human resource development review 2011 germain 123 50

8/13/2019 Human Resource Development Review 2011 Germain 123 50

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-resource-development-review-2011-germain-123-50 1/30

http://hrd.sagepub.com/ Development Review

Human Resource

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/10/2/123The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1534484310397019

March 2011 2011 10: 123 originally published online 16Human Resource Development Review

Marie-Line GermainHuman Resource Development

Formal Mentoring Relationships and Attachment Theory: Implications for

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Academy of Human Resource Development

can be found at:Human Resource Development Review Additional services and information for

http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/10/2/123.refs.htmlCitations:

at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hrd.sagepub.com/



http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/10/2/123


http://www.sagepublications.com/

http://www.ahrd.org/

http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/10/2/123.refs.html


























































































http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav




http://www.ahrd.org/

http://www.sagepublications.com/





What is This?

- Mar 16, 2011OnlineFirst Version of Record

- May 10, 2011Version of Record>>

at University of Bucharest on October 24, 2013hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/01/21/1534484310397019.full.pdf


http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/10/2/123.full.pdf










Human Resource Development Review

10(2) 123 –150

© The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1534484310397019

http://hrd.sagepub.com

1Western Carolina University (University of North Carolina), Cullowhee, NC

Corresponding Author:

Marie-Line Germain, Department Human Services, Western Carolina University (University of North

Carolina), One University Drive, Killian Building, Office 226C, Cullowhee, NC 28723

Email: [email protected]

Formal Mentoring

Relationships and

Attachment Theory:Implications for Human

Resource Development

Marie-Line Germain1

Abstract

An attachment theory perspective of mentoring is presented to explain the degree offunctionality of a mentor–protégé formal match in an organizational setting. By focusingon Bowlby’s (1969/1982) behavioral system of attachment and its triarchic taxonomy ofsecure, avoidant, and anxious-ambivalent attachment, previous conceptualizations areexpanded by illuminating relational concepts that mentors and supervisors could useto facilitate employee learning and development. A short attachment style assessment

and a mentor–protégé(e) attachment style pairing guide are presented.

Keywords

mentoring; attachment theory; human resource development

Today’s employees have a greater responsibility for managing their own careers. Interest

in mentoring has expanded because of an increased need for continuous learning, reliance

on informal learning, and on-the-job development (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005, 2007).Mentoring offers an inexpensive method of engaging in these activities (Bierema &

Hill, 2005). In addition, research suggests that Human Resource Development (HRD)

professionals should consider mentoring as a key strategy in their toolkit when working

toward the achievement of organizational attraction and retention goals, especially in an

organization that has learning as one of its foundational attributes (Hezlett & Gibson,

2007). The integration of mentoring with other organizational initiatives is also of

Theory and Conceptual Articles



124 Human Resource Development Review 10(2)

importance to HRD professionals in terms of ensuring strategic alignment of programs

and practices. A recent study in the HRD literature on formal mentoring in Fortune 500

companies found that the majority of mentoring programs reviewed supported HRD

initiatives such as career development and management training (Hegstad & Wentling,2004; Hezlett & Gibson, 2005). Furthermore, interviews with executives suggest that

mentoring networks can assist protégés in adapting to and succeeding in a rapidly

changing workplace that is characterized by frequently changing organizational struc-

tures and boundary-less careers (de Janasz, Sullivan, &Whiting, 2003). Overall,

“mentoring has become an effective means for coping with organizational change”

(de Janasz et al., p. 81).

This article views adult development and its impact on mentoring experiences within

the framework of attachment theory. It expands on Scandura and Pellegrini’s (2004)

conceptualization of attachment theory and mentoring by presenting an extended exam-ination of mentor–protégé(e) pairing scenarios based on individual attachment style.

While Scandura and Pellegrini (2004) present a theoretical framework that integrates

the patterns of attachment style and dependency theory (Kahn & Kram, 1994) and

address the issue of why some protégés and mentors may be more predisposed to the

development of mentoring relationships than others, this article excludes dependency

theory and extends their work by offering a working model for HRD professionals.

Specifically, it presents an 11-question attachment style assessment based on Hazan and

Shaver’s (1990) work. It also offers scenarios of mentor–protégé(e) pairings to assist

HRD professionals optimize the matching of mentoring dyads in organizations.

Mentoring, Attachment Theory,

and Human Resource Development

Mentoring

Research articles and books on the topic of mentoring began to appear in the scholarly

and practitioner press in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Kram, 1985; Levinson, Darrow,

Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978), with results consistently indicating that it improvesthe socialization of new employees (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993). Traditionally, men-

toring has been defined as a set of processes in which an influential individual with

advanced knowledge is committed to providing upward support and mobility to a

junior person’s career (Levinson et al, 1978). It has been defined as an intense inter-

personal exchange between a mentor and a protégé in which the mentor provides career

and psychosocial functions to enhance the protégé’s professional and personal devel-

opment (Kram, 1985; Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, 2002, Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett,

2003). Recent research has linked mentoring functions to protégé–mentor reciprocity

(Ensher, Thomas, & Murphy, 2001), met expectations (Young & Perrewé, 2004), rela-tionship closeness (Mullen & Noe, 1999), and interpersonal comfort (Allen, Day, &

Lentz, 2005). Hezlett and Gibson (2005) assert that protégés are not passive recipients

of mentoring but actively shape their relationship. In sum, mentoring functions have



Germain 125

been conceptualized as vocational (career coaching, also called coaching or training),

social support, and role modeling (Burke, 1984; Kram, 1985; Scandura, 1992). Mentoring

has been found to be important in the development of a person’s career identity

(Kram, 1985). Also, it has been associated with outcomes of job performance, promo-tions, salary, job satisfaction, reduced stress, lower turnover, and career development

and advancement (Apospori, Nikandrou, & Panayotopoulou, 2006; Baugh, Lankau, &

Scandura, 1996; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Higgins & Kram, 2001; Lankau & Scandura,

2002; McCauley, 2005; Scandura, 1992; Wanberg et al., 2003). In addition, Lankau

and Scandura (2002) found that mentoring enhances the personal learning of the men-

tee, which, in turn, reduces turnover. Finally, mentoring relationships are close rela-

tionships that occur along a spectrum from highly functional to highly dysfunctional,

with most occurring in between (Scandura, 1998). Functional mentoring relationships

facilitate the psychosocial and career development of protégés, whereas dysfunctionalones can negatively impact both parties (stress, depression, anxiety, job dissatisfaction,

decreased job performance, and obstruction in professional development; Gormley,

2008; Scandura, 1998). As Hezlett and Gibson (2007) suggest, HRD professionals

should provide processes to address those problems and training to prevent negative

workplace relationships.

Attachment Theory

In 2004, Scandura and Pellegrini proposed a new model of mentoring that integratesconcepts drawn from attachment theory (e.g., Bowlby, 1969/1982). This integra-

tion seems commonsensical since mentoring involves interpersonal relationships.

They note that attachment style is a mediator between someone’s past experiences

and a mentoring relationship. Incorporating attachment theory broadens the theo-

retical base of mentoring to consider long-term developmental processes that may

influence attitudes and behavior at work. Their framework expands the emerging lit-

erature on attachment theory to incorporate work relationships. This combination of

attachment theory and mentoring puts an emphasis on the developmental aspects of

mentoring relationships.An attachment style refers to how a person goes about developing relationships. It

refers to an emotional bond to a specific, emotionally important person (Bartholomew

& Horowitz, 1991). The important person (e.g., a romantic partner, counselor, mentor,

or supervisor) is referred to as the caregiver. The attached person (partner, mentee, or

protégé(e), supervisee; referred to as the careseeker) is motivated to maintain a range of

proximity to and seek care from the caregiver, which results in safety and felt security

(Pistole & Fitch, 2008).

Bowlby’s (1969/1982) attachment theory has been one of the most generative psy-

chological theories of the last 40 years. It is regarded as one of the few remaining grandtheories of social development and has become a guiding force in research in social and

developmental psychology (as cited in Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Roisman et al., 2007).

