardsof perf ormance
Providesopportunities to learn
Demands seen asopportunities
Thinking more clearly/ creatively
Speaks well ofprotege withsuperiors
Manipulatespolitical f orces
Gains admissionto programs
Gives vision
Teaches the job
Provides insideinf ormation
Provides advice &support
I ntroducescorporatestructure, politics
Career Development Mentoring
(Kram, 1988)(Ragins, 1997)
(Missirian, 1982Zey, 1984Lindbo, 1998)
“Main role of a mentor”(Coley, 1996)
Particularly important early in protégé’s career(Missirian, 1982)
Opportunities for networking, rejuvenation of career(Hegsted, 1999)
12
Psychosocial Mentoring
(Kram, 1988)
Mentoring FunctionsPsychosocial
Personal support Friendship Acceptance Counseling Role modeling
Teaching byexample
Sharing dreams
Providing f eedback
Sense ofperspectiveAwareness of contribution torelationship
Opinions heard &valued
Assistance withpersonal lif e
Belief in protege
Building confidence
Encouragement
Overcoming pressures &strains
13
Mentoring FunctionsPsychosocial
Personal support Friendship Acceptance Counseling Role modeling
Teaching byexample
Sharing dreams
Providing f eedback
Sense ofperspectiveAwareness of contribution torelationship
Opinions heard &valued
Assistance withpersonal lif e
Belief in protege
Building confidence
Encouragement
Overcoming pressures &strains
Psychosocial Mentoring
(Kram, 1988)
Found to be critical for female protégés(Ragins, et al, 1998Crampton and Mishra, 1999)
“Belief in the person”(Munhall and Fitzsimmons, 1995)
“Providing advice and moral support in times of stress or crisis”(Collins, 1983)
“… strong, clear, visible organizational value system…”(Lindbo and Schultz, 1998)
14
Dyads
Dyads are described as either Homogeneous -- mentor and protégé
share similar characteristics Diverse – mentor and protégé differ Are typically categorized based on
Gender Race
15
Gender is Dyad Variable
What prompted this selection Women make up 46% of US labor force Women hold 10.6% of the engineering jobs. (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1997)
In 1999, women held 5.1% of “clout” titles (Catalyst, 1999)
Mentoring barriers for women Fewer females to serve as mentors for young
females Women less plugged into informal networks
(fewer interactions with persons in power) Visibility resulting from affirmative action scares
mentors Misinterpretation of relationships (cross-gender)
(Noe, 1988; Ragins and Cotton, 1996)
16
Gender-based Perspectives
Men see mentors as: Developing leadership Developing ability to take risks Giving direction Communication
Women see mentors as: Giving encouragement and support Instilling confidence Providing growth opportunities Giving visibility within organization(Collins, 1983)
17
Objective of Study
To study: How are
mentoring activities related to structural factors ?
How do these vary with dyad homogeneity?
MentoringActivity
MentoringProgram
Structure
DyadHomogeneity
CareerDevelopmentOutcomes
Psychosocial Outcomes
18
Significance of Research
No research to date has investigated the impact of mentoring program formality on degree of mentor role activity for a broad spectrum of knowledge workers. Prior researchers have focused on a single organization, trade, or discipline.
Looks at a broad population of high technology workers in aerospace, electronics, Government and private sectors, large firms as well as small firms, and U.S. as well as international organizations.
19
Hypotheses
#1. Formal (structured) programs and informal (unstructured) programs provide the same emphasis on career development factors.
#2. Formal programs and informal programs provide the same emphasis on psychosocial factors.
#3. Emphasis on the career development roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad.
#4. Emphasis on the psychosocial roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad
I nformal
Career Development
Formal
I nformal
Formal
Psychosocial
HomogeneousDyad
HeterogeneousDyad
Career Development
HomogeneousDyad
HeterogeneousDyad
Psychosocial
20
Survey Process
Pilot run with 15 S&Es 22 Organizations POC coordination in each organization Self-scoring survey Respondent anonymity 2 Formats used
Paper Electronic
202 protégé responses
21
Scope of Research
Target population: Engineers and scientists working in Government Industry High-tech sectors
AerospaceComputers / electronicsTennessee Valley as well as outsideAcross spectrum of org. sizes and mentoring program structure.
