...the present study examines the effects mentoring relationship type (formal vs. informal) and organizational context (high tech corporate firms vs. K-12 schools) on proteges' perception of mentoring functions and outcomes using data from 88 working professionals. Results of MANCOVA indicated that mentoring relationship type and organizational context interacted to influence proteges' ratings of career development, role modeling and organizational commitment. Proteges in informal relationships reported higher levels of psychosocial support received than proteges in formal relationships. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

**********

Mentoring relationships, in which a more experienced mentor works to advance the personal and professional growth of a less experienced protege, have witnessed a noteworthy increase in use as a mechanism for leadership development (Sosik & Lee, 2002; Yukl, 2002). Bass (1985) pointed out that mentoring relationships are essential to the individualized consideration component of transformational leadership. Besides their role in leadership, mentoring relationships also provide substantial benefits to mentors, proteges and organizations. Mentors may gain prestige, a sense of generativity and internal satisfaction. Proteges may build social networks, develop and learn new career-related skills, and gain promotions, pay raises and job and career satisfaction. Organizations may enhance levels of organizational commitment, retention, managerial succession and productivity by supporting mentoring. These benefits have been demonstrated primarily in informal mentoring relationships which develop naturally between individuals (Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003; Ward, 1986).

In an effort to replicate these benefits, a growing number of major US corporations, such as Lockheed-Martin, Unisys Corporation, and Proctor and Gamble, and school districts across the US have designed and implemented formal mentoring programs involving the assigned pairing of a mentor and protege with organizational assistance (Eddy, Tannenbaum, Alliger, D'Abate, & Givens, 2001). The shift towards formal mentoring programs also stems from socio-economic factors that promote the move to jobs based on higher levels of knowledge creation and sharing (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2003). In K-12 schools, formal mentoring includes training activities that are specifically designed to build a protege's teaching effectiveness, whereas informal mentoring includes ideas, feedback or advice that are of a corrective nature provided by an experienced teacher to a protege (Ward, 1986). At issue for designers of mentoring programs in corporations and schools is how to structure mentoring relationships to maximize their effectiveness within the context of their organization. Addressing this issue is important given that many corporations and schools are spending increasing amounts of training dollars and development resources on formal mentoring programs without any conclusive systematic research evidence that such programs are indeed effective and that they are appropriate for the organization's context (Ragins, 2002).

Unfortunately, this issue has not permeated the literature on mentoring, with the notable exception of calls for research examining the context of mentoring (e.g., Colley et al., 2003; Kram, 1985). Consequently, there have been few if any attempts to examine organizational contexts as explanations for mentoring functions and outcomes. Many of the problems with formal mentoring relationships discussed in the literature (cf. Ragins, 2002) may be at least partially due to the failure of program coordinators to recognize and take into account the organizational context in which mentoring occurs and how context affects mentoring functions and outcomes. Furthermore, the frequently reported inferiority of formal to informal mentoring programs in contemporary organizations may be a function of a lack of proper fit between the program's structure and the organization's context. To begin to address this gap in the literature and develop new insights into the dynamics of mentoring, the present study examines the effects of key contextual aspects of Wanberg et al.'s (2003) conceptual process model of mentoring.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Wanberg et al.'s (2003) conceptual process model of mentoring provided the general theoretical framework for this study. This model proposes that mentor/protege/relationship antecedents (e.g., relationship formality, gender composition of the dyad) influence the mentoring received by the protege (i.e., career development, role modeling and psychosocial functions), which in turn influence the proximal (e.g., protege's learning) and distal (e.g., protege's career involvement, organizational commitment) outcomes of the mentoring relationship. These relationships are embedded within the organization's context (e.g., culture, learning environment), which moderates these relationships. As depicted in Figure 1, the present study focuses on examining the effects of the antecedent of relationship type (formal vs. informal mentoring) and organizational context (high tech corporate firms vs. K-12 schools) on mentoring functions (career development, role modeling, psychosocial support) and distal protege (career involvement) and organizational (organizational commitment) outcomes.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Colley et al. (2003) pointed out that informal and formal mentoring relationships differ in terms of the degree of external control, planning and institutionalization, level of intentionality, nature of goals, locus of decision about goals, depth of the relationship, degree to which participation is voluntary, timeframe, and nature of the setting. Formal mentoring involves an organizationally sanctioned and established learning relationship in which mentors and proteges are matched through a standardized process with the goal of providing career development guidance to the protege. They are typically planned to meet organizational goals within large organizations and span a limited time horizon. Formal relationships are initiated by a program administrator using a matching process, involve a medium level of social intensity, directive mentor behavior, and objective monitoring and evaluation of the protege's performance according to specified criteria in a written mentoring contract.

In contrast, informal mentoring involves a voluntary and naturally-occurring learning relationship in which the protege typically selects the mentor and receives career development advice through an autonomous process aimed advancing the protege's career. They typically emerge unplanned regarding their organizational objectives within smaller organizations and develop based primarily on the protege's desire to achieve personal career goals. Informal relationships are initiated by the protege based on voluntary friendship and/or perceived similarity in values, attitudes, demographics or life experiences with the mentor, who serves in a paternalistic role. They involve a high level of social intensity, participative decision-making, and subjective or perceptual evaluations of the protege's performance by the mentor (Colley et al., 2003).

In both relationship types, mentors provide three functions to proteges: psychosocial support, in which they provide acceptance and friendship, and confirm the protege's behavior, role modeling, in which their attitudes, values and behaviors guide the protege; and career development (vocational support), in which they act as coaches to the protege, protect the protege from adverse organizational forces, provide challenging assignments, sponsor advancement, and foster positive exposure and visibility (Scandura & Ragins, 1993). Zimpher and Rieger (2001) pointed out that mentoring functions in K-12 schools can be perceived along a continuum ranging from the "buddy teacher," who befriends another teacher on a more personal level to provide psychosocial support, to the "clinical mentor," who provides regular, systematic and analytical feedback and vocational support to a novice teacher with the aim of improving his or her teaching effectiveness.

These functions lead to outcomes such as organizational commitment, the affective attachment to the organization characterized by shared values, a desire to remain in the organization, and willingness to exert effort on its behalf (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979), and career involvement, the extent to which one's career is a central component of one's identity (Gould, 1979).

Effects of Formality of the Mentoring Relationship

Mentoring functions and outcomes may be a function of how formal and informal mentoring relationships differ in terms of structure, process effectiveness, and initiation....

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.




More articles from Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
Yes, you can teach business ethics: a review and research agenda., December 22, 2005

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.