The enduring and pervasive influence of the parent–child bond is a hallmark of




attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982). As Bowlby stated, “for most individuals

the bond to parents continues into adult life and affects behavior in countless ways”

(p. 207). Indeed, attachment theory postulates that bonds with parents have an impor-

tant bearing on future relationships (Moore & Leung, 2002; Parker & Benson, 2005).According to an attachment model, parental support contributes to the schema that the

adolescent develops about relationships, and the schema provides a basis for inter-

pretation and action in relationships with peers. The level of security experienced in

the child–parent relationship forms a template for the pattern of relationships the

individual experiences throughout her life (Wilkinson, 2004).This pattern continues

to affect how we move through friendships, family patterns, love relationships, and

work relationships (Ainsworth, 1991; Rothbard & Shaver, 1994). Ultimately, attach-

ment styles are a good predictor of who we are attracted to, invite into our lives, how

we perceive conflict, how we maintain optimal closeness or distance, and how we leaverelationships.

Building on Bowlby’s (1969/1982, 1973) seminal work, Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters,

and Wall (1978) provided empirical support for the classifications of child attachment

styles. Ainsworth (1989) perceived the nature of the relationship between mother and

infant as generalizing to the child’s later relationships with other individuals, including

friends and intimates (Reio, Marcus, & Sanders-Reio, 2009).

The principles of attachment theory have been expanded beyond the infant–caregiver

bond to adult romantic relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), therapist–client relation-

ships (Dolan, Arnkoff, & Glass, 1993; Dozier, Cue, & Barnett, 1994; Farber, Lippert, & Nevas, 1995; Ligiero & Gelso, 2002), supervisory relationships (Neswald-McCalip,

2001; Pistole & Watkins, 1995; White & Queener, 2003), and even to people’s major

psychological capacities to lead (Popper & Amit, 2009). A more thorough understanding

of the caregiver–careseeker relationship can be found using Bowlby’s (1988) attachment

theory, which explains relational bonding, motivation, affect management, thoughts, and

behavior (Pistole & Fitch, 2008).

Through observations of infant behavior patterns in the strange situation test, Ainsworth

(1989) identified a threefold taxonomy of attachment responses: secure, avoidant, and

anxious/ambivalent. The literature on attachment theory attests to the importance ofattachment security for psychological functioning and well-being (e.g., Imamoğlu &

Imamoğlu, 2007). Securely attached individuals tend to display higher self-esteem

compared to insecure ones (Feeney & Noller, 1990; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994).

Secure individuals also tend to be more trusting, happy, intimate, and have friendlier,

closer relationships with others compared with insecure persons (e.g., Collins & Read,

1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987, 1990; Simpson, 1990). Secure adults

do not often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to them.

Secure adults find it relatively easy to get close to others and are comfortable depend-

ing on others and having others depend on them. The relationships of securely attachedindividuals last longer and are characterized by more trust, commitment, and interdepen-

dence. They are more likely to have stable relationships in their life (Bowlby, 1988).



Germain 127

Secure attachment can be seen as the foundation for relationship competence and social

competence.

Avoidant and anxious/ambivalent attachment styles are often considered two catego-

ries of insecure attachment. Avoidant adults are somewhat uncomfortable being closeto others. They find it difficult to trust others completely and difficult to allow themselves

to depend on others. They are nervous when anyone gets too close. Avoidant adults are

less satisfied with interpersonal aspects of work, particularly with coworkers (Hazan &

Shaver, 1990), suggesting that they lack the relationship competence that is needed of

the mentor or the protégé(e) (Gormley, 2008). Avoidant individuals have learned to

avoid feelings of attachment and are afraid of feeling emotions such as tenderness and

need. Avoidantly attached persons are uncomfortable being very close to others and find

it difficult to let themselves depend on others or to be trusted by others completely. For

example, partners of avoidant persons often want them to be more intimate than they arecomfortable being. Their self-esteem is derived more from their various abilities and

competencies rather than an internalized positive regard from others. They attach to

their work and accomplishments, which is easier for them than attaching to people.

Avoidants are usually unaware of their feelings of dependency and need. It is not that

they do have these needs; it is that they are often uncomfortable feeling and expressing

emotional needs, even to themselves (Gormley, 2008).

Anxious/ambivalent adults find that others are reluctant to get as close as they would

like. They often worry that others do not really love or like them or want them to stay

with them. Anxious/ambivalent adults want to merge completely with another person,and this desire sometimes scares others away. These individuals also tend to lose them-

selves in their relationships. They are often so open and overwhelming that they can

chase away relationships (Bowlby, 1988).

The use of attachment theory is appropriate at the workplace because it is relatively

simple to understand and captures much of the variations in adult interpersonal related-

ness; it relies on genetically based behavioral systems rather than on the internal fanta-

sies of a person (Berman & Sperling, 1994). Besides, as noted earlier, research has

provided evidence for the long-term stability of attachment style (e.g., Kirkpatrick &

Hazan, 1994; Zimmermann & Becker-Stoll, 2002).

Mentoring and Human Resource Development

Psychology, economics, and systems theory are known to form the foundations of

the Human Resource Development literature (Swanson & Holton, 2001, 2009; Yang,

2004). HRD has a number of definitions, with key components ranging from behav-

ioral change and adult learning, human performance, training and development

(McLagan, 1983), to career development (Marsick & Watkins, 1994). Training and

development has a unique role in the history of HRD. Training in many forms, suchas master/apprentice or parent/child (Levinson et al., 1978) has existed throughout

human history.




As Swanson and Holton (2009) suggest, “HRD has numerous definitions” (p. 4).

However, almost all definitions are inclusive of career development and training, both

of which can be achieved through mentoring. For instance, Watkins and Marsick (1997)

assert that Human Resource Development is the “field of study and practice responsiblefor the fostering of a long-term, work-related learning capacity at the individual, group

and organizational level of the organizations. As such, it includes but is not limited to

training, career development and organizational development” (p. 427). On their part,

Marquardt and Engel (1993) believe that HRD skills include designing training programs,

developing a learning climate, transmitting information and experience, assessing results,

providing career counseling, creating organizational change, and adapting learning mate-

rials. As Allen and O’Brien (2006) also note, “participating in a formal mentoring pro-

gram is a specific form of human resource development activity” (p. 45).

Over the years, the mentoring literature has moved toward a model of mentoring asa tool for training and development (Hunt & Michael, 1983) or as a vehicle for mentees’

upward mobility (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Scandura, 1992). Organizations have been

using mentoring as a training and developmental tool for workers and as a socializa-

tion tool for educating new employees (Bee & Bjorklund, 2004; Noe et al., 2002). Both

academics and practitioners have recognized that interpersonal relationships such as

mentoring are valuable because of their impact on organizational variables, includ-

ing employee performance. Not surprisingly, organizations, and more specifically HRD

professionals have attempted to capture these benefits by establishing formal mentoring

programs, in which a mentee is typically matched with a mentor. According to Nemanick(2001), over a third of North American organizations have established formal men-

toring programs and this number is expected to grow. Organizations such as Apple

Computer (Coley, 1996), Federal Express (Lean, 1983), and the Internal Revenue

Service (Klauss, 1981) have created formal mentoring programs in which mentors

and mentees are paired by the organization and provided with support for the develop-

ment of the relationship.

Mentoring has played a pivotal role in the development of human resource. It fills

in the gap of training and development mainly because formal courses cannot cover

everything an employee may encounter on the job. For example, a junior person in theorganization may fail to speak up in staff meetings. Although this employee may have

attended a course on assertiveness, he or she lacks the ability to transfer the concepts

learned to specific situations (i.e., the staff meetings) on the job. An alert mentor will

notice the junior person’s lack of assertiveness and coach him or her after a staff meeting

on how to present his or her ideas. Coaching may take a number of different forms rang-

ing from a one-time instance, as described above, to a longer term relationship that spans

years and includes many interactions (D’Abate, Eddy, & Tannenbaum, 2003).

Clearly, the HRD literature has explored the topic of mentoring extensively. However,

there has been little research regarding how mentoring relationships develop in early phases (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004), particularly in formal mentoring programs at the

workplace. In addition, the question of why some mentees (and mentors) may be more

predisposed to mentoring relationships still remains relatively unexplored.