22
22 Participating Organizations202 protégé responses
Aerojet Corporation Atlantic Research
Corporation Bechtel Defence Research
Establishment Valcartier (Canada)
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (UK)
ERC Corporation Infinity Technology Israeli Aircraft Industry
(Israel) Mevatec NASA/Marshall Space
Flight Center Owens Corning
Fiberglass
Savannah River Site Stone Engineering Talley Industries Teledyne Solutions US Army Aviation and
Missile Command US Army Research
Laboratory US Army Research
Organization US Missile and Space
Intelligence Command US Naval Air Warfare
Center / China Lake US Naval Surface
Warfare Center / Indian Head
US Space and Missile Defense Command
23
Current Job Title
Aerospace EngineerAnalystChemical EngineerChemistComputer EngineerDesignerElectrical EngineerEngineerEngineering ManagerEnvironmental Engineer
Mechanical EngineerMetallurgistPhysicistProject ManagerResearch ChemistResearch EngineerScientistSystems AnalystSystems EngineerTeam Leader
24
Survey Instrument (Structure portion)
1. The mentoring program was developed or implemented by my organization.
Not at all To a small degree To a large degree Fully
2. Our mentoring program is coordinated or directed by my organization.
Not at all Only occasionally Frequently Constantly
3. Mentoring programs are encouraged by my organization.
Not at all Only occasionally Frequently Constantly
4. Our mentoring program is reviewed by my organization
Not at all Only occasionally Frequently Constantly
5. My mentoring progress is evaluated by my organization. (e.g. it is part of my performance appraisal process)
Not at all Only occasionally Frequently Constantly
6. How I met my mentor
Spontaneous. We just
seemed to “hit it off”
when we met
One of us sought out the other based on comments of other employees
We met in a meeting set up by our organization to bring together perspective mentors and proteges
Our organization paired us without our input.
7. How would you describe your organization’s mentoring program?
informal formal
25
Survey Instrument (Roles portion)
29-question survey created by Noe Internal consistency (=.89career development
=.92psychosocial) Used by
Noe (1988) to study education protégés in assigned relationships (N=139)
Dreher (1990) to study business school graduates (N=320)
Chao (1992) to study mentorship formality Orpen (1995) to study effects on career
success
26
Survey Instrument Roles (con’t)
Item Not at
all
To a small
extent To
some extent
To a large
extent
To a very large
extent
1. Mentor has shared history of his / her career with you. (Coaching)
2. Mentor has encouraged you to prepare for advancement. (Coaching)
3. Mentor has encouraged me to try new ways of behaving in my job. (Acceptance & Confirmation)
4. I try to imitate the work behavior of my mentor. (Role Model) Red portion did not appear on actual survey
27
Survey Instrument (Other metrics)
Dyad genders, races, ages Miscellaneous demographics
Org. size, years in present job, term of mentoring relationship, proximity of offices
“Success” factors (subjective statement from protégé) Effectiveness of mentorship in career
development Effectiveness of mentorship in non-career ways Most important mentoring role Least important mentoring role
28
Dyad Pair ing Process
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Spontaneous Word of Mouth Via a "Mentorship
Fair"
Organizat ion did
pair ing
Percent of respondents
Appr
oach
Demographics of Surveyed Organizations
Organizational I nvolvement
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Not at all To a small
degree
To a large
degree
Fully
Level
Perc
ent
of r
espo
nden
ts Developed byorganization
Coordinated byorganization
Encouraged byorganization
Reviewed byorganization
Evaluated byorganization
American (88%)International (12%)
Ment.Prot.