Germain 129

Measure of Attachment Styles

To improve the chances that formal mentoring relationships develop into functional

ones, it may be necessary for human resource development practitioners to assess bothmentors and mentees before they enter the relationship. Traditionally, mentor–mentee

dyads are matched depending on the department they work in, on the tasks mentees

need to learn, or sometimes simply according to the availability of mentors within

the organization (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004). Inevitably, pairings have often been

a game of chance. The literature on formal mentoring programs has extensively docu-

mented the fact that such formal pairing usually does not work for multiple reasons,

including because of an incompatibility between the mentee and the mentor. We see

this as being analogous to an “arranged marriage,” an alliance of convenience, with

human resource practitioners playing the role of well-meaning parents. Relationshipsthat are not based on compatible traits tend to fail (Gormley, 2008). Applied to the

workplace, arranged mentoring matches also often fail. Thus traits and individual

characteristics of both the mentor and the mentee must be considered. To effectively

match a mentor to a mentee, it seems essential to assess both mentors and mentees in

terms of their attachment style, in addition to other characteristics or needs such as

technical skills.

The available instruments employed by clinicians and researchers differ in their fun-

damental approach to attachment issues. George, Kaplan, and Main’s (1984) Adult

Attachment Interview, for instance, focuses on attachment bonds within the family oforigin. Wilhelm and Parker’s (1988) Intimate Bonds Measure focuses on subjects’ per-

ceptions of the behavior and attitudes of their relationship partners, rather than the sub-

jects’ own needs (Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994). As for Hazan and Shaver’s (1987)

forced-choice measure (the Adult Attachment Styles or AAS), it adopts a style-based

approach, attempting to identify romantic relationship styles. In their next major study,

Hazan and Shaver (1990) revised the wordings of their scale to bring about clearer

differentiation between styles and remove the emphasis on romantic relationships.

In 1998, Brennan, Clark, and Shaver introduced the Experiences in Close Relationships

(ECR) scale. The ECR-Short Form is a 36-item measure of adult attachment orientationstoward romantic relationships and is composed of two-factor analytically derived sub-

scales that respectively assess attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. The Anxiety

scale (18 items) taps fears of abandonment and strong desires for interpersonal mergers

(e.g., “I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner” and “My desire to be

very close sometimes scares people away”) and the Avoidance scale (18 items) assesses

discomfort with interpersonal closeness, dependence, and intimate self-disclosure

(e.g., “I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners” and “I am nervous

when partners get too close to me”). Brennan et al. (1998) reported Cronbach alpha

coefficients of .91 and .94 for the Anxiety and Avoidant scales, respectively. Lopez,Mauricio, Gormley, Simko, and Berger (2001) reported coefficients of .89 (Anxiety)

and .91 (Avoidance), indicating that the ECR-Short Form is a reliable measure of

adult attachment orientations. Furthermore, Schirmer and Lopez (1998) found that




both ECR-Short Form scales significantly predicted self-reported symptoms among a

sample of adult workers even after controlling for work stress and supervisor support.

Then, in 2000, Fraley, Aller, and Brennan created a revised version of the ECR (the

ECR-R), which appears to be the most suitable for the study of attachment theory andmentoring relationships. Although the 36 items seem to be sufficient to accurately assess

mentoring, Fraley et al. (2000) note that these items assess insecurity better than security.

Thus, because of these shortcomings, we propose a measure of security, avoidance, and

anxiety/ambivalence for employees based on Hazan and Shaver’s (1990) work, which is

an updated version of their 1987’s Adult Attachment Styles (ATS) scale (see appendix).

Their measure has shown both reliability and validity in numerous studies. Fraley and

Brumbaugh (2004) found that most studies on the stability of adult attachment mea-

sures indicate moderate stability, with typical stability coefficients for continuous mea-

sures ranging from .50 to .60, over spans ranging from 2 weeks to over two decades(p. 117). Scharfe and Bartholomew (1995) found similar stability of the scale in their

study. In addition to being stable, another advantage of Hazan and Shaver’s (1990) scale

is its conciseness, making it a usable tool for HRD professionals. In our proposed

employee assessment, the secure style characterizes the subject as comfortable with

intimacy, dependency, and reciprocity in relationships, as well as low in anxiety about

loss. The avoidant style emphasizes a lack of trust, and discomfort with intimacy and

dependency. The anxious/ambivalent style describes a desire to be close, anxiety about

being rejected, and awareness that the individual desires intimacy to a degree greater

than most people (Crowell & Treboux, 1995).

Degrees of Functionality of Mentoring Dyads

Ainsworth’s (1989) trifold taxonomy of attachment styles has direct implications for

adults’ lives both at home and at the workplace. For instance, Simpson’s (1990) research

findings from a longitudinal study of 144 dating couples found that secure individuals are

most likely to be with partners who are also secure; that anxious/ambivalent individuals

tends toward each other; and that avoidant and anxious/ambivalent partners second pref-

erence is to be with a partner with similar attachment style to themselves. In manyaspects, an informal mentoring relationship (one in which mentor and protégé(e) choose

each other) is similar to a friendship or love relationship: one usually chooses a partner

because of the existence of “chemistry” in the dyad. One may also choose the gender

of his or her mentor. In a formal mentoring relationship context (one in which mentor

and protégé(e) do not choose each other), however, the possibility of being matched to

another person is multiplied by three. Thus, in the case of a formal mentoring relation-

ship, there are nine possibilities for a person to be paired with another person, which are

(a) secure mentor/secure protégé(e); (b) avoidant mentor/avoidant protégé(e);

(c) anxious-ambivalent mentor/anxious-ambivalent protégé(e); (d) secure mentor/avoidant protégé(e); (e) secure mentor/anxious-ambivalent protégé(e); (f) anxious-ambivalent

mentor/secure protégé(e); (g) avoidant mentor/secure protégé(e); (h) avoidant mentor/



Germain 131

anxious-ambivalent protégé(e), and (i) anxious-ambivalent mentor/avoidant protégé(e).

When we add the gender factor, there can be as many as 18 chances to be paired with

a compatible person. A poor pairing can be one of many explanations for why for-

mal mentoring relationships can be dysfunctional and not produce the desired effects

(Scandura, 1998).Table 1 and its footnotes show these nine possible pairing combinations and the effects

of such pairings on the working relationships, mentoring functions, and outcomes. We

have grouped these nine combinations into three broad categories: Functional, mixed/

ambiguous, and dysfunctional. First, Table 1 indicates whether a relationship is likely

to form or not (indicated as “Yes” or “No” in the “working relationship” section). If

a relationship forms, the table indicates whether or not the relationship would likely

be functional or dysfunctional for one or both parties (indicated by a “Yes” or “No”).

Also, the possibility of marginal mentoring relationships (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000)

is shown. For example, an anxious-ambivalent mentor paired with a secure protégé(e)may result in a mentoring relationship; however that relationship may be marginal-

ized because of the mentor’s lack of interest in developing the relationship. Anxious-

ambivalent mentors may send mixed messages and their career investment and coaching

may be intermittent. If either party is avoidant, a relationship may form but it will likely

be marginal as indicated in the center column of Table 1. The section labeled “mentoring

functions” indicates whether or not career, psychosocial, and role modeling would be

present in the three types of relationships. To some degree, the career support men-

toring function is expected to be present in most cells of the Table. For example,

dysfunctional relationships are often maintained because the mentee perceives thatthey are receiving valuable career support from the mentor. For a match in which

both parties are anxious-ambivalent, the relationship may range from marginal

Table 1. Formal Mentoring Dyads Matching Grid for HRD practitioners: Likelihood of

Mentoring Relationship Functionality

Functionala Mixed/Ambiguousb Dysfunctionalc

Working relationship Yes Yes marginal-dysfunctional No

Mentoring functions Yes Yes No

Career support Yes No No

Psychological support Yes No No

Role modeling

+ D −

→

Note: Yes: Function will be fulfilled; No: Function will not be fulfilled.a

Functional: Secure M/Secure P; Secure M/Anxious/Ambivalent P; Anxious ambivalent M/Secure PbMixed/Ambiguous: Avoidant M/Secure P; Secure M/Avoidant P; Anxious ambivalent M/Anxiousambivalent PcDysfunctional: Avoidant M/Avoidant P; Avoidant M/Anxious ambivalent P; Anxious ambivalentM/Avoidant P



Germain 133

Table 2. Mentoring Dyads and Relationship Descriptions

Dyads Relationship description

Secure MSecure P

• Mentors exhibit specific caregiving behaviors (Popper & Amit, 2009). • Protégés exhibit specific careseeking behaviors. They consider the mentor tobe the primary person with whom they want to spend time professionally, towhom they turn when upset over a professional event, whom they will missif not present at important professional events or transitions, and whom theycount on for help or support (Hazan, Gur-Yaish, & Campa, 2004).