Male Female
Male 74.3% 2.0%
Female 19.3% 4.4%
< 1 yr
1-5 yrs
6-12 yrs
>12 yrs
11% 31% 18% 40%
Protégé’s Years with Organization
29
Analysis TaxonomyI f eel that the
overall mentoringprogram at myorganization is
eff ective
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in mycareer development
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in non-career ways
CoachingSponsoring
advancement
Providingchallengingassignments
Protecting f romadverse f orces
Fosteringpositive visibility
Providing acessesto resources
Personal support Friendship
Acceptance Counseling
Role modeling
1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26
3, 14, 28
4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13
15, 16
17, 18, 19
20
21, 22
27, 29
Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial
30
H1 and H2 Results
“Developed by Organization”
Developed by organization
FullyTo a large degreeTo a small degreeNot at allM
ea
n o
f O
vera
ll ca
ree
r d
eve
lop
me
nt
sco
re
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
Typical trend
I f eel that theoverall mentoringprogram at myorganization is
eff ective
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in mycareer development
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in non-career ways
CoachingSponsoring
advancement
Providingchallengingassignments
Protecting f romadverse f orces
Fosteringpositive visibility
Providing acessesto resources
Personal support Friendship
Acceptance Counseling
Role modeling
1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26
3, 14, 28
4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13
15, 16
17, 18, 19
20
21, 22
27, 29
Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial
p=.000
p=.002 p=.508
p=.144 p=.001
p=.000 p=.169
p=.002 p=.251
p=.418 p=.786
p=.614
31
H1 and H2 Results
“Coordinated by Organization”
Coordinated by organization
ConstantlyFrequentlyOnly occasionallyNot at all
Me
an
of
Me
nto
rin
g p
rog
ram
is e
ffe
ctiv
e,
ove
rall 4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Typical trend
I f eel that theoverall mentoringprogram at myorganization is
eff ective
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in mycareer development
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in non-career ways
CoachingSponsoring
advancement
Providingchallengingassignments
Protecting f romadverse f orces
Fosteringpositive visibility
Providing acessesto resources
Personal support Friendship
Acceptance Counseling
Role modeling
1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26
3, 14, 28
4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13
15, 16
17, 18, 19
20
21, 22
27, 29
Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial
p=.000
p=.982 p=.815
p=.993 p=.516
p=.908 p=.793
p=.660 p=.165
p=.808 p=.454
p=.991
32
H1 and H2 Results
“Encouraged by Organization”
Encouraged by organization
ConstantlyFrequentlyOnly occasionallyNot at all
Me
an
of
Me
nto
r is
eff
ect
ive
in c
are
er
de
velo
pm
en
t
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
Typical trend
I f eel that theoverall mentoringprogram at myorganization is
eff ective
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in mycareer development
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in non-career ways
CoachingSponsoring
advancement
Providingchallengingassignments
Protecting f romadverse f orces
Fosteringpositive visibility
Providing acessesto resources
Personal support Friendship
Acceptance Counseling
Role modeling
1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26
3, 14, 28
4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13
15, 16
17, 18, 19
20
21, 22
27, 29
Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial
p=.000
p=.005 p=.001
p=.000 p=.431
p=.006 p=.002
p=.052 p=.000
p=.003 p=.008
p=.123
33
H1 and H2 Results
“Reviewed by Organization”
Reviewed by organization
ConstantlyFrequentlyOnly occasionallyNot at all
Me
an
of
Ro
le M
od
el (
avg
)
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
Typical trend
I f eel that theoverall mentoringprogram at myorganization is
eff ective
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in mycareer development
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in non-career ways
CoachingSponsoring
advancement
Providingchallengingassignments
Protecting f romadverse f orces
Fosteringpositive visibility
Providing acessesto resources
Personal support Friendship
Acceptance Counseling
Role modeling
1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26
3, 14, 28
4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13
15, 16
17, 18, 19
20
21, 22
27, 29
Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial
p=.000
p=.773 p=.524
p=.282 p=.608
p=.759 p=.098
p=.981 p=.040
p=.692 p=.450
p=.987
34
H1 and H2 Results
“Evaluated by Organization”
Evaluated by organization
ConstantlyFrequentlyOnly occasionallyNot at all
Me
an
of
Me
nto
r is
eff
ect
ive
in c
are
er
de
velo
pm
en
t
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
Typical trend
I f eel that theoverall mentoringprogram at myorganization is
eff ective
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in mycareer development
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in non-career ways
CoachingSponsoring
advancement
Providingchallengingassignments
Protecting f romadverse f orces
Fosteringpositive visibility
Providing acessesto resources
Personal support Friendship
Acceptance Counseling
Role modeling
1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26
3, 14, 28
4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13
15, 16
17, 18, 19
20
21, 22
27, 29
Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial
p=.000
p=.095 p=.098
p=.032 p=.745
p=.105 p=.002
p=.503 p=.074
p=.027 p=.144
p=.309
35
H1 and H2 Results
“How met Mentor”
How met mentor
PairedIntroducedrecommendedSpontaneousM
ea
n o
f Acc
ep
tan
ce &
co
nfir
ma
tion
(a
vg)
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
Typical trend
I f eel that theoverall mentoringprogram at myorganization is
eff ective
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in mycareer development
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in non-career ways
CoachingSponsoring
advancement
Providingchallengingassignments
Protecting f romadverse f orces
Fosteringpositive visibility
Providing acessesto resources
Personal support Friendship
Acceptance Counseling
Role modeling
1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26
3, 14, 28
4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13
15, 16
17, 18, 19
20
21, 22
27, 29
Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial
p=.002
p=.162 p=.007
p=.195 p=.456
p=.328 p=.235
p=.074 p=.038
p=.005 p=.252
p=.033
36
H3 and H4 Results
Homogeneousor
DiverseBetter
?