• Secure protégés rely on feedback, which they accept and use. They are notthreatened when asking for help and seeking advice (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004).

• Mentors delegate tasks and trust protégé (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004). • Healthy mentors provide soothing and problem solving in stressful situationand support protégé autonomy and exploration in the environment (Feeney& Collins, 2004). Other mentoring tasks include providing a psychologicalpresence and maintaining interest in the protégé’s welfare.

• Effective interactions between secure mentors and secure protégés, even whendistress levels are high.

• Protégés facilitate their own professional development by arranging to spendtime with mentors who are psychologically and physically available.

• When mentors cannot be available at important moments, they continueto be concerned about their protégés, who continue depending on theirmentors for support.

• The mentor and the protégé work effectively together but also work well

autonomously. High levels of vocational support, social support and rolemodeling (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004).

• Studies have shown that secure-secure dyads are most effective at resolvingconflict and are more socially competent (Caldwell, 1995). The mentoringrelationship may easily make the transition into a peer friendship (Kram, 1985).

• Secure-secure dyads are more satisfied in their relationships than insecure-secure dyads (Berman & Sperling, 1994).

• Secure workers are relatively unburdened by fears of failure. They tend to valuerelationships more than work. They do not use work to satisfy unmet needs forlove, nor do they use work to avoid social interaction (Hazan & Shaver, 1990).

Secure MAnxious P

• Protégés with elevated levels of adult attachment anxiety are likely to engage in allof the functional careseeking behaviors (see Secure M-Secure P dyad),but they may not be able to recognize or make use of the support that isprovided in response. They may (a) repeatedly seek help without need;(b) expect mentor assistance when autonomy would be more appropriate;(c) disclose distress more than is necessary; (d) be inconsolable despiteefforts to comfort them; (e) expect to be treated as special and exhibit jealousy of other protégés; (f) continuously wonder whether their mentorssupport them or not and attempt to find out through manipulative means;(g) feel unable to succeed without the mentor; and (h) hide the anger that

they feel toward their mentors for needing them so much (Pistole & Watkins,1995; Watkins, 1995).

• Anxious protégés may provoke frustration in their mentors because of theamount of time and energy put into the relationship without productive results.

(continued)





• Protégés with high levels of attachment anxiety are unlikely to respond wellto constructive feedback. Some anxious protégés may go out of their wayto make changes in response to feedback in an effort to avoid abandonment,but these efforts are likely to reinforce their dependency on their mentorrather than to foster professional independence. Anxious protégés may setthemselves up to be abandoned (e.g., by pushing limits until the mentor is leftwith no choice but to terminate).

• Mentor is likely to expect protégé to show responsibility in self-managementand to function independently but protégé may resist any attempt that wouldreduce their dependency on their mentor. In turn the mentor may cease

investing in the relationship (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004). • Relationship is likely to be dysfunctional (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004). • Anxious protégés are preoccupied with feedback and appear to value it (Lopez& Brennan, 2000).

Secure MAvoidant P

• Protégés with elevated levels of adult attachment avoidance are unlikely to engagein functional care seeking behaviors. They seldom perceive any benefit torelationships and so are unlikely to consider changing their approach to theirwork in response to feedback.

• Avoidant protégés who are asked to depend on their mentors or to interactmore closely may feel threatened by such requests. Subsequently, theirattachment systems may become deactivated, resulting in missed meetings orfailure to respond to communications.

• Avoidant protégés may insist on doing things their own way; expect approvalfor their compulsive self-reliance even when their behavior is dangerous,unethical, or a liability to their mentors; and become deeply offendedwhenever alternative behaviors are suggested (Watkins, 1995).

• Avoidant protégés have been described as resentful, belittling, disparaging,dismissing, derogatory, defiant, sarcastic, provocative, undermining, andcounterdependent toward their mentors.

• Avoidant protégés may accept exploitative or demeaning treatment because theyare not well enough informed or because this treatment fits their expectations

of relationships (i.e., relationships are expected to be disappointing). • Insecure partners may be less likely to maintain relationships with securepartners (Lopez & Brennan, 2000).

• Avoidant protégés do not seek feedback (Lopez & Brennan, 2000).

Anxious M • Mentors with elevated levels of adult attachment anxiety are likely to attempt to,intend to, or partially engage in the functional caregiving behaviors previouslydescribed, although their motivation may be selfish.

• Anxious mentors may have difficulty supporting protégé autonomy andproviding soothing to protégés.

• Mentors may find it more self-gratifying to provide psychosocial rather than

career-related functions within their mentoring relationships. • Mentors can develop camaraderie with their protégés, but they may feelthreatened by and try to inhibit actual autonomy or exploration on the part oftheir protégés.

Secure P

Table 2. (continued)

(continued)



Germain 135


• Anxious mentors might be described as intrusive, controlling, demanding,tyrannical, micromanaging, touchy, undermining, selfish, or as initiating unwantedcontact (e.g., stalking behavior).

• Anxious mentors may systematically abandon protégés without cause as areenactment of their anxious attachment patterns.

• The relationship may be marginal (Ragins et al., 2000). • The protégé’s desire to function interdependently (vital to the protégé’sdevelopment) may be resisted by the mentor (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004).

Anxious MAnxious P

• Despite the fact that anxious mentors and protégés will engage in most ofthe functional careseeking and caregiving (including role modeling) behaviors

outlined earlier, they are also the most dependent on their relationships andthe least likely to terminate dysfunctional relationships, even when interactionsbecome hostile.

• Anxious-anxious dyads may be at the highest risk of dysfunction and negativeoutcomes, in part because both parties are trapped in a nonfunctional andnever-ending cycle (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004).

• Anxious mentors and anxious protégés will repeatedly seek proximity toeach other, are unable to perceive their needs as being met through theseinteractions, become increasingly distressed as a result, and respond to thisheightened distress by turning again to the relationship for comfort.

• Anxious-anxious dyads may constitute the vast majority of those reporting

sexual and emotional boundary violations because those involved may believethat the relationship should meet all of their needs, may rely exclusively oncloseness within the relationship to manage stress, or may see more closenessas the only legitimate resolution to conflict.

• Neither mentor nor protégé will want to separate (essential for the protégé’sdevelopment; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004).

• Mentors may not coach protégés. Protégés won’t acquire skills to becomeindependent (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004).

• Anxious subjects are easily distracted, have trouble completing projects,and tend to slack off after receiving praise. They fear rejection for poor

performance (Hazan & Shaver, 1990).Anxious MAvoidant P

• When avoidant protégés are matched with anxious mentors, the excessiveindependence of the protégés (which is an effort to avoid demands forintimacy in relationships) may be perceived as threatening and thereby activatethe mentors’ attachment systems.

• Anxious mentors may then demand more involvement, which may frightenavoidant protégés and lead to further withdrawal.

• Avoidant protégés may complain that anxious mentors are smothering them,and anxious mentors may complain that avoidant protégés do not knowhow to be accountable to a superior. The mutual frustration that results is

likely to be intolerable to the avoidant partner. Although interactions maybecome volatile, termination by the avoidant partner rather than ongoingturmoil is expected. On termination, the anxious partner would experienceabandonment and find this intolerable.


(continued)





Avoidant MSecure P

• Mentors with elevated levels of adult attachment avoidance may bepsychologically unavailable and unresponsive (Gormley, 2008; Pistole & Amit,2009). Although their detachment may paradoxically promote autonomyamong their protégés, such autonomy is unlike that associated with optimallevels of mentor support and encouragement.

• Avoidant mentors may be more interested in providing career thanpsychosocial functions in their mentoring relationships.

• In addition, the methods used to encourage autonomy may not be effective.Mentors with high levels of attachment avoidance are likely to value autonomyhighly but may not have the relationship skills necessary to provide the

psychosocial support, safety, and security that is necessary to facilitate protégégrowth toward independence. • Avoidant mentors might be described as cold, controlled, rejecting, angry, mean,aloof, remote, detached, or defensive, or they might remain enigmatic to protégés.

• Mentors may neglect their protégés. They may neglect to clarify expectationsand achieve informed consent.