Males reported more activity in the indicated boxes
I f eel that theoverall mentoringprogram at myorganization is
eff ective
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in mycareer development
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in non-career ways
CoachingSponsoring
advancement
Providingchallengingassignments
Protecting f romadverse f orces
Fosteringpositive visibility
Providing acessesto resources
Personal support Friendship
Acceptance Counseling
Role modeling
1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26
3, 14, 28
4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13
15, 16
17, 18, 19
20
21, 22
27, 29
Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial
p=.040
p=.315 p=.081
p=.172 p=.377
p=.037 p=.685
p=.668 p=.467
p=.295 p=.680
p=..006
37
Statistically Significant Findings
Coachin
g
Spons
orship
Chal
lengin
g a
ssig
nment
s
Prot
ectio
n
Expos
ure &
vis
ibilit
y
Ove
rall c
areer d
evelo
pm
ent
Support
Frie
ndship
Acceptan
ce &
confi
rm
atio
n
Counseling
Role
mod
eling
Ove
rall p
rogram
eff
ectiv
ene
ss
- - - -
+
+ + + + + + + + +
+ +
+ + + +
- - - - +
H H H
M M M
Ove
rall p
sychosoc
ial
Homogenous (H) or Diverse (D) is better?
Male (M) or Female (F) report more?
"Developed by organization" increase =>
"Coordinated by organization" increase =>
"Encouraged by organization" increase =>
"Reviewed by organization" inrease =>
"Evaluated by organization" increase =>
"How I met mentor" increase =>
38
Hypotheses
#1. Formal (structured) programs and informal (unstructured) programs provide the same emphasis on career development factors.
#2. Formal programs and informal programs provide the same emphasis on psychosocial factors.
#3. Emphasis on the career development roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad.
#4. Emphasis on the psychosocial roles is the same for any make-up of the dyad
I nformal
Career Development
Formal
I nformal
Formal
Psychosocial
HomogeneousDyad
HeterogeneousDyad
Career Development
HomogeneousDyad
HeterogeneousDyad
Psychosocial
39
Structure Interactions
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
pairingForced
meetingOrg.
mouthWord ofSpontaneous
Const.
Freq.
Occas.
allatNot
How met Mentor
Evalu
ate
d b
y O
rganiz
ati
on
Overall Program Effectiveness
H
40
Structure Interactions
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
pairingForced
meetingOrg.
mouthWord ofSpontaneous
Fully
Lot
Little
allatNot
How met Mentor
Develo
ped b
y O
rganiz
ati
on
Overall Program Effectiveness
H
41
Structure Interactions
2.3 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.3
ConstantlyFrequentlyOccasionallyNot at all
Const.
Freq.
Occas.
allatNot
Reviewed by Organization
Enco
ura
ged b
y O
rganiz
ati
on
Career Development Score
L
42
Structure Interactions
3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3
ConstantlyFrequentlyOccasionallyNot at all
Const.
Freq.
Occas.
allatNot
Evaluated by Organization
Enco
ura
ged b
y O
rganiz
ati
on
Career Development Score
HL
43
Structure Interactions
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
pairingForced
meetingOrg.
mouthWord ofSpontaneous
Fully
Lot
Little
allatNot
How met Mentor
Develo
ped b
y O
rganiz
ati
on
Career Development Score
H
H L
44
Structure Interactions
3.3 3.5 3.7
ConstantlyFrequentlyOccasionallyNot at all
Const.
Freq.
Occas.
allatNot
Evaluated by Organization
Revie
wed
by O
rgan
izati
on Psychosocial Score
H
L
H
L
45
Other Demographics
Formality varies with Organization Size
Number of employees
>500300-500100-300<100
Me
an
of
En
cou
rag
ed
by
org
an
iza
tion
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
Typical resultP=.000
P=.000
P=.000
P=.000
P=.005
1. The mentoring program was developed or implemented by my organization.
2. Our mentoring program is coordinated or directed by my organization.
3. Mentoring programs are encouraged by my organization.
4. Our mentoring program is reviewed by my organization
5. My mentoring progress is evaluated by my organization. (e.g. it is part of my performance appraisal process)
46
Other Demographics
Nationality
Nationality
Non-USUS
Me
an
of
Me
nto
r h
elp
s fin
ish
ass
ign
me
nts
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
Nationality
Non-USUSMe
an
of
Me
nto
r su
gg
est
s st
rate
gie
s o
n w
ork
ob
ject
ive
s
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
47
Other Demographics
Personnel
Years in company
>136-121-5<1
Me
an
of
Sp
on
sors
hip
(a
vg)
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
Protege's age
60-6950-5940-4930-3920-30
Me
an
of A
cce
pta
nce
& c
on
firm
atio
n (
avg
)
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
P=.008 P=.025
48
Other Demographics
Typical trend
Duration of mentorship
>8 years6-8 years4-5 years1-3 years<1 year
Me
an
of
Sp
on
sors
hip
(a
vg)
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
I f eel that theoverall mentoringprogram at myorganization is
eff ective
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in mycareer development
I f eel that my mentorhas been eff ective in
helping me in non-career ways
CoachingSponsoring
advancement
Providingchallengingassignments
Protecting f romadverse f orces
Fosteringpositive visibility
Providing acessesto resources
Personal support Friendship
Acceptance Counseling
Role modeling
1, 2, 23, 24, 25,26
3, 14, 28
4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13
15, 16
17, 18, 19
20
21, 22
27, 29
Overall CareerDevelopment Overall Psychosocial
p=.018
p=.002 p=.000
p=.000 p=.001
p=.004 p=.089
p=.026 p=.001
p=.000 p=.008
p=.007
Duration of Mentorship
49
Most Important Role
Most important factor29
28
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
11
10987654321
Pe
rce
nt
20
10
0
Protege gender
Female
Male
• Assigning responsibilities that increase the protégé’s contact with people in the organization who may judge the protégé’s potential for future advancement
• Providing support and feedback regarding the protégé’s technical performance • Providing assignments that increase written and personal contact with higher levels of
the organization
50
Least Important Role
Least important factor
29
28
27
26
23
17
16
15
13
12
11
10975431
Pe
rce
nt
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Protege gender
Female
Male
• Interacting with the mentor socially outside work • Having the mentor invite the protégé to join him/her for lunch
51
Need More
Wish there was more of this factor
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
11
1098654321
Pe
rce
nt
20
10
0
Protege gender
Female
Male
• Mentor suggests specific strategies for achieving protégé’s career goals
52
Findings
Two activities most strongly relate to overall protégé career development:
Getting assignments with high levels of visibility in the organization (r = .86)
Getting assignments that are recognized as preparatory for leadership position (r = .87)
Organizations over 300 employees have lower mentoring program structure
Male and female protégés seem to want the same things out of a mentoring relationship
US mentorships = non-US mentorships
53
Conclusions/Recommendations
Program structure does influence mentoring roles. The influence is generally positive.
Organizations should have a reasonably structured and monitored mentoring program.
Sufficient to let the protégés know that the organization is concerned about them as employees and as individuals
Should not dominate or dictate the relationship.
Dyad homogeneity influences mentoring roles – homogeneous dyads result in more positive outcome
Protégés should seek out mentors who can and will identify and provide the protégé with challenging assignments that have high visibility within the organization.
54
Areas for Further Study
Additional research is necessary to investigate the nature of the six structural elements and their components and determine the more elemental contributions of structure to mentoring program activity.
If teams rather than individuals serve the mentoring function, how would the results compare to those of the present study?
At a size of approximately 300 employees, high technology organizations change from relatively hands-on participation in their mentoring programs to a more hands-off approach. Why?
55
Areas for Further Study (con’t)
As mentoring relationships age, the period of time between one and five years is seen to be significant in increasing the intensity of the relationship in the measured areas. Why?
There is a decrease in the intensity of the individual mentor roles in relationships longer than about 7 years. Why?
Parallel surveys of mentoring roles and Herzberg motivator-hygiene assessment may produce an informative relationship.