• Avoidant mentors seldom initiate intimate or process-oriented conversationsand so are unlikely to describe the nature of the relationship, risks and benefits,expectations, limits to confidentiality, and limits to what the mentor canprovide (Johnson, 2002; Johnson & Nelson, 1999). These conversations aredifficult to introduce in mentoring relationships, because there is often no well-defined beginning to the relationship, but avoidant mentors are least likely tonotice or attend to developing relationships.

• Secure protégés rely more on feedback than others (Lopez & Brennan, 2000).

Avoidant MAnxious P

• When anxious protégés are matched with avoidant mentors, anxious protégéswill signal their distress but will receive no response (instead of missing anactual response). The lack of response contributes to heightened anxiety andescalation of signaling and proximity seeking by protégés. The intensity of thisresponse may overwhelm avoidant mentors and lead to withdrawal.

• Anxious protégés may complain that avoidant mentors do not know how tosupport them, and avoidant mentors may complain that anxious protégés are

overly emotional (i.e., describing the emotional demands that they experienceas threatening in a nonrelational, self-protective, and blaming way).

Avoidant MAvoidant P

• Avoidant–avoidant dyads may develop a distant relationship characterized byinfrequent contact, guardedness, and avoidance of conflict (Gormley, 2008).

• In professions that require little social interaction, this match may be functional,but in professions that require the development of skills related to emotionaldisclosure and intimacy (e.g., psychotherapists), the match is dysfunctional.

• Avoidant mentors and protégés may be seen as less demanding than others. • Avoidant mentors and protégés get along less well with coworkers and preferto work alone (Rothbard & Shaver, 1994).

• Protégés may refuse to cooperate with their mentors. • A mentoring relationship is less likely to develop (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004). • Avoidant adult attachment style is associated with a pattern of interpersonaldifficulty (Lopez & Brennan, 2000).

Note: M = Mentor ; P = Protégé(e).




Germain 137

does not “micro-manage.” The secure protégé(e), on his or her part, will be assertive

in asking for visible projects. He or she will not hesitate to ask for feedback, including

constructive criticism. Additionally, she will identify problem areas and point them out

to the mentor. If problems arise in the relationship itself, the secure mentee will pointthem out to the mentor and will seek ways to resolve them. The secure mentee does not

avoid conflict. In fact, studies have shown that secure-secure dyads are most effective

at resolving conflict and are more socially competent (Caldwell, 1995).

Overall, this type of mentoring dyad will most likely result in a functional relation-

ship. Both of these individuals have a predisposition toward forming relationships.

Once paired, they should easily develop a mutual working relationship and make neces-

sary accommodation toward each other’s working style. They will collaborate on proj-

ects effectively and share responsibilities for tasks. They will develop a sense of mutual

trust and will not hesitate in sharing personal information that could strengthen therelational bond. This mentoring relationship may easily make the transition into a peer

friendship (Kram, 1985).

Dyad 2: Anxious-Ambivalent Mentor/Secure Protégé(e)

In this dyad, mentors with elevated levels of adult attachment anxiety-ambivalence are

likely to attempt to, intend to, or partially engage in functional caregiving behaviors,

although their motivation may be selfish. They may have difficulty supporting their

protégés’ autonomy and providing soothing to protégés. They may find it more self-gratifying to provide psychosocial support rather than career-related functions within

their mentoring relationships. They can develop camaraderie with their protégés, but

they may feel threatened by and try to inhibit actual autonomy or exploration on the

part of their protégés. Anxious mentors might be described as intrusive, controlling,

demanding, tyrannical, micromanaging, touchy, undermining, selfish, or as initiating

unwanted contact (e.g., stalking behavior). They may systematically abandon protégés

without cause as a reenactment of their anxious attachment patterns.

Overall, matching an anxious/ambivalent mentor with a secure mentee may result in

a working mentoring relationship. However, the protégé(e)’s desire to function interdependently (vital to the protégé’s development) may be resisted by the mentor (Scandura

& Pellegrini, 2004). In this case, the mentee will drive the formation of the relationship

and be willing to make accommodations to the mentor’s ambivalence. It is important to

recognize that a mentee will often do so because the mentor is a very talented individual

who has a great deal of knowledge to share. The mentee may weigh the costs and ben-

efits of maintaining such a relationship. As long as the mentee is gaining needed exper-

tise and coaching from the ambivalent mentor, he or she will invest the interpersonal

work needed to keep the relationship afloat (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004). Although a

relationship will typically occur between the protégé(e) and the mentor, this mentoringrelationship may be marginal (Ragins et al., 2000). Marginal relationships never fully

develop into mature mentor–protégé(e) interactions where the mentor significantly

invests in the protégé(e)’s career. The anxiety and/or ambivalence of the mentor toward

the mentee may explain in part why some formal mentoring relationships are marginal.




Ragins et al. (2000) found that some formal mentoring relationships that are marginal

can have worse outcomes for the mentee than not having a mentor at all.

Dyad 3: Avoidant Mentor/Avoidant Protégé(e)

In this dyad, avoidant mentors and protégés may be seen as less demanding than those

with different attachment styles. Avoidant mentors and protégés get along less well

with coworkers and prefer to work alone (Rothbard & Shaver, 1994). Protégés may

refuse to cooperate with their mentors. Avoidant adult attachment style is associated

with a pattern of interpersonal difficulty (Lopez & Brennan, 2000). In professions that

require little social interaction, this match may be functional, but in professions that

require the development of skills related to emotional disclosure and intimacy (e.g.,

psychotherapists), the match is dysfunctional.Overall, when pairing an avoidant mentor with an avoidant protégé(e), a mentoring

relationship is less likely to develop (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2004). Avoidant–avoidant

dyads may develop a distant relationship characterized by infrequent contact, guarded-

ness, and avoidance of conflict (Gormley, 2008). Simply said, avoidant types are not

the best candidates to be involved in a mentoring relationship. If an avoidant’s view of

self is positive, she will have a more dismissive style of maintaining distance in her

relationships. Alternatively, if the avoidant’s view of self is negative, she will have a

more paranoid feeling, fearful manner in which they avoid intimacy in their relation-

ship. If paired, the working relationship is very likely to be unproductive, possiblyeven destructive for one or both parties. Avoidant individuals are not prone to being

productive formal mentoring partners. Fortunately, avoidants represent a minority in

all of the surveyed individuals. Indeed, according to several empirical studies, about

55% of the population who participated in studies were secure and 45% were insecure

(25% avoidant and 20% anxious/ambivalent; Ainsworth et al., 1978; Feeney & Noller,

1990; Fraser, 2007; Hazan & Shaver, 1987,1990).

Implications for Practice and for HRD Professionals

Mentoring and Employee Performance

Since mentoring has been linked to increased mentee performance, it seems that it

would also be linked to Human Performance Improvement (HPI). Although perfor-

mance is an elusive concept, it deals with the outcomes and the accomplishments

achieved by a person, a group, or an organization, with secondary emphasis on behav-

iors. The Association for Society for Training and Development defines HPI as “a sys-

tematic approach to analyzing, improving, and managing performance in the workplace

through the use of appropriate and varied interventions” (Rothwell, Hohne, & King,2000, p. 10). More specifically, the basic systems model coined by Rummler and Brache

(1988) pinpointed six variables that affect job performance. These are performance



Germain 139

specifications, task interference, consequences, feedback, knowledge/skill, and

individual capacity. The individual is the central point in the human performance system

(Rummler, 1999). The model is comprised of input, output, consequences, and feed-

back. It seems clear that behavioral psychology (with stimulus, response, conse-quences, feedback) plays a strong role in HPI. The barrier component questions whether

the work processes impede performance, and if the performers have what they need,

such as time, staff, tools, and information. When the performer is in a formal mentoring

relationship, it is essential for the mentor to ensure that the mentee has no barriers in

what constitutes an input. The mentor should ensure that the performance expectations

have been established and communicated to the mentee. The consequences of positive

or negative resulting in performance and nonperformance shall also been known to the

mentor. Although the mentor may not be a direct supervisor and is therefore not neces-

sarily the individual who will decide on the mentee performance consequences, amentor shall either positively reinforce mentee performance as well as coach mentees

who need to improve their performance. If possible, they shall provide feedback and

information to their mentees that is relevant, accurate, timely, specific, and construc-

tive. If mentees need additional skills and knowledge to perform, those skills and

knowledge should be communicated to the mentor, who may provide specific coach-

ing. Also, if the mentees do not have the emotional, physical, or mental abilities to

perform, mentors can provide mentees with increased psychosocial support or identify

support that may increase the mentees’ individual abilities. The previous list of a men-

tor’s possible contribution to their mentee’s performance improvement shall help HRD practitioners whose task is to implement formal mentoring programs. This might help

them define specific mentors’ tasks.

Mentoring Dyads Pairing and HRD Professionals’ Role

An important issue for HRD is the matching process in formal mentoring programs. The

model proposed by Scandura and Pellegrini (2004) and our proposed model and Tables

(see appendix, Table 1, and Table 2) are useful for Human Resource Development pro-

fessionals, particularly when conducting training needs analysis and/or matching new-comers with potential mentors.

Secure (interdependent) mentor-secure (interdependent) mentee dyads have the

best chances of attaining desired outcomes. A person’s attachment/dependency style is

a “working model” and can be changed if the person becomes aware of it and is eager

to change it. It is important to provide potential mentors with thorough training (and a

self-assessment to determine their attachment style) to make them aware of how inter-

nal models have the potential to affect the mentoring relationship.

HRD professionals may refrain from matching an avoidant mentor with an avoidant

mentee and vice versa. With avoidant protégés or mentors, it is important not to over-whelm their emotional capacities and to appreciate their preference for independence.

Helping them become motivated to learn skills related to social interactions, networking,




communication, and conflict resolution may require efforts to help them under-

stand that this will earn them greater professional autonomy. Even though one may

become aware of the avoidants’ serious inadequacies when it comes to attachment,

their sense of security in their relationships can definitely be improved. The best wayto heal and grow into a more securely attached working partner is to keep getting to

know oneself and commit to growing through mutually close and long-term working

relationships.

Closeness and trust are necessary for mentoring relationships to be effective, but

many mentors and protégés have difficulties creating optimal relationship conditions.

Insecure mentors and protégés may misperceive whether they are providing or receiv-

ing sufficient support and so may have difficulties solving mentoring relationship prob-

lems on their own. As Gormley (2008) suggests, bringing ethical issues to the attention

of insecure mentors may result in heightened awareness and productive solutions. Wheninformal resolution is unsuccessful, HR may offer mediation.

Also, HR can foster healthy mentoring relationships by promulgating composite

mentoring models, grievance procedures, institutionalized informed consent procedures,

and exit strategies. HR can design grievance procedures that could protect protégés from

retaliation and also protect mentors from negative consequences such as faulty accusa-

tions due to a poor mentor–protégé(e) match (Gormley, 2008). These procedures may

help identify dysfunctional relationships early on. Informed consent forms may include

a mentor’s approach to mentoring, relational style, expectations of protégés, a proposed

process for potential mentoring relationship termination, limits to the functions eachmentor can provide, and permission for the protégé(e) to seek help elsewhere. To initi-

ate an informed consent discussion, employees could be asked if they have a mentor

and their knowledge of mentoring could be assessed (e.g., benefits, expectations of a

mentor). In addition, HR should have a mechanism in place for mentors or mentees to

safely exit the relationship. Mentors should be given the option to postpone the start of

new mentoring relationships. In some rare instances, they should be dismissed from

having protégés. Mentors with dysfunctional attachment patterns who are at risk of

harming protégés should be counseled, if not removed from mentoring relationships

(Gormley, 2008). In addition to assessing employees for attachment style, asking whether previous mentoring relationships were useful or not and why may help mentors under-

stand the needs of their protégés.

Protégés should be advised that not all mentoring relationships foster career devel-

opment and that some mentors may excel in some of the three functions of mentoring

more than others. Packard’s (2003) mentoring model shows that protégés are encour-

aged to have multiple mentoring relationships to meet different needs. Finally, a formal

follow-up may be helpful to ensure that protégés are benefiting from their mentoring

experience.

As Gormley (2008) asserts, mentoring relationships driven by adult attachmentanxiety may involve too much closeness. Those driven by adult attachment avoid-

ance may be defined by neglect of the protégé(e)’s needs. With anxious mentors



Germain 141

or protégés, it is important not to assume too high a level of independence and to

appreciate preferences for relatedness. Helping them become motivated to learn

skills related to self-management (time management, stress management, emotion

management, career planning, goal setting, and so on) may require efforts to helpthem understand that mastery of these strategies will strengthen their professional

relationships.

On Assessing Employees’ Attachment Style

As a result of effective mentor personal coaching, mentors may become aware of their

own predispositions and may choose to work to correct them. They may also make

their mentees become aware and alter their own automatic actions that are based

on these unconscious internal models. Therefore, we suggest that with the help of theassessment presented in this article (see appendix), it may be possible to turn potential

dysfunctional and marginal relationships into functional ones and attain the desired

work outcomes if the mentor and the mentee are willing to work on attachment style

(if not securely attached). As noted by Scandura and Pellegrini (2004), “once mentor-

ing functions are activated, the impact of attachment styles is eliminated. The effect of

attachment styles should thus be more salient during the initiation phase [of the men-

toring relationship]” (p. 92). Therefore, protégés and mentors should be assessed for

attachment style before a mentoring relationship is formed. Once the mentoring rela-

tionship has been initiated, HR’s role is to support both mentors and protégés toensure the best outcomes of the relationship. Once both mentees’ and mentors’ attach-

ment styles are assessed, HRD practitioners can make an informed decision on who to

match with whom. Mentoring relationships that consider attachment style are more

likely to be functional than the traditional work “marriage” arranged by human resource

professionals.

The assessment can also be used in organizations where informal mentoring occurs

(in which mentors and protégés choose each other). Rather than being used to pair up

a mentor with a protégé(e) or to encourage self-development, it can be used to better

understand how employees choose their work partners. For instance, Simpson’s (1990)findings show that there are three contingencies that relate likely attachment style pair-

ings: those with high scores on secure attachment are most likely to be with partners

who are also high on secure; avoidant individuals and anxious individuals tend toward

each other. This has a slighter stronger effect when the male is avoidant and the female

is anxious-ambivalent; and avoidant and anxious partners’ second preference is to be

with a partner with similar attachment style to themselves.

Should HR professionals encounter resistance from an employee in the form of

refusal to be assessed for attachment style, they may remind the employee of the ben-

efits of successful mentor/mentee pairing. Also, providing training about the devel-opment of mentoring relationships at work should alleviate some of the employee’s

anxiety about the matching process. Finally, HR professionals should reassure employees




that the information derived from the assessment will be kept confidential and will not

affect his or her employment in any way.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Our primary point is that attachment styles may relate to, but should not be equated

with, what makes for a good mentoring relationship. Psychology has numerous mod-

els and dimensions that concern how social contexts and interpersonal relationships

can facilitate growth and effective working relationships with a mentor or a protégé(e).

Individuals’ attachment relationships can differ across different social partners, accord-

ing to their particular histories with those partners; this social specificity suggests that

attachment styles are less consistent than previously thought (Ryan, Brown, & Creswell,

2007). If a person is mindful and brings an open attention to and awareness of whatis actually going on in interpersonal exchanges, a particular set of cognitive representa-

tions may not be required to establish the intimacy found in a secure relationship. As

Ryan et al. (2007) suggest, not all relationships are focused on attachment dynamics

or are dependent on them. According to them, felt security can be fostered by social

environments that are attentive, responsive, warm, and autonomy supportive, and that

“mindfulness—which can cultivated by a wide range of people—may conduce to close-

ness and intimacy regardless of one’s historical fortune in attachment relations. As

Sroufe, Egeland, and Kreutzer (1990) wrote, “adaptation is always a product of both

developmental history and current circumstances.” Felt security can be fostered bysocial environments that are warm, responsive, and attentive. The capacity of a men-

tor to be present and available to a protégé(e) in an unbiased fashion may help both

to foster a positive relationship. In addition, “attachment styles are not fixed in stone”

(Rothbard & Shaver, 1994, p. 65). Finally, the Hazan and Shaver’s (1990) Adult

Attachment Style is a self-report assessment. One of the reasons that this assessment

technique is so popular is because of the belief that people know themselves better

than anyone else. However, self-reports inventories are often perceived as not being

entirely accurate because it is often obvious which answers are more socially desirable

than others. Because of this, self-reports may become self-presentations, which is notwhat is meant to be assessed.

Future mentoring practice needs to further address the issue of why some mentees

and mentors may be more predisposed to the development of mentoring relationships

than others.

Also, very few studies on gender-related issues and mentoring exist (Scandura, 2008).

Simpson’s (1990) study about dating couples (informal relationships) reveals that males

report lower levels of interdependence, commitment, and satisfaction when with anxious

females. Also, females reported lower levels of trust and satisfaction when with avoidant

males. Cross and Madson (1997) found women’s friendships to be characterized bymore intimacy and cooperation than those of men. Future research should examine the

influence of adult attachment styles on mentoring relationships processes and outcomes

in the context of gender, races, cultural differences, and organizational climate.



Germain 143

Conclusion

Attachment theory seems to be providing some new directions by introducing

concepts from developmental psychology into mentoring theory. It has the potential toexpand our understanding of mentoring relationship dynamics. It speaks very firmly

about physical proximity and attention from the caregiver and this has considerable

and rich learning for Human Resource Development professionals. There is much

work to be done in this area and it seems important not to pathologize us in describing

our attachment patterns and how they play out but rather to bring them to awareness,

accept them, and build on their strengths. Above all, these attachment patterns are use-

ful to HR professionals or anyone in charge of mentoring programs in organizations

to match mentors to protégés and vice versa. Organizations may go beyond selecting

mentors based on professional characteristics such as experience and position held.They may bring light on why some work relationships are functional and others are not

and may be used to understand conflict. Finally, because mentoring is an important

component of leadership development (Scandura, 2008), a better understanding of

what contributes to a functional mentoring relationship is crucial to Human Resource

Development professionals whose task can be to train potential mentors. An increased

awareness of one’s attachment style and how it may affect a subordinate or a protégé(e)

may help alleviate interpersonal conflict and may help create a more productive out-

come to a mentoring relationship. HR professionals could select mentors with secure

attachment style and assist potential mentors with avoidant or anxious/ambivalentattachment styles with appropriate interventions. They could strengthen mentoring

experiences by intentionally developing social competencies.

The purpose of this article was to extend the framework of Scandura and Pellegrini

(2004) by discussing the implications of attachment theory for Human Resource

Development and present an assessment tool as well as a dyad pairing guide for optimal

mentoring relationships. Attachment theory makes predictions regarding the nature

of interpersonal interactions based on the predisposition of individuals toward rela-

tionship formation. We presented a typology of nine different types of matches that

could possibly result from formal mentoring programs. Since mentoring programs donot systematically assess interpersonal attachment styles, we proposed an assessment

that may be used to provide some insight into the types of matches that may or may

not work. Although the literature on mentoring and attachment theory support that

secured mentors and protégés are more likely to produce functional relationships, we

are not suggesting that avoidant individuals be excluded from formal mentoring pro-

grams. What we are suggesting is that training and development efforts that support

formal mentoring programs should cover attachment styles and how these styles may

influence developing working relationships. This may improve the mentoring pro-

cess and the benefits that both mentees and mentors derive from it. Ultimately, orga-nizations should go beyond selecting mentors based on professional characteristics

such as position held and level of expertise (Germain 2006; Germain & Ruiz, 2009;

Germain & Tejeda, 2009).




Appendix

Employee Assessment Scale

The statements below concern how you feel in emotionally intimate relationships. Weare interested in how you generally experience relationships with others, not just in

what is happening in a current relationship. Respond to each statement by circling a

number to indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

1. I find it relatively easy to get close to other people. 2. I am comfortable depending on other people and having them depend on me.

3. I don’t usually worry about being abandoned or about having someone get

too close to me.

4. I find it difficult to trust people completely.

5. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others.

6. I feel nervous when people start to get too close.

7. Often, I feel like people want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable

being.

8. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on other people. 9. I find that other people are reluctant to get as close as I would like.

10. I often worry that someone I am close to does not really love me or won’t

want to stay with me.

11. I want to merge completely with another person, and this sometimes scares

people away.

Source: Adapted from Hazan & Shaver (1990).Note: HRD professionals may randomize the order of the items when presenting them toemployees. Questions 1 through 3 represent secure attachment style items; Questions 4 through

8 represent avoidant attachment style items; Questions 9 through 11 represent anxious/ambivalentattachment style items. Scoring: Calculate the mean of each set of questions separately (secure,avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent). The highest mean should be the dominant attachment style of theassessment taker.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or

publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this

article.



Germain 145

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachment beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-716.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle.In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle

(pp. 33-51). London, UK: Routledge.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment:

A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Allen, T. D., Day, R., & Lentz, E. (2005). The role of interpersonal comfort in mentoring relation-

ships. Journal of Career Development, 31, 155-169.

Allen, T. D., & O’Brien, K. E. (2006). Formal mentoring programs and organizational attraction.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17 (1), 42-58. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1160

Apospori, E., Nikandrou, I., & Panayotopoulou, L. (2006). Mentoring and women’s careeradvancement in Greece. Human Resource Development International, 9, 509-527.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a

four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.

Baugh, S. G., Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (1996). An investigation of the effects of protégé

gender on responses to mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 309-323.

Bee, H. L., & Bjorklund, B. R. (2004). The journey of adulthood (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Berman, W. H., & Sperling, M. B. (1994). The structure and function of adult attachment. In

M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 3-28). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bierema, L. L., & Hill, J. R. (2005). Virtual mentoring and HRD. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 7 , 556-568. doi:10.1177/1523422305279688

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety, and anger . New York, NY:

Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment . New York, NY: Basic Books.(Original

work published 1969)

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development .

New York, NY: Basic Books.Brennan, K., Clark, C., & Shaver, P. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment:

An integrative overview. In J. Simpson & W. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close

relationships (pp. 46-76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Burke, R. J. (1984). Mentors in organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 9, 353-372.

Caldwell, R. L. (1995). Attachment style and personality functioning among normal adults. Dis-

sertation Abstract International: Section B. The Sciences and Engineering, 55(10), 4619.

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical

applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Coley, D. B. (1996). Mentoring two-by-two. Training & Development, 50(7), 46-48.Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality

in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.




Cross, E. S., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological

Bulletin, 122, 5-37.

Crowell, J. A., & Treboux, D. (1995). A review of adult attachment measures: Implications for

theory and research. Social Development, 4, 294-327.D’Abate, C. P., Hedí, E. R., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2003). What’s in a name? A literature-based

approach to understanding mentoring, coaching, and other constructs that describe develop-

mental interactions. Human Resource Development Review, 2, 360-384.

de Janasz, S. C., Sullivan, S. E., & Whiting, V. (2003). Mentor networks and career success:

Lessons for turbulent times. Academy of Management Executive, 17 (4), 78-91.

Dolan, R., Arnkoff, D., & Glass, C. (1993). Client attachment style and the psychotherapist’s

interpersonal stance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 30, 408-412.

Dozier, M., Cue, K., & Barnett, L. (1994). Clinicians as caregivers: Role of attachment organi-

zation in treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 793-800.Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in

managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539-546.

Ensher, E. A, Thomas, C., & Murphy, S. E. (2001). Comparison of traditional step-ahead, and

peer mentoring on protégé’s support, satisfaction, and perceptions of career success: A social

exchange perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 419-438.

Farber, B., Lippert, R., & Nevas, D. (1995). The therapist as attachment figure. Psychotherapy:

Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 32, 204-212.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2004). Interpersonal safe haven and secure base caregiving

processes in adulthood. In W. S. Rhodes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory,research, & clinical implications (pp. 300-338). New York, NY: Guilford.

Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relation-

ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment. In M. B. Sperling,

& W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and Developmental Perspectives

(pp. 128-152). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2004). A dynamical systems approach to conceptualizing and

studying stability and change in attachment security. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.),

Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 86-132). New York, NY:Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of

self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

78, 350-365.

Fraser, D. (2007). Give me a child and I’ll give you the leader. What can attachment theory teach

us about leadership? International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 3(3), 42-48.

Germain, M. L. (2006). Development and preliminary validation of a psychometric measure of

expertise: The Generalized Expertise Measure (GEM) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

Barry University, Florida.Germain, M. L., & Ruiz, C. E. (2009). Expertise: Myth or reality of a cross-national definition?

Journal of European Industrial Training, 33, 614-634.



Germain 147

Germain, M. L., & Tejeda, M. J. (2009, April). Development and preliminary validation of a psy-

chometric measure of expertise. New Orleans, LA: Society for Industrial and Organizational

Psychology.

George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1984). Attachment interview for adults. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of California at Berkeley.

Gormley, B. (2008). An application of attachment theory: Mentoring relationship dynamics and

ethical concerns. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16 (1), 45-62.

Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions

underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

67 , 430-445.

Hazan, C., Gur-Yaish, N., & Campa, M. (2004). What does i t mean to be attached? In

W. S. Rhodes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, & clinical implica-

tions (pp. 55-85). New York, NY: Guilford.Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270-280.

Hegstad, C. D., & Wentling, R. M. (2004). The development and maintenance of exemplary for-

mal mentoring programs in Fortune 500 companies. Human Resource Development Quarterly,

15, 421-448.

Hezlett, S. A., & Gibson, S. K. (2005). Mentoring and human resource development: Where

we are. Where we need to go. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7 , 446-469.doi:10.1177/1523433305279667

Hezlett, S. A., & Gibson, S. K. (2007). Linking mentoring and social capital: Implications for

career and organization development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 384-412.

doi:10.1177/1523422307304102

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental

network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26 , 264-288.

Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy

of Management Review, 8, 475-485.

Imamoğlu, E. O., & Imamoğlu, S. (2007). Relationships between attachment security and self-construal orientations. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 141, 539-558.

Johnson, W. B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of

mentoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(1), 88-96.

Johnson, W. B., & Nelson, N. (1999). Mentor-protégé relationships in graduate education: Some

ethical concerns. Ethics and Behavior, 9, 189-210.

Kahn, W., & Kram, K. (1994). Authority at work: Internal models and their organizational

consequences. Academy of Management Review , 19(1), 17-50.

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four-year

prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1(2), 123-142.Klauss, R. (1981). Formalized mentoring relationships for management and development programs

in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 4, 489-496.




Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.

Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring

relationships: Content, antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal,45, 779-791.

Lean, E. (1983). Cross-gender mentoring: Downright upright and good for productivity. Training

and Development Journal, 37 (5), 60-65.

Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. A., & McKee, B. (1978). Seasons of

a man’s life. New York, NY: Knopf.

Ligiero, D., & Gelso, C. (2002). Countertransference, attachment, and the working alliance: The

therapist’s contribution. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 39(1), 3-11.

Lopez, F. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). Dynamic processes underlying adult attachment orga-

nization: Toward an attachment theoretical perspective on the healthy and effective self. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47 , 283-300.

Lopez, F. G., Mauricio, A. M., Gormlet, B., Simko, T., & Berger, E. (2001). Adult attachment

orientations and college students distress: The mediating role of problem coping styles.

Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 459-464.

McCauley, C. D. (2005). The mentoring tool. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7 ,

443-445.

McLagan, P. A. (1983). Models for excellence: The conclusions and recommendations of the

ASTD training and development competency study. Washington, DC: American Society for

Training and Development.Marquardt, M. J., & Engel, D. W. (1993). Global human resource development . Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Marsick, V., & Watkins, K. (1994). The learning organization: An integrative vision for HRD.

Human Resource Quarterly, 5, 353-360.

Moore, S. M., & Leung, C. (2002). Young people’s romantic attachment styles and their associa-

tions with well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 243-255.

Mullen, E. J., & Noe, R. A. (1999). The mentoring information exchange: When do mentors

seek information from their protégés? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 233-242.

Nemanick, R. C. (2001). Comparing formal and informal mentors: Does type make a difference? Academy of Management Executive, 14, 136-138.

Neswald-McCalip, R. (2001). Development of the secure counselor: Case examples support-

ing Pistole & Watkins’ (1995) discussion of attachment theory in counseling supervision.

Counselor Education & Supervision, 41(1), 18-27.

Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we

might go. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management

(Vol. 21, pp. 129-174). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1993). The role of mentoring in the information gathering

processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 170-183.

Packard, B. W. (2003). Student training promotes mentoring awareness and action. Career

Development Quarterly, 51, 335-345.



Germain 149

Parker, J. S., & Benson, M. J. (2005). Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent functioning:

Self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Family Therapy, 32, 131-142.

Pistole, M. C., & Fitch, J. C. (2008). Attachment theory in supervision: A critical incident expe-

rience. Counselor Education & Supervision, 47 , 193-205.Pistole, M. C., & Watkins, C. E., Jr. (1995). Attachment theory, counseling process, and supervi-

sion. Counseling Psychologist, 23, 457-478.

Popper, M., & Amit, K. (2009). Influence of attachment style on major psychological capacities

to lead. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170, 244-267.

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of

mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy

of Management Journal, 43, 1177-1194.

Reio, T. G., Jr., Marcus, R. F., & Sanders-Reio, J. (2009). Contribution of student and instructor rela-

tionships and attachment style to school completion. Journal of Generic Psychology, 17 (1), 53-71.Roisman, G. I., Holland, A., Fortuna, K., Fraley, R. C., Clausell, E., & Clarke, A. (2007). Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 678-697. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.678

Rothbard, J. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Continuity of attachment across the life span. In

M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental

perspectives (pp. 31-71). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Rothwell, W., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. (2000). Human performance improvement: Building

practitioner competence. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Rummler, G. A. (1999). Transforming organizations through human performance technology.

In H. D. Stolovich & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology: A comprehensive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in organizations

(pp. 47-66). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1988). The systems view of human performance. Training,

25(9), 45-53.

Ryan, R. M., Brown, K. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). How integrative is attachment theory?

Unpacking the meaning and significance of felt security. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 177-182.

Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 13, 169-174.

Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24, 449-467.

Scandura, T. A. (2008, March 18). Mentoring at work: Interview with Terri Scandura [Audio podcast].

Retrieved from www.obweb.org/modules.php?op=modload& name=News& file=index

&catid=& topic=10

Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2004). Competencies of building the developmental rela-

tionship. In D. Clutterback & G. Lane (Eds.), The situational mentor: An international review

of competencies and capabilities in mentoring (pp. 83-93). Oxford, UK: Gower.

Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1995). Accommodation and attachment representations in

young couples. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 12, 389-401.Schirmer, L. L., & Lopez, F. G. (1998, August). Adult attachment, work stress, social support,

and indexes of strain. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological

Association, San Francisco, CA.




Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980.

Sroufe, L. A, Egeland, B., & Kreutzer, T. (1990). The fate of early experience following develop-

mental change: Longitudinal approaches to individual adaptation in childhood. Child Devel-opment, 61, 1363-1373.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (2001). Foundations of human resource development .

San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (2009). Foundations of human resource development

(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic

process model. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human

resources management (Vol. 22, pp. 39-124). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Watkins, C. E., Jr. (1995). Pathological attachment styles in psychotherapy supervision. Psycho-therapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 32, 333-340.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1997). Building the learning organization: A new role for human

resource developers. In D. F. Russ-Eft & H. S. Preskill (Eds.), Human resource development

review: Research and implications (pp. 370-390). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

White, V., & Queener, J. (2003). Supervisor and supervisee attachments and social provisions

related to the supervisory working alliance. Counselor Education & Supervision, 42, 203-218.

Wilhelm, K., & Parker, G. (1988). The development of a measure of intimate bonds. Psychologi-

cal Medicine, 18, 225-234.

Wilkinson, R. B. (2004). The role of parental and peer attachment in the psychological health andself-esteem of adolescents. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 33, 479-493.

Yang, B. (2004). Can adult learning theory provide a foundation for human resource development?

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6 (2), 129-145. doi:10.1177/1523422304263325

Young, A. M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2004). The role of expectations in the mentoring exchange:

An analysis of mentor and protégé expectations in relation to perceived support. Journal of

Managerial Issues, 16 (1), 103-126.

Zimmermann, P., & Becker-Stoll, F. (2002). Stability of attachment representations during ado-

lescence: The influence of ego-identity status. Journal of Adolescence, 25(1), 107-124.

Bio

Marie-Line Germain is an assistant professor of Human Resources and Leadership at Western

Carolina University (a University of North Carolina campus). Her PhD concentration area is in

human resource development. She has been the recipient of the Malcolm S. Knowles Dissertation

of the Year award from the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD), a Cutting Edge

Research Award, and a research grant funded by AHRD. She is the author of numerous confer-

ence papers and book chapters, and her research has been published in several peer-reviewed

journals. She has received four teaching awards and several best reviewer awards. Her current

research interest focuses on human expertise and leadership.

human resource development review 2011 germain 123 50

Documents